S.TRUEMAN PhD THESIS 2016

275

which through co-construction, morphed into a voluntarily complied boundary object. The MOU was a boundary object due to the ‘information needs’ (Star & Griesemer, 1989) of the various groups in the healthcare arena concerning this topic. The MOU, as a boundary object, transmits through, across and between the different groups in the actor arena and the healthcare arena and results in agreement, uniformity and concurrence of supporting action for remote nurses. Boundary objects can be ephemeral or not constructed of matter (Star, 2010). An object can be ‘something’ remote nurses’ act towards and with: ‘its materiality derives from action, not from a sense of prefabricated ‘stuff’ or “thing-ness”’ (Star, 2010, p. 603). Accordingly remote nurses in delivering mental healthcare adhere to a Western bio/socio/chemical/medicalised approach of delivering mental healthcare. No matter where they are located, remote nurses choose medications, confinement and psychiatric knowledge to deliver mental healthcare rather than witchcraft or sorcery. While the belief system has no materiality or physical presence, it is an object leading to uniform action. Conversely, physical objects may be ephemeral in their ability to bring about action and intermittently be boundary objects. An ambulance or police car parked at the station is of no consequence and devoid of action for remote nurses delivering mental healthcare. Yet upon transportation of a mental health patient, utilising these objects, they morph into boundary objects. Drawing on the later writings of Star (in collaboration with Ruhleder) concerning boundary objects and concepts of ‘work’ and ‘infrastructure’ (Star & Ruhleder, 1996), the researcher identifies that boundary objects do have certain similar characteristics: