Abstract
This theme critically examines boundary objects – work arrangements, artefacts and representations facilitating cooperation across diverse social groups [1, 2] – at the intersection of sound and design. Our fundamental question is: how effectively can objects informed or defined by sound and listening fulfil this important role in design [3]? Sound-driven design [4, 5] addresses complex socio-technological challenges induced by sound to design for sonic habitability: positive auditory experiences that enhance well-being, foster social connection, and promote a more harmonious relationship between humans, their technologies, and their environments [6]. Sonic boundary objects leverage sound and listening to structure information and bridge perspectives among different communities of practices. By telling stories, enhancing performance or creating a setting, annotated sounding prototypes, experiential sound maps, audio segments or sonic sketches, semantic portraits, etc. [7, 8] contribute to transmit, preserve and receive oral know-how. They act as mediators between ill-structured ideas and specific solutions, empowering diverse groups of listeners to align understanding, cooperate and mobilise action [9, 10]. However, a critical lens is essential. How do the ephemeral and subjective qualities of sound challenge the stability required for a boundary object to have common identity? How do boundary objects shape listening instead? What methodologies effectively capture and represent sonic experiences for shared understanding without oversimplification? How do power dynamics and work arrangements influence the creation, interpretation, and use of sonic boundary objects? We encourage papers exploring practical implementations, limitations, and theoretical advancements of sonic boundary objects, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of their role in design research.
Keywords
Boundary / Intermediary Objects; Listening; Sound-Driven Design; Design methodology
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.158
Citation
Delle Monache, S., Misdariis, N., Özcan, E., Hug, D., Lenzi, S., Pauletto, S., Rocchesso, D., and Spagnol, S. (2026) Mediating sonic worlds: Critical approaches to boundary objects in Sound-Driven Design, in Simeone, L., Gray, C. M., Verhoeven, A., de Götzen, A., Bakırlıoğlu, Y., Zohar, H., Stead, M., and Buwert, P. (eds.), DRS2026: Edinburgh, 8–12 June, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.158
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Included in
Mediating sonic worlds: Critical approaches to boundary objects in Sound-Driven Design
This theme critically examines boundary objects – work arrangements, artefacts and representations facilitating cooperation across diverse social groups [1, 2] – at the intersection of sound and design. Our fundamental question is: how effectively can objects informed or defined by sound and listening fulfil this important role in design [3]? Sound-driven design [4, 5] addresses complex socio-technological challenges induced by sound to design for sonic habitability: positive auditory experiences that enhance well-being, foster social connection, and promote a more harmonious relationship between humans, their technologies, and their environments [6]. Sonic boundary objects leverage sound and listening to structure information and bridge perspectives among different communities of practices. By telling stories, enhancing performance or creating a setting, annotated sounding prototypes, experiential sound maps, audio segments or sonic sketches, semantic portraits, etc. [7, 8] contribute to transmit, preserve and receive oral know-how. They act as mediators between ill-structured ideas and specific solutions, empowering diverse groups of listeners to align understanding, cooperate and mobilise action [9, 10]. However, a critical lens is essential. How do the ephemeral and subjective qualities of sound challenge the stability required for a boundary object to have common identity? How do boundary objects shape listening instead? What methodologies effectively capture and represent sonic experiences for shared understanding without oversimplification? How do power dynamics and work arrangements influence the creation, interpretation, and use of sonic boundary objects? We encourage papers exploring practical implementations, limitations, and theoretical advancements of sonic boundary objects, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of their role in design research.