Abstract
Behavioral design’s preference for bespoke, contextualized solutions to behavioral challenges allows it to solve targeted problems with precision, but also makes it difficult to systematically capture and apply lessons from successful interventions. This state of “bounded scalability” is traditionally framed as a generalizability challenge to scaling solutions; however, it may be better characterized as an interoperability challenge, which requires new methodology to democratize who gets to participate, and supports learning in addition to problem solving. Deploying boundary objects—artifacts and concepts that can effectively translate content across disciplinary contexts—as a means to achieve interoperability can lower the bar to sharing and applying effective intervention outcomes, while also raising the floor for less formally trained practitioners. In particular, the boundary objects known as pattern languages that support both analytic and synthetic activities may help interdisciplinary collaborators and non-professionals more effectively participate in behavioral problem solving.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn., [Nachdr.], MA MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2008)
Cash, P.J., Hartlev, C.G., Durazo, C.B.: Behavioural design: a process for integrating behaviour change and design. Des. Stud. 48, 96–128 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.10.001
Bates, M.A., Glennerster, R.T.: 2017). The Generalizability Puzzle (SSIR). Stanford Social Innovation Review (2017). https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_generalizability_puzzle
DellaVigna, S., Linos, E.: RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence from Two Nudge Units, 65 (2020)
Johnson, S.: What works: when & why are nudges sticky, scaleable and transferable? J. Behav. Econ. Policy, 3(Special Issue), 19–21 (2019)
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R., Vlaev, I.: Influencing behaviour: the mindspace way. J. Econ. Psychol. 33(1), 264–277 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.009
The Behavioural Insights Team: EAST: Four simple ways to apply behavioural insights. London: BIT (2014). https://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BIT-Publication-EAST_FA_WEB.pdf
Michie, S., van Stralen, M.M., West, R.: The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 6(1), 42 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
OECD: The BASIC Toolkit. Paris: OECD (n.d.). https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/tools-and-ethics-for-applied-behavioural-insights-the-basic-toolkit-9ea76a8f-en.htm
Ludwig, J., Kling, J.R., Mullainathan, S.: Mechanism experiments and policy evaluations. J. Econ. Perspect. 25(3), 17–38 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.3.17
Hauser, O.P., Gino, F., Norton, M.I.: Budging beliefs, nudging behaviour. Mind Soc. 17(1–2), 15–26 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-019-00200-9
Bohlen, L.C., et al.: Do combinations of behavior change techniques that occur frequently in interventions reflect underlying theory? Ann. Behav. Med. 54(11), 827–842 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaa078
Khadilkar, P.R., Cash, P.: Understanding behavioural design: barriers and enablers. J. Eng. Des. 31(10), 508–529 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2020.1836611
Feitsma, J., Whitehead, M.: Bounded interdisciplinarity: critical interdisciplinary perspectives on context and evidence in behavioural public policies. Behavioural Public Policy, 1–27 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.30
Buchanan, R.: Wicked problems in design thinking. Des. Issues 8(2), 5–21 (1992). https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637
Goring, S.J., et al.: Improving the culture of interdisciplinary collaboration in ecology by expanding measures of success. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12(1), 39–47 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1890/120370
Reijula, S., Hertwig, R.: Self-nudging and the citizen choice architect. Behav. Public Policy, 1–31 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.5
Lave, J., Wenger, E.: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)
Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1980)
Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R.: Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19(3), 387–420 (1989)
Huvila, I., Anderson, T.D., Jansen, E.H., McKenzie, P., Worrall, A.: Boundary objects in information science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 68(8), 1807–1822 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23817
Johnson, M.P., Ballie, J., Thorup, T., Brooks, E.: Living on the edge: design artefacts as boundary objects. Des. J. 20(sup1), S219–S235 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352771
Fiore, S.M.: Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: how the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Res. 39(3), 251–277 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317797
Pennington, D.D., Simpson, G.L., McConnell, M.S., Fair, J.M., Baker, R.J.: Transdisciplinary research, transformative learning, and transformative science. Bioscience 63(7), 564–573 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.9
Leigh Star, S.: This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 35(5), 601–617 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
Alexander, C.: A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings Construction. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1977)
Alexander, C.: The Timeless Way of Building. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1979)
Salingaros, N.A.: The structure of pattern languages. Archit. Res. Q. 4(2), 149–162 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135500002591
Huvila, I.: The politics of boundary objects: hegemonic interventions and the making of a document. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 62(12), 2528–2539 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21639
Borchers, J.O.: A pattern approach to interaction design. In: Gill, S. (ed.) Cognition, Communication and Interaction: Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Interactive Technology, pp. 114–131. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01206115
Tidwell, J.: Designing Interfaces: Patterns for Effective Interaction Design. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2005)
Schmidt, R.: Strange bedfellows: design research and behavioral design. In: Design Research Society Proceedings. Presented at the Design Research Society 2020 International Conference: Synergy (2020). https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.252
Hawkins, B., Pye, A., Correia, F.: Boundary objects, power, and learning: the matter of developing sustainable practice in organizations. Manag. Learn. 48(3), 292–310 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507616677199
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Schmidt, R., Stenger, K. (2021). Overcoming Bounded Scalability: Achieving Interoperability Through Behavioral Boundary Objects. In: Markopoulos, E., Goonetilleke, R.S., Ho, A.G., Luximon, Y. (eds) Advances in Creativity, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Communication of Design. AHFE 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 276. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80094-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80094-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-80093-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-80094-9
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)