Visualisations of data may become memorable and meaningful experiences as a res- ult of inter-disciplinary collaboration. Crucial in this process appears to be the evocative manner of presentation and a combination of intellectual together with embodied ex- perience which also addresses multiple sensorial modalities, such as sound and touch. [103, p. 1042]
The ultimate goal of art-science collaborations is to create a site for exchange, fluid discourse, and reciprocity. With this, collaboration can be ongoing and create self-generative outcomes, forming what is known as boundary objects. Susan Star and James Griesemer [185] coined the term “bound- ary object”. Boundary objects are devices that are used to help collaborators understand each other and communicate effectively, while allowing them to work independently. They were first observed in use among scientists communicating across different scientific fields and have been substantially developed since. Paul Carlile [27] has identified the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic modes as three categories of boundary objects; each of these have different uses within transdisciplinary collabora- tion. Collaboration between scientists and creative practitioners is facilitated by the use of boundary objects, tools and methods that aid the collaborative process. NEUVis produced through collaboration can also be considered a boundary object, helping the audience understand the science informing the artwork (see figure 4.1).
4.2. REFLECTION 1: COMMUNICATION AND THE BOUNDARY OBJECT 75
Figure 4.1: Boundary Objects in a NEUVis context
The major challenge in collaboration is communication between different fields [185]. It be- comes critical to establish a means of crossing this boundary from one group to the other if they are to collaborate successfully. The boundary object establishes a clear set of methods that not only allows collaboration to take place, but also enables communication and encourages autonomous work by practitioners in their own fields [185]. The processes of developing a NEUVis are more aligned with those practices employed by creative practitioners, who are comfortable working within an ill-defined problem space. This kind of problem is often successfully addressed by creative practitioners, so it is sensible for scientists to leverage the expertise of such practitioners through collaborative partnerships. This collaboration can produce creative visualisations that transform the audiences’ understanding of information and their emotional engagement with the science.
Creating a boundary object is difficult in any context, and often requires the collaborators to com- mit to adapting their mental model of the knowledge they have of their own field, so that they can overcome their semantic differences [27]. In the context of artistic NEUVis, there are two boundary objects to be negotiated. The dialogue among three social groups, the scientists, the creative practi- tioners, and the audience, crosses two boundaries. The first boundary is between the scientists and the creative practitioners for the creation of the NEUVis. This must be negotiated so that the creative practitioner can faithfully represent the outcome of the scientific research in a way that is able to engage the audience with the data on different levels. On one side of the second boundary object is the creative practitioner together with the scientist, and on the other side is the audience. In this way the work itself acts in translation on behalf of the scientist (see figure 4.1).
Carlile presents two different types of boundary objects, and introduced a third [27]. They are described as syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. Syntactic boundary objects are repositories of knowledge that allow access to information without direct collaboration. The creative practitioner using this method can retrieve the scientific data for themselves; the largest concern is then how the data are processed. This may take the form of an indirect collaboration between the scientist and creative practitioner, as data can be retrieved from a repository, such as an online service. These repositories allow the group holding the knowledge to represent the data in their own terms, and puts the burden of processing that data on the group that wishes to make use of the knowledge.
Direct collaboration between creative practitioners and scientists allows both parties to learn about the differences between the two groups. This semantic boundary object illuminates the differences and allows the collaborators to gain an understanding of the source of the knowledge of the other group. A creative practitioner may collaborate directly with a scientist by sharing relevant scientific publications and presentations, but also research data and collection methods. This will help the creative practitioner develop an understanding of the data as well as its origins in scientific practice. To give the scientist an understanding of the creative processes that are used in developing an artwork, the creative practitioner may invite the scientist to be involved in prototyping, or user testing. These processes give each party an opportunity to learn about the source of their collaborator’s knowledge. The pragmatic boundary object goes further to promote the transformation of knowledge of each group, rather than just an understanding that there is a difference between them. This process will require the creative practitioner and scientist to engage in significant interaction and exchange. Carlile describes how boundary objects can be effective. Effective boundary objects should establish a shared language or syntax for representing knowledge. They provide a means for each group to specify what they know, and what is important to them, so that the differences in knowledge are made explicit. Effective boundary objects also allow collaborators to learn about differences between their fields, and facilitates the transformation of knowledge by incorporating the understandings of others [27]. The creative work, as a result of direct or indirect collaboration between creative practitioners and scientists, can also act as a boundary object, crossing a border between the knowledge of the collaborators and their audience. The artwork created needs to be adaptable to the audience as well as to audience contexts such as an exhibition or public installation in a museum or art gallery. While being adaptable it must also be a bridge to the knowledge of the informed user group, the scientists [185]. As the information crosses this bridge it needs to maintain its identity, that is, the data about science must not change its intent. This is not to say that concrete, direct representations are the only valid form of visualisation.
A NEUVis can faithfully represent data and still be abstract, culturally sensitive, interactive, phys- ical, spatial, or beautiful. Exchange and collaboration between scientists and creative practitioners can result in work that honestly speaks on behalf of the research outcomes of the data it represents. NEUVis should be able to be described within Carlile’s three descriptions of boundary objects. There is no “right” or “preferable” boundary object to use; designers can use different approaches that are available to them. As a syntactic boundary object NEUVis must establish a stable syntax that can be shared with the reader. In this case, many familiar methods of charting data to visual representations can easily act as this boundary object, as many users will already understand the existing syntax.