When Domains Collide: An Activity Theory Exploration of Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration

TL;DR

This study investigates cross-disciplinary software development (CDSD) through the lens of Activity Theory (AT) using a mixed-methods design (24 interviews and a large-scale survey with 132 SDEs and 161 DEs). It identifies 14 DEs' and 8 SDEs' expectations, maps them to AT components, and surfaces 21 frictions across the CDSD activity system. The work provides a theoretical framework to understand embedded collaboration, reveals hotspots around rules, community, and division of labor, and offers actionable guidance for practitioners, infrastructure designers, and future research, including alignment rituals and AI-assisted mentoring to reduce frictions. Overall, the findings illuminate how shared ownership and blurred roles can fail quietly at the boundaries of assumptions, and they propose diagnostic and design interventions to improve CDSD outcomes.

Abstract

Background: Software development teams are increasingly diverse, embedded, and cross-disciplinary. Domain experts (DEs) from different disciplines collaborate with professional software developers (SDEs), bringing complementary expertise in creating and maintaining complex production software. However, contested expectations, divergent problem-solving perspectives, and conflicting priorities lead to friction. Aims: This study aims to investigate the dynamics of emerging collaboration of cross-disciplinary software development (CDSD) by exploring the expectations held by DEs and SDEs and understanding how these frictions manifest in practice. Method: We utilize Activity Theory (AT), a well-established socio-technical framework, as an analytical lens in a grounded, empirical investigation, conducted through a mixed-method study involving 24 interviews (12 DEs and 12 SDEs) and a large-scale validation survey with 293 participants (161 DEs and 132 SDEs). Results: We conceptualize and empirically ground the CDSD dynamics. We identified eight expectations held by SDEs and six by DEs. By mapping these expectations to AT components, we revealed 21 frictions in CDSD and illustrated where and how they arise. Conclusions: This study offers a theoretical lens for understanding the dynamics and frictions in CDSD and provides actionable insights for future research, practitioners, and infrastructure design.

Figures (2)

• Figure 1: Using Activity to Understand CDSD Team
• Figure 2: AT component co-occurrence network