IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i15p7903-d601532.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Boundary Objects: Engaging and Bridging Needs of People in Participatory Research by Arts-Based Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Groot

    (Amsterdam University Medical Centre, VU Medical Centre, Department Ethics, Law and Medical Humanities, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Leyden Academy, Rijnsburgerweg 10, 2333 AA Leiden, The Netherlands
    Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden University, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands)

  • Tineke Abma

    (Amsterdam University Medical Centre, VU Medical Centre, Department Ethics, Law and Medical Humanities, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Leyden Academy, Rijnsburgerweg 10, 2333 AA Leiden, The Netherlands
    Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden University, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Background: Participatory health research (PHR) is a research approach in which people, including hidden populations, share lived experiences about health inequities to improve their situation through collective action. Boundary objects are produced, using arts-based methods, to be heard by stakeholders. These can bring about dialogue, connection, and involvement in a mission for social justice. This study aims to gain insight into the value and ethical issues of boundary objects that address health inequalities. A qualitative evaluation is conducted on three different boundary objects, created in different participatory studies with marginalized populations (mothers in poverty, psychiatric patients, and unemployed people). A successful boundary object evokes emotions among those who created the objects and those encountering these objects. Such objects move people and create an impulse for change. The more provocative the object, the more people feel triggered to foster change. Boundary objects may cross personal boundaries and could provoke feelings of discomfort and ignorance. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to ethics work. Boundary objects that are made by people from hidden populations may spur actions and create influence by improving the understanding of the needs of hidden populations. A dialogue about these needs is an essential step towards social justice.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Groot & Tineke Abma, 2021. "Boundary Objects: Engaging and Bridging Needs of People in Participatory Research by Arts-Based Methods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-11, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:7903-:d:601532
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7903/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7903/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruey‐Lin Hsiao & Dun‐Hou Tsai & Ching‐Fang Lee, 2012. "Collaborative Knowing: The Adaptive Nature of Cross‐Boundary Spanning," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 463-491, May.
    2. Melo, Sara & Bishop, Simon, 2020. "Translating healthcare research evidence into practice: The role of linked boundary objects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    3. Matthew Hawkins & Mohammad Rezazade, 2012. "Knowledge Boundary Spanning Prcess: Synthesizing Four Spanning Mechanisms," Post-Print hal-01514772, HAL.
    4. Maia Green, 2010. "Making Development Agents: Participation as Boundary Object in International Development," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(7), pages 1240-1263.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katie Pybus & Jean McEwan & Kayleigh Garthwaite & Maddy Power & Ruth Patrick & Sydnie Corley, 2022. "It’s Our Story: Parents and Carers’ Experiences during the Pandemic," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(3), pages 604-674, September.
    2. Barbara Groot & Annyk Haveman & Mireille Buree & Ruud van Zuijlen & Juliette van Zuijlen & Tineke Abma, 2022. "What Patients Prioritize for Research to Improve Their Lives and How Their Priorities Get Dismissed again," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-15, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.
    2. Secundo, Giustina & Del Vecchio, Pasquale & Simeone, Luca & Schiuma, Giovanni, 2020. "Creativity and stakeholders' engagement in open innovation: Design for knowledge translation in technology-intensive enterprises," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 272-282.
    3. Guoqing Zhao & Shaofeng Liu & Sebastian Elgueta & Juan Pablo Manzur & Carmen Lopez & Huilan Chen, 2022. "Knowledge Mobilization for Agri-Food Supply Chain Decisions: Identification of Knowledge Boundaries and Categorization of Boundary-Spanning Mechanisms," International Journal of Decision Support System Technology (IJDSST), IGI Global, vol. 15(2), pages 1-25, December.
    4. Fleming, Mark D. & Safaeinili, Nadia & Knox, Margae & Hernandez, Elizabeth & Brewster, Amanda L., 2023. "Between health care and social services: Boundary objects and cross-sector collaboration," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    5. Michael J.D. Roberts & Paul W. Beamish, 2017. "The Scaffolding Activities of International Returnee Executives: A Learning Based Perspective of Global Boundary Spanning," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 511-539, June.
    6. Geiger, Susi & Finch, John, 2016. "Making incremental innovation tradable in industrial service settings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2463-2470.
    7. Omid Omidvar & Roman Kislov, 2016. "R&D Consortia As Boundary Organisations: Misalignment And Asymmetry Of Boundary Management," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-24, February.
    8. O’Kane, Conor, 2018. "Technology transfer executives' backwards integration: An examination of interactions between university technology transfer executives and principal investigators," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 64-77.
    9. John‐Michael Davis & Yaakov Garb, 2019. "Participatory shaping of community futures in e‐waste processing hubs: Complexity, conflict and stewarded convergence in a Palestinian context," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 37(1), pages 67-89, January.
    10. Scarlato, Margherita, 2012. "Social Enterprise, Capabilities and Development: Lessons from Ecuador," MPRA Paper 37618, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Lea Stadtler & Haiying Lin, 2017. "Moving to the Next Strategy Stage: Examining Firms' Awareness, Motivation and Capability Drivers in Environmental Alliances," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 709-730, September.
    12. Sajtos, Laszlo & Rouse, Paul & Harrison, Julie & Parsons, Matthew, 2014. "Case-mix system as a boundary object: the case of home care services," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 189-196.
    13. R. Darby & C. Kirke, 2016. "The Development of a KIM Behavioural Framework to Support Science and Technology Knowledge Transfer in the UK Defence Sector. A Case Study Approach," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 1-21, September.
    14. Juan Telleria, 0. "Development and Participation: Whose Participation? A Critical Analysis of the UNDP’s Participatory Research Methods," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 0, pages 1-23.
    15. Andreas P. J. Schotter & Ram Mudambi & Yves L. Doz & Ajai Gaur, 2017. "Boundary Spanning in Global Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 403-421, June.
    16. Alamad, Samir & Hidayah, Nunung Nurul & Lowe, Alan, 2021. "A shared boundary object: Financial innovation and engineering in Islamic financial institutions," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    17. Caccamo, Marta & Pittino, Daniel & Tell, Fredrik, 2023. "Boundary objects, knowledge integration, and innovation management: A systematic review of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    18. Maia Green & Uma Kothari & Claire Mercer & Diana Mitlin, 2012. "Saving, Spending, and Future-Making: Time, Discipline, and Money in Development," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(7), pages 1641-1656, July.
    19. Maia Green, 2012. "Co-producing ineffective states: social knowledge, social policy and social citizenship in Africa and in development," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-014-12, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    20. Melo, Sara & Bishop, Simon, 2020. "Translating healthcare research evidence into practice: The role of linked boundary objects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:7903-:d:601532. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.