What’s in a Project? Disciplinary Differences in Addressing Temporality and Collaborative Rhythms

Abstract

A wide range of scientific and scholarly activities contribute to how science and research create new knowledge. Knowledge as such comes in different forms, enriches the human record, and provides tools, methods, and techniques that guide societal handling of events. However, as a consequence of and a reaction to new technological, societal, or political changes, the process of producing new knowledge has changed quite dramatically over time. 1 There are a lot of steps that constitute the process of knowledge production, but often only in the combination of "knowledge from different domains" is "the essence of innovation" created (Kertcher 49). "Interdisciplinary collaboration is [thus] key to solving complex tasks" (ID+Lab) and promises not only systemic transformation of science and research (Kertcher 60) but influences society as a whole. Cocreation of knowledge across different professional cultures is not always an easy undertaking and challenges traditions that were built over centuries. However, it can also offer a "markedly unique alternative to the technologies and practices of a [single] scientific community" (Kertcher 50) and thus contribute to change.Interdisciplinary knowledge production is at the core of digital humanities (DH) research. Without interdisciplinary teams that are equipped with special expertise in many fields, success in projects is only achieved in very few cases. Collaboration is thus "a major hallmark of digital humanities practice" (Nowviskie) and a pre-condition for the fruitful co-creation of knowledge within (mainly, but not only) the humanities and (computer) sciences. But what really is in a DH project? Besides the research-related questions and tasks, what are the systematic and structural components of a DH project? And how can many stakeholders with different backgrounds cooperate and "follow a conceptual workflow that considers all aspects of collaboration" (Alharbi et al. 54