You can cooperate without ever reaching consensus. This is on: “boundary objects”
“From my own field work among scientists and others cooperating across disciplinary borders, and two historical analyses of heterogeneous groups who did cooperate and did not agree at the local level, it seemed to me that the consensus model was untrue. Consensus was rarely reached, and fragile when it was, but cooperation continued, often unproblematically. How might this be explained? The dynamic involved in this explanation is core to the notion of boundary objects. Griesemer and I defined these as the following:
- The object (remember, to read this as a set of work arrangements that are at once material and processual) resides between social worlds (or communities of practice) where it is ill structured.
- When necessary, the object is worked on by local groups who maintain its vaguer identity as a common object, while making it more specific, more tailored to local use within a social world, and therefore useful for work that is NOT interdisciplinary.
- Groups that are cooperating without consensus tack back-and-forth between both forms of the object. “
_This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept._, L. Starr 2010