The study heavily relies on qualitative data from a small, non-representative sample (e.g., 12 questionnaire responses and a group interview with 8 employees at BigITCorp). How can the authors justify generalizability of their findings about “mental-emotional experience of work” when the data is drawn from such a limited and potentially biased sample? Given the subjective nature of art interpretation, how did the researchers mitigate confirmation bias in their analysis, especially when coding themes like: “comfort” or “disruption”?
Moreover, the paper introduces the novel concept of a “boundary rogue” to describe artifacts like Multiviews that disrupt contexts. However, the evidence for its distinction from existing concepts (e.g., boundary objects, adversarial design) seem anecdotal and tied to a single case. What empirical or theoretical grounding supports this as a universally applicable concept beyond this specific art-research collaboration? Could the observed effects simply be atributed to novelty of the art piece rather than a broader sociomaterial phenomenon?
