IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v11y2024i1d10.1057_s41599-024-03135-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An STS analysis of a digital humanities collaboration: trading zones, boundary objects, and interactional expertise in the DECRYPT project

Author

Listed:
  • Benedek Láng

    (Eötvös Loránd University)

  • Beáta Megyesi

    (Stockholm University)

Abstract

A widely shared recognition over the past decade is that the methodology and the basic concepts of science and technology studies (STS) can be used to analyze collaborations in the cross-disciplinary field of digital humanities (DH). The concepts of trading zones (Galison, 2010), boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989), and interactional expertise (Collins and Evans, 2007) are particularly fruitful for describing projects in which researchers from massively different epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina, 1999) are trying to develop a common language. The literature, however, primarily concentrates on examples where only two parties, historians and IT experts, work together. More exciting perspectives open up for analysis when more than two, more nuanced and different epistemic cultures seek a common language and common research goals. In the DECRYPT project funded by the Swedish Research Council, computational linguists, historians, computer scientists and AI experts, cryptologists, computer vision specialists, historical linguists, archivists, and philologists collaborate with strikingly different methodologies, publication patterns, and approaches. They develop and use common resources (including a database and a large collection of European historical texts) and tools (among others a code-breaking software, a hand-written text recognition tool for transcription), researching partly overlapping topics (handwritten historical ciphers and keys) to reach common goals. In this article, we aim to show how the STS concepts are illuminating when describing the mechanisms of the DECRYPT collaboration and shed some light on the best practices and challenges of a truly cross-disciplinary DH project.

Suggested Citation

  • Benedek Láng & Beáta Megyesi, 2024. "An STS analysis of a digital humanities collaboration: trading zones, boundary objects, and interactional expertise in the DECRYPT project," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03135-w
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03135-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-03135-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-03135-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chin-Chang Tsai & Elizabeth A. Corley & Barry Bozeman, 2016. "Collaboration experiences across scientific disciplines and cohorts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 505-529, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chung-Yen Yu & Yung-Ting Chuang & Hsi-Peng Kuan, 2017. "Understanding Faculty Collaboration and Productivity: A Case Study," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(3), pages 1-1, March.
    2. Araújo, Tanya & Fontainha, Elsa, 2017. "The specific shapes of gender imbalance in scientific authorships: A network approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 88-102.
    3. Colavizza, Giovanni & Franssen, Thomas & van Leeuwen, Thed, 2019. "An empirical investigation of the tribes and their territories: Are research specialisms rural and urban?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 105-117.
    4. Ana M González Ramos, 2020. "Digital Communication Tools for Fostering Career Advancement and Sustaining Interpersonal Relationships," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 25(2), pages 184-200, June.
    5. Chen, Wei & Yan, Yan, 2023. "New components and combinations: The perspective of the internal collaboration networks of scientific teams," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    6. Radhamany Sooryamoorthy, 2017. "Do types of collaboration change citation? A scientometric analysis of social science publications in South Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 379-400, April.
    7. Susan Roelofs & Nancy Edwards & Sarah Viehbeck & Cody Anderson, 2019. "Formative, embedded evaluation to strengthen interdisciplinary team science: Results of a 4-year, mixed methods, multi-country case study," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 37-50.
    8. Ashlee Frandell & Mary K. Feeney & Timothy P. Johnson & Eric W. Welch & Lesley Michalegko & Heyjie Jung, 2021. "The effects of electronic alert letters for internet surveys of academic scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 7167-7181, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03135-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.