“Hypertext is interdisciplinary by nature,” wrote Claus Atzenbeck, [6] clarifying that this means “there are intersecting areas with many other fields of research or application.” This belief is both widely held and cherished in the broader hypertext community: in their Seven Hypertexts, for example, Anderson and Millard [2] conclude that “interdisciplinarity is our strength. Cross-pollination revitalises the whole.” Concepts derived from literary or cultural studies in particular have prevailed at various points in hypertext's history; as Simon Rowberry [32] notes, both Ted Nelson and Douglas Engelbart made use of (and endorsed) linguistic determinism in their pioneering work, an approach which intimates that “language structures our understanding of the world.”

This latter example functions as both an illustration of this interdisciplinarity - and a way into the central concern of this paper. Continues Rowberry (of linguistic determinism):

Viewed through this framework, language becomes a structural technology that can in turn help to shape the world. Even though earlier hypertext scholars did not engage directly with critical theory, other theoretical frameworks were instrumental in their notions of what hypertext should be.

Hypertext scholarship has indeed existed to various degrees under the influence of other disciplinary communities since its inception, the legacy of these interactions present in the fundamental language we use to describe various hypertext phenomena: lexia, for example. This legacy is perhaps most obvious with literary studies: “originally, both literary and technology focused researchers were well integrated within the hypertext community,” continue Anderson and Millard [2], before adding with sorrow that “something of a gulf between them has emerged in recent years.” (There has indeed been a measurable decline in representation of the literary at the ACM Hypertext conference, though there are ongoing efforts to address this through the structuring of tracks and individual research collaborations.)

Hypertext is well positioned to embrace wider scholarly communities, as it has book history in recent years. These interactions create new opportunities, while simultaneously presenting familiar challenges in how we approach such exchanges between disciplines. It is not necessary to fully endorse linguistic determinism to recognize that hypertext (as with any discipline) has its own language, one that can embrace or alienate to varying degrees. Decisions made at the level of language are rarely neutral; rather they define the context and parameters of an exchange, the terms of engagement. While history has certainly not validated David Miall's concerns about hypertext failing to find a role for itself in future [25], there is work to be done in articulating the value of what can seem a niche technology to a new generation of scholars unfamiliar with its nuance – a fact recognized in the pioneering development of a hypertext curriculum ([4], [5]) that centres this very need to reach across disciplinary boundaries.

As linguist Norman Fairclough [14] writes, "[t]he language activity which goes on in social contexts (as all language activity does) is not merely a reflection or expression of social processes and practices, it is a part of those processes and practices.” The use of colloquial slang, for instance, reflects the values and experiences of a group while at the same time working to maintain its cohesion by reinforcing the familiar - and excluding non-members. By way of example, the communities of Computer Science, Literary Theory, and Film Studies each have their own langue, their own language system that encodes and explains the dimensions of their unique discipline. Such language is often heavily codified shorthand, not lending itself easily to interactions across - or sometimes even within - disciplines.

To achieve a more nuanced, holistic understanding of a subject or phenomena under investigation, one greater than that offered by their home discipline, a scholar must find a ‘way in’ - through, for example, the explicit delineation of reading strategies that offer entry points into literature that may at first glance appear inaccessible or incomprehensible [1]. It is for this reason that we should celebrate the work of Mark Anderson [3] in making hypertext's complex metahistory so readily available. We should also recognise the agency of the individual researcher here; some scholars are better at (or more disposed to) creating a shared language than others.

Even where (as is usually the case) scholars are keen to collaborate and push through the barriers, they still frequently find themselves encountering what MacLeod [24] describes as cognitive obstacles to interdisciplinarity, particularly as relates to science-oriented disciplines: “Research on the domain specificity of expertise and scientific practice suggests that the domain specific (or “disciplinary”) structure of science may play an important role in explaining why interdisciplinarity is often so difficult.” Pavlidis et al. [29] highlight a similar concern in the third challenge of their provocative “Ten Challenges” addressed to those affiliated with the field of digital humanities: ‘Language is important in every human activity – however, it is well known that computer scientists write articles in English without being competent in reading or writing English literature. With Humanities, the case is different: language, at a great extent, defines the research.”

Such disciplinary gulfs are not merely the case for those from technical disciplines who are explaining their work to colleagues from the humanities, as is often the focus of complaints about jargon, but frequently the other way around. Where technical and humanities disciplines work together to better achieve holistic understandings of their subjects, such collaborative arrangements are co-curated by those involved – a situation which raises various challenges unique to that collaboration. To what extent, for instance, should a literary theorist problematise the term author when co-developing tools to leverage a large language model? Equally, must the computer scientist explain the difference between OLSR and LOESS in the initial phase of a research relationship? In other words, how much must these hypothetical literary theorists and computer scientists share to be understandable and valuable to one another?

To better understand the dynamics of these questions, this paper draws upon Professor of Informatics Geof Bowker's concept of legitimacy exchange, expressed in a 1993 article that interrogates the field of cybernetics’ claims to being a universal discipline. As Bowker [9] explains:

An isolated scientific worker making an outlandish claim could gain rhetorical legitimacy by pointing to support from another field - which in turn referenced the worker's field to support its claims. The language of cybernetics provided a site where this exchange could occur.

Both the scientific worker and the “support from another field” are hereby bolstered through their bilateral exchange. Such approaches should not be seen as opposed to the anti-reductionist “disunification of science” described by other scholars at the time [15]. It is precisely this necessary and useful cleaving away of disciplines that makes developing a robust language for future engagement so important. As Bowker shows in his article, the creation of a new field rooted in such exchanges may be part of the solution to this very problem; this creation of a new field is, after all, the ultimate end goal for much interdisciplinary work - and what separates it from the multidisciplinary.

By way of example, Bowker considers cybernetics. “[C]ybernetics could operate either as the primary discipline, directing others on their search for truth, or as a discipline providing analytic tools and indispensable to the development and progress of others,” he argues. “At both the superstructural and infrastructural level, the rhetoric held that cybernetics was unavoidable if one wanted to do meaningful, efficient science.”

Through the appropriation of language from other fields, cybernetics was embedded within widespread and ongoing scholarly conversations - so much so that it became “unavoidable.” Arguably literary scholarship in early hypertext existed within this space too, the elision of these two fields lending legitimacy to one another; for a more contemporary example, we may turn to the fields of bioinformatics or behavioural economics, amongst various others.

In his elaboration on Bowker, communications scholar Fred Turner suggests that legitimacy exchange need not be limited to rhetorical analysis (i.e. the development of shared languages between people from different disciplines, as with contact languages), but also the analysis of artefacts (e.g. Ross Ashby's homeostat, a cybernetic device that demonstrates self-regulation and stability through feedback loops in a system) that may serve as figurative meeting places for interdisciplinary deliberation. While interdisciplinarity work may seem inclusive, Turner [38] describes the potentially exclusionary implications of using cybernetics as a case study:

[C]ybernetics facilitated not only the interlinking of research, development, and production activities, but also the development of new interpersonal and interinstitutional networks and, with them, the exchange and generation of a networked form of power. To the extent that members of two or several disciplines could succeed in creating a relatively closed system of interlegitimation, they could make it extraordinarily difficult for nonexperts (e.g., noncyberneticians) to challenge their individual agenda.

Although cybernetics served as a potential field in which researchers could convene around boundary objects - subjects that serve as nexus for a range of disciplinary considerations - the field of cybernetics itself inevitably developed its own jargon and canon that perpetuated academic siloing. Through the development of its own “utility” contact language, the field of cybernetics put others out of contact. As suggested above, cybernetics eventually came to be recognised (albeit briefly) as a field in itself, cultivating the very disciplinary isolation that it aimed to circumvent. It moved from being inclusive in the face of disciplinary exclusion to being yet another site of exclusion.

The decline of cybernetics as a field of study is itself evidence that these new fields do not need to last forever; they are as much a function of time and place as the languages used to establish them - indeed as any language, since language is rarely fixed. A more developed and detailed language was necessary to negotiate the challenges and questions of the time, a need that subsided as these challenges were addressed. Balance of power in language should therefore be seen as fluid, both in this case and more widely, and open to adjustment as needed. One discipline may need to concede ground to allow space for the other to grow, subsequently restating their importance if necessary.

“In order to exist,” wrote philosopher Albert Camus [10], “man must rebel, but rebellion must respect the limit it discovers in itself—a limit where minds meet and, in meeting, begin to exist.” These scholarly limits are discovered by encountering phenomena that demand wider vocabularies than any one field can possess. For example, when late-twentieth century thinkers began wrestling with the consequences of hypertext in earnest, they drew their language from adjacent disciplines. George Landow's notable 1992 Hypertext, for instance, explicitly recognises the connectivity between this new form of fluid textuality [21] and criticism of more static textual artefacts from Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, amongst others. By leaning toward totemic figures like Barthes and Foucault, what had felt novel became somehow legitimised, a perpetuation of disciplinary lineage. Landow's work is still among the most frequently cited in hypertext studies, both for the quality of the scholarship but also its generosity in connecting hypertext with other disciplines; just as Landow drew upon established scholars to legitimise his work, so too do scholars today draw upon Landow to legitimise theirs. And so ad infinitum.

In his influential Rede lecture of 1956, C. P. Snow argued that the intellectual life of Western society is split into the sciences and humanities [36], with the latter unduly privileged in the British education system within which he was based. Having argued that all ideas come from the collision of pre-existing concepts, critic Arthur Koestler [18] also sought to understand how scientists and artists respectively reconciled the competing logic of previously unconnected principles. Koestler's conclusion was that, while the sciences seek to fuse new fields into a coherent whole, the arts (by contrast) explore the consequences of that collision and consciously seek out contradictions - an argument made almost verbatim by Jay Bolter and Richard Grusin [8] at the turn of the century.

It is common to see sciences and arts used as proxies for logic and creativity, respectively, in historical writing on the digital. This approach suggests scientific discourse is governed by the linear argument, and arts discourse by non-linear or associative thinking (see [19], [26], [31]). Evidence from arts criticism, however, suggests that artists do in fact seek a coherent logic in their final work - arrived at precisely by associative thinking. Having fought to establish that there may exist multiple competing truths, artists and art theorists are inevitably resistant to any suggestion that subjective works may have an underlying or objectively retrievable logic. Speculating on their ten challenges for the digital humanities, Pavlidis et al. argued that “the Humanities are based primarily on critical or speculative methods and embed a significant historical element, rendering the domain largely distinguished from the Natural and Computational Sciences that are mainly based on empirical approaches” [29]. This is one perspective that sees humanities scholars filling out the background research section as a lead-in for more socially legitimised technical work; Roland Barthes shows a similar bias in his discussion of the origins of photography, in which he prioritised chemists instead of the painters who leant the medium its grammar of framing and perspective [7]. It was the chemists (i.e. scientists) whose processes determined the parameters and limitations of photography within which photographers (i.e. artists) began their work. Concept precedes context, as existence precedes essence.

The sciences-arts dichotomy illuminates two divergent – perhaps incompatible – ways to look at the relationship between language and phenomena in interdisciplinary research. On the one hand, the humanities scholars - those on the ‘arts’ side - may see themselves as joining the party too late, provided with a tool and asked to define its function. For example, virtual reality is rich in possibilities but feels at present like an overstudied ‘Wow!’ in search of a ‘Why?’ On the other hand, however, technologists - those on the ‘sciences’ side - may feel that their application or identified phenomena is being distorted by the kind of context or response their collaborator is providing.

In his well-regarded work on the relationship between language and power, Norman Fairclough [14] noted the “widespread underestimation of the significance of language in the production, maintenance, and change of social relations of power,” an underestimation he was at pains to correct. “My main focus,” he continued, “[is on] trying to explain existing conventions as the outcome of power relations and power … [putting] particular emphasis upon 'common-sense' assumptions which are implicit in the conventions according to which people interact linguistically.” Ideology often works invisibly, implicit in how we frame discussion and where we see power located; Fairclough cites a discussion between doctor and patient, “which treat[s] authority and hierarchy as natural.” The language with which an idea is explored does not merely reflect that idea, but also restricts which facets are represented (or re-presented, altered by language use). This restriction occurs because language necessarily reduces and distorts experiences [21] at the same time that it informs those experiences [20]; no singular language can wholly capture phenomena. As the primary medium of negotiation in interdisciplinary collaboration, language serves as a vehicle for meaning but also an expression (consciously or otherwise) of ideology. Mistaking the representation of knowledge for knowledge itself means that we pay insufficient attention to the mode of transmission and its impact. Philosopher and contemporary of Barthes Jacques Derrida makes a similar argument, suggesting that submission to the structure and logic of a specific language means the writer is “governed by the system” [13], and like claims are found in the works of Edward Sapir [33] and other key linguists ([22], [12], [16]).

Technologies and modes of communication, wrote Neil Postman, are not simply “machines which convey information” [30]. Rather, technologies classify and frame the world for us through their affordances and constraints. Similarly, information studies scholar Michael Zimmer observed that new technologies act like “lenses, shaping, perhaps even distorting, the information they present and framing the very knowledge that their users are meant to obtain” [41]. Although these arguments could be derided as technologically deterministic, they are nevertheless useful to consider as they draw explicit attention to the technologies of creation and classification that so often go overlooked in favour of content analysis. These technologies are never neutral, and their taxonomies are never inevitable. Media of communication are created and used in ways that respond to, and often perpetuate, hierarchical social structures.

Approaching a project from an interdisciplinary perspective necessitates the development of a shared language, one that will itself become a reducer and distorter of the unique disciplinary perspectives shared by project collaborators. It requires us to consider the means, media, and meeting points of communication between collaborations, and not just the content that is being conveyed. Differences in focus and philosophy must be rationalised, a term that covers two potential meanings: reducing complexity and imposing a logic. Both meanings of the term are intended here, and computer systems are an extension of this dual meaning. Human-computer interface expert Stuart Card and his team described using a computer as a “stream of symbols flowing back and forth” [11] between user and machine. Mediating (transcoding?) lived experience into speech, speech into written text, written text into hypertext, and so on, requires submission to the specific symbolic structure of that medium. Each stage of transmission requires complex concepts to be corralled and rationalised to fit the language system of a particular time and place. This reduction to symbols both forms and informs the content of communication.

Future collaborative research efforts would benefit from greater exposure to and consideration of critical discourse analysis (CDA) and its concerns, since CDA's interdisciplinary approach to analysing communication focuses more acutely on underlying power dynamics, ideologies, and social structures. Such evaluative work should be undertaken by those representing the disciplinary spread of the project and in conjunction with extradisciplinary mediators, seeking to identify how and where language biases emerge, and mitigating those biases and their resultant power imbalances when possible

Understanding both the ambitions and personality of a collaborator will help ensure that your own approach can be moderated in turn. This diagnostic process may be used to help overcome the aforementioned "cognitive obstacles" to interdisciplinarity that are often rooted in domain specificity [24].

Language and power are deeply interconnected in ways that may significantly influence hierarchical behaviours [14]. Through keen attention to language, unanticipated and perhaps unwelcome power dynamics may be mitigated or prevented altogether. One strategy is to employ approaches from legitimacy exchange, wherein all parties acknowledge how their own expertise may support the project's legitimacy and success [9]. This is, of course, easier said than done. However, as Fred Turner [38] shows in his own consideration of cybernetics, parties may find greater success in reaching a figurative meeting point by actively examining artefacts together, rather than engaging primarily in rhetorical deliberation.

“The clashing point of two subjects, two disciplines, two cultures - of two galaxies, so far as that goes - ought to produce creative chances,” wrote Snow [36] - as we may hope. Here again we find a metaphor masking a pragmatic reality: is interdisciplinary work a clash of cultures or a collaboration between equals? The perennial relevance of questions around language, these metaphors of trade and communication, reflect the centrality of language in the negotiating of those interdisciplinary research agendas fundamental to hypertext. It also reflects the often inductive epistemology of interdisciplinary work, in which phenomena bring together scholars to observe and theorise together.

Disciplinary preferentialism and inward-looking attention are a natural and perhaps inevitable part of academic life. At the level of institutional practice, scholars may be concerned that their interdisciplinary work is harder to evaluate and measure [40] or unlikely to secure funding [23], preferring instead to focus on the well-worn niches of their own disciplinary or domain specificity. Scholars may be concerned that the evaluation of results stemming from interdisciplinary research will prove too arduous because, as scholar of Interdisciplinary Studies Julie Thompson Klein [17] notes, “the variety of tasks does not allow for the creation of a single standard.” Still others may be concerned that their work will not survive the encounter. “The social sciences are always brought in way too late,” wrote Ana Viseu [39] of interdisciplinary research, “after all the real science has been done, so their contribution is minimised” - a echo of C. P. Snow's 1956 The Two Cultures, perhaps, and the “gulf of mutual incomprehension” between the sciences and the humanities [36]. Such concerns (alongside disincentives in tenure and promotion criteria, restrictive funding models, differing publishing norms) may well carry more weight than concerns around language; it is perhaps as likely now to find an enthusiastic scholar bridging the disciplinary gap despite professional and institutional limitations as it is to find one rejecting such opportunities on the aforementioned grounds of mutual incomprehension and personal disciplinary prejudice.

We are a long way from the turn of the 21st century, in short, when theorists were routinely accused of ignoring the “material and cultural properties” of software [28]. Two decades later, there is a general appetite for interdisciplinary collaboration in the wider digital humanities, not least as those same humanities seek to rediscover and reassert their mid-twentieth century visibility and influence. At a time when these wider humanities face an existential struggle for legitimacy (against declining student intake [34]; decreased funding [35]; and cultures hostile to its work [27]), interdisciplinary research promises a way into the presently more secure and visible spaces of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines. At the same time, new and emerging disciplines reach out to their more established counterparts down the hall, as scholars of video games once wrestled with their connections to film, or film with literary studies. In their documentation, the Swiss National Science Foundation asks that “a similar degree of importance is attached to all the disciplines involved” in any potential applications for funding – a not uncommon stipulation that further emphasises the importance of equity in this negotiation between disciplines - and how nebulous this distinction may be. The vicious cycle of lacking disciplinary legitimacy because your discipline is not widely recognised, but also being unable to gain recognition (through funding or wider research) because of your perceived deficit in disciplinary legitimacy, is one that affects most young disciplinary areas (as it continues to do, for example, with web science to a degree.)

This situation makes unpicking the balances of power between participating disciplines even more pressing, particularly as that power relates to culturally assumed divisions between the humanities and social sciences (HASS) and computer science. And, if we aim to move towards truly balanced collaboration between these disciplines, we must work towards shared languages that facilitate open, intelligible, and reciprocal dialogue that leaves no participant behind. Hypertext in various forms plays a role both as facilitator of these interactions (see [37], for example) and a beneficiary of them.

Louise Amoore, Alexander Campolo, Benjamin Jacobsen and Ludovico Rella. 2023. Machine learning, meaning making: On reading computer science texts. Big Data & Society, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231166887

Mark W. R. Anderson and David E. Millard. 2023. Seven Hypertexts. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media: The Humanity Within (Rome, Italy) (HT’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 42, 15 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3603163.3609048

Mark W. R. Anderson and David Millard. 2022. Hypertext's meta-history: Documenting in-conference citations, authors and keyword data, 1987–2021. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (Barcelona, Spain) (HT’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1145/3511095.3531271

Claus Atzenbeck, Dene Grigar, and Manolis Tzagarakis. 2023. Interdisciplinary Teaching Toward the Next Generation Hypertext Researchers. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media: The Humanity Within (Rome, Italy) (HT ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, NewYork, NY, USA, Article 43, 5 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3603163.3609055

Claus Atzenbeck and Jaesook Cheong. 2021. International Teaching and Research in Hypertext. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media: Hypertext in a Multimodal World (Dublin, Eire (virtual)) (HT’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1145/3465336.3475124

Claus Atzenbeck and Peter J. Nürnberg. 2019. Hypertext as Method. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media: Tear Down The Wall (Hof, Germany) (HT’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342220.3343669

Roland Barthes. 1980. Camera Lucida. Seuil, Paris, FR.

Jay D. Bolter and Richard A. Grusin. 2000. Remediation: Understanding New Media. MIT University Press, Cambridge, MA. USA.

Goef Bowker. 1993. How to be Universal: Some Cybernetic Strategies, 1943-70. Social Studies of Science, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631293023001004

Albert Camus. 1956. The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. Translated by Anthony Bower. Vintage International, London, UK.

Stuart Card, Thomas Moran and Allen Newell. 1986. The Psychology of the Human Computer Interface. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

Noam Chomsky. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton & Co, Berlin, DE.

Jacque Derrida. 1974. Of Grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Norman. Fairclough. 1989. Language and Power. Longman, New York, NY USA.

Peter Galison. 1997. Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.

Michael Halliday. 2003. On Language and Linguistics. Continuum International Publishing, London, UK.

Julie T. Klein. 2005. Humanities, Culture and Interdisciplinarity. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, USA.

Arthur Koestler. 1964. The Act of Creation. Macmillan, London, UK.

David Kolb. 1994. Socrates in the Labyrinth, in Hyper/Text Theory. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA. 323–344. https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/1752/hypertexttheory

Geaorge Lakoff and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.

George Landow. 1992. Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.

George Leonard and Bernard Bloch. 1942. Outline of Linguistic Analysis. Linguistic Society of America, Baltimore, MD.

Philip Lowe and Jeremy Phillipson. 2009. Barriers to research collaboration across disciplines: Scientific paradigms and institutional practices. Environment and Planning A, vol. 41, 5, 1171–1184. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4175

Miles MacLeod. 2018. What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese, vol. 195, pp. 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4

David. S. Miall. 1998. The Hypertextual Moment. ESC: English Studies in Canada, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 157-174.

Stuart Moulthrop. 1994. Rhizome and Resistance: Hypertext and the Dreams of a New Culture, in Hyper/Text/Theory, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA. 299–322.

Office for Students. 2022. OFS Sets Out Plans to Crack Down on Poor Quality Courses. Office for Students (OFS), London, UK.

Wanda J. Orlikowski and C. Suzanne Iacono. 2001. Desperately Seeking the IT in IT Research – A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact. Information Systems Research, vol. 12, 2, 121–134.

George Pavlidis , Stella Markantonatou, Simon Donig and Adamantios Koumpis. 2018. Ten Challenges for Digital Humanities and the Way Forward. International Journal of Computational Methods in Heritage Science, vol. 2, no. 1. https://doi.og/10.4018/IJCMHS.2018010101

Neil Postman. 1979. Teaching as a Conserving Activity. Delacorte Press, New York, NY, USA.

Jim Rosenberg. 1996. The Structure of Hypertext Activity. In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Hypertext: Docuverse Takes Form (Bethesda, Maryland, USA) (HYPERTEXT’96). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/234828. 234831

Simon Rowberry. 2023. Historiographies of Hypertext. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media: The Humanity Within (Rome, Italy) (HT’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 41, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3603163.3609038

Edward Sapir. 2010. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Nabu Press, London, UK.

Benjamin Schmidt. 2018. The Humanities Are in Crisis. The Atlantic, 23 August 2018. Retrieved April 17, 2024 from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/the-humanities-face-a-crisisof-confidence/567565/

Asheesh K. Siddique. 2023. Does Humanities Research Still Matter? Inside Higher Ed, 15 August 2023. Retrieved April 17, 2024 from https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2023/08/15/does-humanities-research-matter-anymore-opinion

Charles P. Snow. 1998. The Two Cultures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

R. Steadman-Jones. 2022. Hypertext, in Collaborative Research in Theory and Practice. Bristol University Press, Bristol, UK.

Fred Turner. 2006. From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.

Ana Viseu. 2015. Integration of social science into research is crucial. Nature, vol. 525, 291. https://doi.org/10.1038/525291a

Alfredo Yegros-Yegros, Ismael Rafols and, Pablo D'Este. 2015. Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity, PloS one, vol. 10, 8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135095

Michael Zimmer.2009. Renvois of the past, present and future: hyperlinks and the structuring of knowledge from the Encyclopedie to Web 2.0, New Media & Society, vol. 11 , no. 1/2, pp. 95-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808099573

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

HT '24, September 10–13, 2024, Poznan, Poland

© 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).

ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0595-3/24/09.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3648188.3675158