When switching to an online conference, one can expect some new boundaries to appear (e.g., communication challenges) and others to fall away (e.g., physical travel). From the boundary-crossing literature, we know key learning mechanisms involved in crossing boundaries between practices (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011), but hardly any studies focused on the particular challenges of online boundary crossing. Yet insight into such challenges and their learning potential is crucial in improving online summer schools (and online teaching more generally). The aim of this first of three studies was to characterise the boundary crossing by participants over the course of the summer school. We have set out to investigate their experiences with regard to their boundary interactions, the boundary objects (Star, 2010) used in the course, and the brokers (Wenger, 1999) in the summer school. With an analysis from a boundary-crossing perspective we intended to gain knowledge about the importance of crossing boundaries online, in time and in space. The research question addressed in the first study was: What boundaries did participants during the online summer school experience and how did they deal with them? The author interviewed 11 out of 20 participants using an interview scheme inspired by the literature on boundary crossing. He first asked about the main challenge experienced (boundaries), then how participants dealt with them (boundary crossing as effort), more specifically about boundary interaction, brokers (organisers), boundary objects (e.g., research pentagon). The working groups were organised in such a way that participants would only have to interact with a limited number of participants in breakout groups and feedback sessions. Although the participants experienced several boundaries in communicating online, these were largely technical and organisational. Participants appreciated the organisers’ many roles as brokers: technical facilitators, in-between people between the experts and participants. They also valued the boundary interaction with critical friends whom they repeatedly met, whose work they commented on and received feedback from. The most interesting finding is that participants put much effort in what we came to call boundary setting (rather than crossing). For example, to ensure that they could focus on the conference while working from home, they all made efforts to demarcate and concentrate: making clear agreements with family members, putting distracting devices such as phones away, closing email before conference time slots etc. We further conclude that the pentagon gradually came to function as a boundary object.

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: University Press.