\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage[round]{natbib}
\let\cite\citep




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}










\begin{document}

\title{Open in order to think multidisciplinary!}



\author[1]{Marina Lubenow}%
\affil[1]{OpenCon London 2017}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 25, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup








\sloppy


\section*{}

{\label{256854}}

Both of us, Marina as an economist, Jens as an historian, are not used
to stay in the comfort zone of our scientific disciplines; we like to
look beyond horizons and take a look at the wide variety of humanities
and sciences. We are not doing this just because we are curious, but
simply because it`s our scientific approach. Marina, as an economist, is
specialized in juridical aspects of new energies, which means she has to
be aware of what scientists in the engineering and juristical faculties
think, discuss, and publish. Jens as an historian is specialized in
history of digitization and history of archaeology; he has to know all
discourses on the internet, the web and new media as well as on
different archaeological issues he is working on.

Working in an interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary and multidisciplinary
way often provides the basis for new ideas and concepts. Doing
scientific research and being adventurous in researching beyond the
established frontiers of disciplines and science goes along with several
structural problems. One is the institutional aspect. Each scientific
discipline, especially in Germany, has its own institutes, societies and
publication media. Another problem are the informal distinctions between
the disciplines, their specific semantic terms, the specific
understanding of general theories and their sublimely shared paradigms;
furthermore their networks of communication and patronage as well as all
the little things that have to do with tradition and especially with
scientific power.~

As a scientist on the edge of disciplines, it often feels as being
neither part of the one nor of the other discipline. As an historian of
archaeology, most of Jens historiography fellows don`t understand his
interest in the archaeological field. The archaeologists on the other
hand don`t accept an historian as one of their own so easily. Not having
an inside position of an academic discipline means not being connected
to all the information sources that may be relevant and in many ways it
also means a lack of access to the disciplinary discourse. This is why
we are so hopefully expecting more openness because scholars like us
will benefit. One might assume this as a specific situation of only a
few scientists which aren`t clearly affiliated with the discipline.
Certainly, most fellow scientists can identify themselves with one
discipline,~but we think everyone will benefit from well-ordered
openness.

The traditional mode of operation in academia is about the trade of
information and knowledge, not about sharing these goods for free with
everyone who's interested. This behavior is often criticized, because
most of the academic results are produced by public funding. So
privatizing these results for the personal advantage of single
scientists is kind of an unfair act. But this is not the point we want
to emphasize. Our perspective is about the exchange of information and
knowledge in order to improve research. Not every scholar should work on
the edge of his scientific discipline and the intersection with other
ones. But we think every scientist should at least be concerned about
what neighboring disciplines discuss on the relevant issues, on methods
and theories. Why this proposal? Because we think this would improve the
scientific practice and theory. All scientific disciplines are strongly
influenced by general concepts, paradigms schools of thoughts. Being
aware of this influence and critically reflect this situation is
important but greatly underestimated. By seeing past your own
discipline, the ivory tower effect, scientists often suffer from, is
questioned by new ideas, different paradigms, methods and tools. Whilst
being confronted with all these aspects, it is also important not to
forget about the traditional way of doing research and to reflect
critically on them. All these factors together will be a good starting
point for a more self-reflected scholarship. In our opinion this will
level up scientific epistemology as a whole.~\textbf{So let's be open to
think multidisciplinary!}

~

~

\section*{}

{\label{256854}}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

