Digital technology creates an intersection between disciplines because digital tools are what Susan Leigh Star calls “boundary objects” – they are “entities straddling the borders between groups,” as Christine L. Borgman explains.
“Digital libraries, Borgman argues, are a canonical form of boundary object because their content can be useful to multiple communities, allowing them to carry meaning across the borders of multiple groups” (153).
Digital tools and services, Borgman contends, ought to be “generalizable, scalable, and interoperable,” in order to generate a flexible e-Research infrastructure for multipurpose, trans-disciplinary and interdisciplinary usage (252).
Digital tools provide a platform for the opening up of scholarly communication between disciplines and William Pannapacker envisions a future of disciplinary integration. Pannapacker claims: “We are reaching a consensus about the future of our profession that will involve not just language and literature, but all of the humanities in partnership with technologists, scientists, and information professionals”. Pannapacker predicts “it will become increasingly difficult to say what the humanities disciplines represent, by themselves—and to target them for elimination—because we are enmeshed increasingly in the transformation of every discipline in higher education”.
Consequently, it is my opinion, as the Three Musketeers’ pledge, digital technology and tools allow knowledge to be “all for one, and one for all” disciplines.
Borgman, Christine. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure and the Internet. Cambridge: MIT P, 2007. Print.
Pannapacker, William. “An Emerging Consensus.” The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Star, Susan, Griesemer, James (1989). “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39“. Social Studies of Science 19.3: 387–420.