The field of Digital Humanities (DH) increasingly relies on cross-disciplinary collaborations. This paper focuses on the DECRYPT project, a Swedish Research Council-funded initiative (2018-2024) aiming to establish a new field of historical cryptology. DECRYPT brings together a diverse team including computational linguists, historians, computer scientists, AI experts, cryptologists, historical linguists, archivists, and philologists. Their strikingly different methodologies, publication patterns, and approaches present a unique opportunity to examine the complexities of large-scale interdisciplinary research. The central research question is whether STS methodologies, proven useful in analyzing smaller, two-party collaborations in DH, remain effective in multi-party, multi-disciplinary contexts like DECRYPT. The project's scale and the inherent challenges of bridging disparate epistemic cultures make it a compelling case study for understanding the dynamics of successful cross-disciplinary collaborations in the digital humanities. The success or failure of this large collaboration will have implications for future DH projects and the development of tools and techniques for the study of historical texts.

Existing literature primarily focuses on DH collaborations involving two parties – historians and IT experts – using STS concepts like trading zones (Galison, 1996, 2010), boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989), and interactional expertise (Collins and Evans, 2007) to describe their interactions. This study extends this research by examining a more complex, multi-party collaboration with a wider range of disciplinary perspectives. The work of Collins et al. (2007) on trading zone typologies, distinguishing between homogeneous and heterogeneous interactions and coercive versus collaborative projects, provides a theoretical framework for the analysis. Kemman's (2021) book-length study on the negotiations and practices between historians and computational experts offers further insights into the dynamics of such collaborations, particularly the concept of trading zones as a space for shallow sharing of concepts and practices. The concept of referred expertise (Collins and Sanders, 2007), where skills from one area are indirectly applied to another, and the ambassadorial model (Collins et al., 2017), where researchers 'undertake an expedition' to learn new skills, are also relevant frameworks for understanding expertise within the DECRYPT project.

The researchers employed a mixed-methods approach combining participant observation, analysis of project meeting notes, and a structured questionnaire. Both authors are active participants in the DECRYPT project, providing an insider perspective through participant observation. Systematic notes from project meetings, including discussions and presentations, offer valuable documentation of the collaborative process. A structured questionnaire was distributed to the 14 core members of the project. The questionnaire consisted of open-ended and closed-ended questions covering aspects of participation, objectives, disciplinary backgrounds, collaborations, and potential boundary objects. The closed-ended questions allowed for quantitative analysis and visualization, while the open-ended questions provided richer qualitative data. Preceding and following the questionnaire, unstructured interviews and focus group discussions with the PI were conducted to explore the project's dynamics further. The authors acknowledge potential biases inherent in participant observation within a small research group and strive for critical evaluation of the data. The analysis focuses on communication techniques, organizational structures, and the use of STS concepts to understand the collaboration's success and challenges. The small size of the group and the participants’ awareness of the research's focus are considered potential limitations in the analysis of power structures.

The study reveals a diverse group with varied disciplinary backgrounds and publication preferences. While the primary research foci of the participants are distributed relatively evenly across source collection, metadata, transcription, historical analysis, decryption, tool development, linguistic analysis, corpus building, and database development, secondary contributory expertise spreads across many of these areas, indicating a broader participation in the project’s various aspects. A significant number of participants also possess non-contributory expertise, meaning they can participate in the discussions and debates of fields outside their primary expertise, reflecting a substantial level of interactional expertise development. The analysis of trading zones reveals both symmetric and asymmetric aspects of the collaboration. While many respondents emphasized the symmetry of expertise and contribution, others acknowledged an asymmetry in which humanities-driven research questions shape the tasks for the tool developers. The study identifies several boundary objects crucial to the project, including cipher keys, encrypted messages, the database, transcription guidelines, language corpora, software tools, and even the grant application itself. These objects are interpreted differently depending on each participant’s research focus and role within the project. The investigation of online versus offline meetings highlighted the importance of in-person meetings for fostering community and social immersion, essential for a newly-emerging interdisciplinary field. However, the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of online meetings were also noted. Challenges were encountered in dealing with varying terminology across disciplines, particularly in terms like "metadata," and different approaches to research methods and publication strategies. The PI's role was described as essential in navigating these challenges and fostering collaboration through interactional expertise and the ambassadorial model, effectively translating across multiple disciplines and managing diverse individual goals within the overarching project goals.

The findings demonstrate the effectiveness of STS concepts in analyzing a complex, multi-party DH collaboration. The DECRYPT project's success highlights the importance of well-defined project goals, clear communication strategies, and the creation of a supportive, inclusive environment. The identification of boundary objects and the cultivation of interactional expertise are crucial to overcoming challenges associated with bridging diverse epistemic cultures. The interplay of symmetric and asymmetric aspects of collaboration underscores the need for flexibility and responsiveness in managing such diverse projects. The study further emphasizes the irreplaceable role of in-person meetings in building community and shared understanding, despite the logistical advantages of online alternatives. The challenges encountered in terminology, research methods, and publication strategies emphasize the need for careful planning, ongoing communication, and an acknowledgement of the different disciplinary cultures involved. The PI’s role emerges as particularly critical in mediating these differences, acting as a ‘translator’ and facilitator of interactional expertise across the team.

This study successfully applies STS concepts to a large-scale, multi-disciplinary DH collaboration, demonstrating their value in understanding the dynamics of such projects. The findings suggest best practices for managing complex interdisciplinary projects and highlight the significance of establishing clear goals, effective communication, and fostering inclusive collaborative environments. Future research could focus on longitudinal studies of similar collaborations to assess long-term impacts and evolving dynamics. Furthermore, comparative analyses across diverse DH projects could provide broader insights into optimal practices and challenges.

The study's reliance on participant observation and a relatively small sample size raises the issue of potential bias. The small size of the group and the participants’ awareness of the research could have influenced responses, particularly regarding project management and power dynamics. Future research should consider larger-scale studies using more robust methodologies to address these limitations. The focus on the core members might have excluded valuable perspectives from more peripheral participants.