Origen Un problema de Planeamiento Físico

There was a scarcity of empirical research of boundary-crossing and technology in HEIs, particularly studies which considered contradictory conditions, agency and diversity as epistemic resources (Doyle, 2007: 234). Whilst boundary work was welcomed by some it threatened others, implying that a form of internal epistemological critique was at play whose aggravation was usually suppressed or unexamined, highlighting missed opportunities of contradictions as drivers of change. Whilst some researchers used diluted forms of dialectics (e.g. Garraway, 2010: 216), the majority pursued consensus to altogether avoid conflict (e.g. Rourke & Kanuka, 2007: 107). There were apparent policy trends and managerial ideologies which sought to avoid dispute, implying false homogeneity

(Milbourne, Macrae, & Maguire, 2003: 20). Boundary work with unfulfilled radical potential was generally presented in non-aggressive and palatable terms (the “watering down” of motives in HEIs, in Forstorp & Nissen, 2011: 21). This intervention appears to be a rare example of studying boundaries as sources of diverse epistemic critique, which technology can help to access. Sub-section 3.3.1 describes the conceptions of boundaries in other studies, and Sub-section 3.3.2 summarises their drivers and motives.

3.3.1 The role of technology in learning across boundaries in HEIs

A search of existing studies with the criteria [(boundary AND (knowledge OR learning OR crossing OR object)) AND technology AND “higher education”] yielded 116 results. Rejections included: studies of boundaries between nations and geological timeframes; projects in solely commercial and industrial arenas; and projects to specifically reinforce boundaries between groups, rather than examine heterogeneity. Manual sifting of the abstracts of the remaining reports resulted in 17 which were relevant, original and empirical works. Further studies were then identified by tracing the works of specialist

51

related studies of learning, which increased the number of analysed studies to 44. Boundary work has had various metaphorical representations including crossing, bridging and

brokering (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011: 139), which were coarsely aggregated to review the field.

The limited examination of socially mediated learning at boundaries was discussed by de Roiste, Breetzke and Reitsma (2015: 476) in pan-HEI collaborations, who found that TEL’s technological artefacts were less enduring than the boundary learning processes they mediated. On a related note, sustained engagement with stakeholders beyond one’s own organisation can precipitate “boundary breaking”, identified by Kidron and Kali (2015: 14) as politically contentious, particularly in processes for hierarchical organisations. These

boundaries have been more than convenient placeholders of similarity and difference in TEL; they distinguish political control (e.g. Thorpe & Edmunds, 2011: 390) and allocation of roles and resources (e.g. McPherson & Whitworth, 2008: 411). My own intervention for TEL’s horizontal interactions with experts (learners who are internal generalists engaging with external specialists) appeared to be unexamined, although cognate studies from similar contexts positioned this intervention, with conceptions of boundaries in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4. Conceptions of boundaries in empirical studies of TEL and boundary work in HEIs

A agreement amongst empirical studies was the importance of clarity when communicating at boundaries. Garraway (2011: 212), for example, analysed “recontextualisation” of concepts in boundary interactions, whilst the collaborations studied by Christensen (2012: 66) suggested that deliberate effort was required to move cross-boundary communication

Physical-digital 16% Temporal 9% Learning-work 27% Disciplinary 20% Hierarchical 9% Geographical 14% Personal-professional 5%

52

beyond technical considerations of artefacts, to include social interactions. The majority of studies appeared to isolate their foci to the relative efficiency and compatibility of digital technologies across boundaries, rather than the social effects on subjects. This may relate to three compounding and not easily examinable notions for social interactions at boundaries: firstly, boundary objects are created and modified by all collaborators, each embedding their cultural and social influences (Bharosa, Lee, Janssen & Rao, 2012: 11); secondly, boundary objects are partially conceptual, and not solely physical (Thorpe & Edmunds, 2011: 393); and thirdly, boundary-crossing materially changes the activity’s object and the activity’s subject (Oliver, 2015: 376). These notions seemed to manifest themselves in the challenges of most studies, although they were seldom explicitly recognised or stated.

3.3.2 Drivers and motives for boundary work in empirical studies

Analyses of the papers described in the previous section showed that their dominant drivers and motives were: accessing authentic learning; developing learner identities; accessing scarce resources; and integrating TEL to share the time and cost liabilities of media. Figure 3.5 summarises drivers and motives. There are statistical overlaps, since many studies exhibited multiple drivers and motives.

Figure 3.5. Drivers and motives for boundary-crossing in empirical studies of TEL in HEIs

Dilemmas in social interactions were often recognised in these studies, yet they were seldom aggravated to become sufficiently contradictory for development. In their study of outreach with ICTs motivated by limited resources, Hodgkinson-Williams, Slay and Siebörger (2008:

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

53

433) researched collaboration with different schools yet precluded opinions of teachers, who instead endorsed the imported aims of researchers. Conversely Thorpe and Edmunds (2011: 385), in a rare exception to this observation, acknowledged that activity systems “may conflict but may also work in creative tension … bridging between the contexts … in constructive ways”. In many studies, social contradictions and opportunities were only discovered on reflection of the failing top-down implementations of artefacts, for example: Ridwan, Mohamed and Ali (2016: 227), "the main challenge ... is that students came from a different background and have different cognitive mind set"; McLoughlin and Lubna Alam (2014: 132), “Students require both orientation and training in using Web 2.0 tools even though they are familiar with … Myspace and Facebook”; and Humberstone, Beard and Clayton (2013: 250), “we see in the students’ dialogue above little to suggest that their learning has created a ‘buzz’ for critical engagement with the world …".

In almost all studies which set out to provoke agency across boundaries, political control was reported as problematic. Various theoretical notions and concepts such as boundary zones, third spaces and boundary objects were used in attempts to mitigate political challenges. Internship and training, for example, were conceptualised as boundary work for teachers by Max (2010: 215) and Snoek (2013: 309) respectively. Both authors investigated collaborative spaces which were flexible enough for multiple stakeholders yet pervasive enough to sustain commonality of purpose, exposing political challenges when simplistically assuming mutual benefits. Other political examples included: underestimated differences in values and ideals for HEI departments, by McClam and Flores-Scott (2012: 231); misjudged variations of global and local outlooks for foreign educational experts, examined by Liu and Fisher (2010: 180); and the control of spatial access during boundary work, through conceptions of “mooring” and “boundary marking” by Edwards, Tracy and Jordan (2011: 219).

Political interest in controlling activities at boundaries indicated what HEIs’ strategists considered risky or beneficial (for example Tonyan & Auld's 2013: 226 boundaries between HE and the professions). Political interest also indicated the importance of managing expectations, analysed as a competence for HEI managers by Hartley (2010: 349). Participants likely had different expectations in contested terrains, with “going native” examined by Kinti and Hayward (2013: 186-191), who considered boundary expertise as comprising both technical undertakings and navigation of the boundary itself. Similarly, Ludvigsen, Rasmussen, Krange, Moen and Middleton (2011: 110) focused on temporal expectations during boundary work, collaboratively analysing historicity. In these latter

54

studies, the dynamism of social interactions and historicity was analysed with CHAT, drawing out the relational impact of cultural mediation. Boundary expertise was presented as a relational attribute with organisational dimensions, best enabled by foregrounding cultural mediation and historicity. This indicated the interrelated potential benefits of TEL,

boundary-crossing and organisational change, informing my intervention and leading to the subsequent theme.