Abstract
AbstractDigital humanities methods have been at the heart of a recent series of high-profile historical research projects. But these approaches raise new questions about reproducibility and verifiability in a field of research where grounding one’s conclusions in a body of historical evidence is crucial. While there have been extensive debates about the nature and methods of historical research since the nineteenth century, the underlying assumption has generally been that documenting one’s sources in a series of footnotes is essential to enable other researchers to test the validity of the research. Even if this approach never amounted to “reproducibility” in the sense of scientific experimentation, it might still be seen as broadly analogous, since the evidence can be reassembled to see the basis for the explanations that were offered and to test their validity. This essay examines how new digital methods like topic modelling, network analysis, knowledge graphs, species models, and various kinds of visualizations are affecting the process of reproducing and verifying historical research. Using examples drawn from recent research projects, it identifies a need for thorough documentation and publication of the different layers of digital research: digital and digitized collections, descriptive metadata, the software used for analysis and visualizations, and the various settings and configurations.
Funder
University of Western Australia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference54 articles.
1. Ahnert, R., & Ahnert, S. (2015). Protestant letter networks in the reign of Mary I: A quantitative approach. ELH, 82(1), 1–33.
2. Ahnert, R. & Ahnert, S. (2021). Protestant letter networks in the reign of Mary I: A quantitative approach. Annotated version published in 2021 as part of Models of Argument-Driven History. https://doi.org/10.31835/ma.2021.04
3. Ahnert, R., Ahnert, S., & Albrecht, K. (2020). Tudor networks. Retrieved January 28, 2023, from http://tudornetworks.net/
4. Ahnert, R., Ahnert, S., Coleman, C., & Weingart, S. (2021). The network turn: Changing perspectives in the humanities. Cambridge University Press.
5. Arguing with Digital History working group (2017). Digital history and argument: White paper. Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media. Retrieved January 28, 2023, from https://rrchnm.org/argument-white-paper/
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Reproducibility and explainability in digital humanities;International Journal of Digital Humanities;2024-01-03
2. Reproducibility and explainability in digital humanities;International Journal of Digital Humanities;2023-12-04