S.TRUEMAN PhD THESIS 2016

274

‘subject to interpretive flexibility’ (p. 613) and hence can accommodate divergent actor viewpoints. This study’s boundary objects are not always objects of physicality (e.g., a physical artefact—policy and procedure manuals). Often these artefacts are created and maintained through the interactions of the various actors and groups. They represent negotiated meaning which establishes the required level and degree of cooperation between groups. When there is no co-construction of boundary objects between actors this results in forced, rather than voluntary compliance; which is of limited co-operation and sometimes disruptive. For example, the researcher was party to negotiations and discussions concerning a Memorandum of Understanding between a District Health Service and several other government and non-government organisations to draft a policy for the aero-evacuation of violent and/or aggressive mental health patients. Negotiations centred on two divergent viewpoints. The regional psychiatrist, Health Service and MHNs wanted to ensure compliance with relevant mental health legislation, to use the least restrictive practice in caring for an aero-evacuated violent and possibly aggressive mental health patient. The focus of two of the other parties was on the issue of mid-air safety. They prioritised sedating and intubating the patient during the flight above the requirement of least restrictive practice (e.g., Mental Health Act [Queensland], 2000). All parties negotiated and problem-solved the competing emphases on the issues of safety and the mental health patient’s autonomy and rights. There was no strident view that prevailed—merely different emphases—as all parties knew that the paramount consideration was what was in the patient’s best interests in the circumstances. The negotiations resulted in a MOU (artefact)