Cited by 194Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesTeam Dynamics and PerformanceInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams

Barrett, Michael, Oborn, Eivor·2010·Human Relations

Abstract

This article examines the evolving use of boundary objects in cross-cultural software teams. Our field study of a Jamaican-Indian team examines the use of software specifications and project management tools as boundary objects in facilitating sharing across knowledge boundaries. We examine how and why the role and use of boundary objects may facilitate collaboration across knowledge boundaries at one time and contribute to conflict at other times. We unpack the interacting elements that both facilitate and constrain knowledge sharing, and trigger conflicts at different stages of the software team development. Specifically, we found that the use of boundary objects at transitions involving definitional control and the subsequent redistribution of power/authority may inhibit knowledge sharing. The subsequent reifying of cultural boundaries along with negative stereotyping led to relational conflict, through a process we call culturizing , as cross-cultural differences emerged as problematic for team dynamics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0018726709355657

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most studies explore the role of boundaries within organizations, focusing on how professionals with different expertise, tasks or backgrounds collaborate during work.

    “Most studies explore the role of boundaries within organizations, focusing on how professionals with different expertise, tasks or backgrounds collaborate during work (Barrett and Oborn 2010;Broberg and Hermund 2007;Johannessen and Ellingsen 2009).”

    From Unpacking the Role of Boundaries in Computer-Supported Collaborative Teaching (2020) · cites this paper as Barrett and Oborn 2010

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 61 · Cited by 194

Authors
Barrett, M., & Oborn, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Barrett, Michael
  • Oborn, Eivor
Venue
Human Relations
Published
2010-05-19
Volume
63
Issue
8
Pages
1199-1221
ISSN
  • 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-282X
OpenAlex
W2155765655
Cited by
194
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 11
FWCI
26.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Human Relations (publishedVersion)
Funders
Imperial College London
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
boundary objects, multicultural teams, software development teams, knowledge sharing, knowledge boundaries, software specification, project management tools, power redistribution, cultural boundaries, stereotyping, relationship conflict, team dynamics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review