Boundary-Spanning in Organizations

Network, Influence and Conflict

Janice Langan Fox, Cary Cooper

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135048785
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Negocios y empresa
• Subtopic: Comportamiento organizacional

In more recent times, the essence of the gatekeeper's role has moved to the 'boundary spanner' - a systems thinker who understands the specific needs and interests of the organization and whose greatest asset is their ability to move across and through the formal and informal features of the modern organization.

There are many types of boundaries associated with an organization, for example, horizontal, (function and expertise), vertical (status, hierarchy), geographic, demographic, and stakeholder. Boundaries are "the defining characteristic of organizations and, boundary roles are the link between the environment and the organization" (Aldrich & Herker, 1977) with functions crucial to the effectiveness and success of the organization.

Despite being a critical success factor for an organization, beginning in the 1970s, the term - 'boundary spanning' has had an intermittent research history: there has been no systematic body of research that has evolved over time. This book aims to invigorate, excite, and expand the literature on boundary spanning in a diverse range of disciplines such as sociology, organizational psychology, management, medicine, defence, health, social work, and community services. The book serves as the first collection of reviews on boundary spanning in organizations.

Part I
Individuals and Concepts

1
Boundary Crossings of Out-of-Field Teachers

Locating Learning Possibilities amid Disruption

Linda Hobbs

As with many work environments, schools contain boundaries that are being constantly negotiated by teachers. Subject specialization at the secondary level has resulted in teachers who are trained in specific disciplines, who then take on the task of translating disciplinary knowledge, practices, and modes of inquiry into school curriculum. The question for this chapter is in relation to the boundary negotiations involved for teachers who move from an in-field subject to out-of-field subjects, that is, subjects for which they hold no formal qualification in either the discipline or teaching method. Such teachers have conceptualized learning and teaching within the field of their specialist area, but are required to take on new knowledge, and find ways to translate or transform what they already know into another subject. Despite the obvious discontinuity relating to new content knowledge for the teacher, there are many factors that disrupt the ‘rhythm’ of a teacher when teaching out-of-field. This chapter focuses on the need to define the ‘field’ and resultant discontinuity in order to identify where learning can take place during a boundary crossing.

A research program focusing on the subject-specific nature of teaching has drawn attention to the complexity of teaching out-of-field and the influence of boundary crossings on teacher professional identity. This research (Hobbs 2012a, 2012b) has highlighted relationships between school governance and teacher autonomy, and between support mechanisms within the environment, teachers’ attitudes toward their out-of-field subject, and teachers’ personal resources. These various factors have a bearing on: a teacher’s desire to become a capable and innovative teacher of the out-of-field subject; opportunities for learning; and the likelihood of identity development.

In this chapter I draw on the experiences of a number of teachers in order to demonstrate that it is important to examine the field when investigating issues around teaching out-of-field in order to identify if and where discontinuity arises. I begin with a discussion on the emergence of the ‘subject’ as a defining element of teachers’ work and identity, and situate the subject as ‘field.’ I then describe the theoretical framework of boundary crossings as a language for describing possibilities for learning at the boundary between in-field and out-of-field spaces. I then draw from previous research in order to present a series of snapshots of teachers’ experiences with teaching outof-field, focusing explicitly on the boundary and fields, and the discontinuities and possibilities for learning, which are then discussed using Akkerman and Bakker’s (2011) mechanisms of learning.

A Review of the Literature

This research uses a theoretical lens informed by the boundary crossing literature (e.g., Star 1989; Akkerman and Bakker 2011), which recognizes the heterogeneous nature of workplaces and the role of different actors who represent different cultures. Boundaries between practices and knowledge domains are “constitutive of what counts as expertise or as central participation” (Akkerman and Bakker 2011, 1). The notion of boundaries between different fields, or domains, is a move away from the idea that contexts within workplaces are bounded and singular. Akkerman and Bakker define boundaries as “sociocultural differences leading to discontinuities in action and interaction” (2011, 21), rather than any move between different practices. Boundaries simultaneously are marked by a sameness and continuity in some ways.

The boundary crossing concept became rarefied in the late 1980s through the work of Engeström (e.g., Engeström, Engeström, and Kärkkäinen 1995), Star (1989), and Suchman (1994), and is gaining prominence in research in the educational sciences and educational psychology (Akkerman and Bakker 2011). The boundaries concept has become a key component of two current learning theories: Engeström’s (1987) cultural historical activity theory on expansive learning, which enables exploration of relationships within and between activity systems; and Wenger’s (1998) situated learning theory on communities of practice, which enables exploration of membership to a community based on participation.

The discussion in the chapter aligns more closely with the communities of practice perspective rather than activity theory because the former enables theorization around varying degrees of participation in the practices that constitute the community of subject teaching. In the context of my research exploring out-of-field teachers, the boundary crossing lens enables:

• examination of the movement of teachers from in-field to out-of-field teaching spaces;
• a focus on discontinuities that are expected to arise; and
• learning and shifts in professional identity that are expected to ensure productive boundary crossings.

Whether in-field or out-of-field, sameness and continuity reside in the fact that both fields involve such things as pedagogy, curriculum and meeting learning outcomes. However, teachers can experience discontinuity when experiences result in shifts in degrees of confidence and competence in their ability to effect positive learning outcomes for their students. The use of the boundary crossings lens provides a platform for re-conceptualizing these experiences as opportunities for professional learning occurring within schools as communities of practice, where teachers are supported and enabled to adapt to new fields and expand their professional identity (van Manen 1990). My focus on intersecting social worlds is not on the intersection of groups of people as with any of the employing boundary crossing subjects, such as with collaboration between different groups within a problem space. Instead, my focus is on the need to adapt practice as people move between different communities of practice, and the dialogical interchanges between knowledge domains, what I call ‘fields,’ that enable a teacher to change practice and construct identities that are commensurate with the new field. These communities of practice are situated around the school ‘subject,,’ which I describe in the following section.

The Subject as “Field”

Secondary schooling (ages 12–18) in Australia tends to be based on a departmental model, where teaching involves engaging students in the knowledge, practices and activities of a ‘subject,’ and teachers usually refer to themselves as teachers of specific subject areas. The subject became a unit of analysis of school cultures in the 1990s as researchers explored subjects as defining elements of secondary teachers’ work, showing that subject departments act as the locus around which teachers gather, collaborate, develop identities, and support each other. Siskin (1994), for example, found that teachers from the selected subject departments of English, science and mathematics spoke different ‘languages.’ These language differences were more than simply “idiosyncratic appearances of technical jargon; rather, the discipline’s language and epistemology in the ways teachers—as subject-matter specialists—conceptualise the world, their roles within it, and the nature of knowledge, teaching and learning” (Siskin 1994, 152).

Subjects by their nature, are epistemologically, ontologically, and philosophically different. They are defined by the disciplines from which they come (Dorfler and McLone 1986), as well as the subject-specific knowledge that forms the curriculum, and ways of thinking, doing, and being. Subject specificity may apply to subject matter knowledge, experiential knowledge, pedagogy, orientation, beliefs, and interests. Teacher specialization ensures that teaching is informed by deep knowledge of the area (Goodson 1993).

A teacher’s identity and work, according to van Manen (1982), are organically bound up in what teachers know about their subject. Teachers describe themselves as teachers according to what they know:

To know a particular subject means that I know something in this domain of human knowledge. But to know something does not mean to just know just anything about something. To know something is to know what that something is in the way that it is and speaks to us. (van Manen 1982, 295)

As a teacher takes on the role as subject teacher, they participate in what Gee calls the “discourse” of what it means to teach that subject, which requires learning the “ways of combining and integrating language, actions, interactions, ways of thinking, believing, valuing, and using various symbols, tools and objects to enact a particular socially recognizable identity” (Gee 2010, 29). Professional identity develops not just through this participation but also through the interpretation or recognition of that participation by self or others. A sociocultural framing of identity describes it not as fixed, but as an ongoing process of becoming (Beijaard, Meijer, and Verloop 2004) where context plays a crucial role (Beijaard et al. 2004; Connelly and Clandinin 1999). Therefore, teachers’ socio-historical interactions with their subject equip them with competence and confidence in their teaching.

At a fundamental level, the ‘field’ refers to this bounded system of knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices specific to the subject. However, as with many workplaces, a school is a heterogeneous workplace (Akkerman and Bakker 2011), involving multiple actors representing different professional cultures (Suchman 1994). Layers of management, varying and changing roles, changing work spaces, and different actors mean that teachers are constantly moving between different practices, domains of knowledge, rules of engagement, and layers of expertise. Because of this changing nature of teachers’ work, out-of-field teaching is often perceived as an expected part of the profession, which perhaps explains why McConney and Price (2009) claim that it remains under-theorized.

Teachers are considered in-field when they have the necessary qualifications to teach that subject. The secondary teacher degree in Australia usually includes at least two method areas, such as general science and senior physics, or physical education and mathematics. To undertake these method studies as part of their teaching degree they must have a major or minor in those areas.

So, what does it mean to be teaching technically out-of-field? Teachers who are teaching out-of-field usually have neither a major nor minor in that discipline, nor a teaching method in that subject. However, teachers can feel out-of-field for a number of reasons, even if they are technically in-field, or qualified to teach that subject. Also, teachers can feel in-field when technically out-of-field. These feelings are significant in situations where a principal is assigning technically out-of-field teachers to a subject when a qualified teacher is not available. These feelings are also significant because a teachers’ approach to their subject will influence their willingness to engage with professional learning, invest time in preparation, and engage in professional dialogue (Hobbs 2012). Teachers who consider themselves as just filling in are less likely to seek professional development in an out-of-field subject than those teachers who have requested an out-of-field subject because of their personal interest in it.

Certainly teaching out-of-field can place a teacher in unfamiliar territory and lead to feelings of being unqualified. Suchman (1994 25) states that “crossing boundaries involves encountering difference, entering into territory in which we are unfamiliar and, to some significant extent therefore, unqualified.” A teacher’s willingness to engage with learning at the boundary can make the difference between an out-of-field teacher delivering an inspiring mathematics class, and an out-of-field teacher who actively builds new knowledge because he or she takes seriously the learning contract between teacher and student.

However, it is important to recognize the continuity between in-field and out-of-field contexts when ascertaining feelings of “out-of-field”-ness. Teaching is defined by more than just the demands of the subject. “I teach students, not the subject” is a common declaration of secondary teachers. Knowledge of and care for the learner are part of a teacher’s ‘toolkit.’ In addition, knowledge of how to use curriculum, manage a group of learners, deal with junior versus senior learners, deal with parents, and participate as part of a teaching team is generic in nature, and is part of the broader field of education. However, the nature of a subject may change the dynamic of relationship with students (Darby 2009). The teacher’s expectations of student behavior and normal mode of relating with students can become compromised such that a once confident teacher is made to feel incompetent. So while it is hoped that an out-of-field teacher maintains some degree of continuity through a knowledge base that underpins all teaching, even this seemingly “generic” knowledge can be surprisingly affected by the practices and demands of the subject.

Learning at the Boundaries

According to Griffiths and Guile (2003), “Crossing boundaries requires construction or transformation of new knowledge, identities and skills rather than only taking advantage of constructions transported from other contexts.” They are not simple transfers occurring in one-time, one-sided transitions, but are ongoing, two-sided actions and interactions between contexts (Akkerman and Bakker 2011). An adaptable teacher transforms and transports knowledge from one subject to another. Their learning involves both transforming current knowledge from their in-field teaching practice so that it becomes applicable to their out-of-field teaching, as well as the construction of new knowledge. This new knowledge may or may not be brought back to their in-field subject depending on how flexible that knowledge is.

A boundary arises when a move from one field of practices and knowledge to another results in discontinuity (Akkerman and Bakker 2011). The emphasis here is on the resultant discontinuity that arises for the individual “rather than sociocultural diversity per se” (Akkerman and Bakker 2011, 21). According to this view, for out-of-field teachers, a boundary exists when the differences between the practices and perspectives required to teach the subject are “discontinuous.” Such discontinuities can be overcome through a process of “reestablishing action or interaction” (2011, 5), leading to learning, and which ultimately leads to identity development.

Teachers can be seen to utilize boundary objec...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Routledge Studies in Management, Organizations, and Society
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Introduction
• Part I Individuals and Concepts
• Part II Groups and Teams
• Part III Management
• Part IV Organizations
• Contributors
• Index