Abstract
AbstractReproducibility has become a requirement in the hard sciences, and its adoption is gradually extending to the digital humanities. The FAIR criteria and the publication of data papers are both indicative of this trend. However, the question that arises is whether the strict prerequisites of digital reproducibility serve only to exclude digital humanities from broader humanities scholarship. Instead of adopting a binary approach, an alternative method acknowledges the unique features of the objects, inquiries, and techniques of the humanities, including digital humanities, as well as the social and historical contexts in which the concept of reproducibility has developed in the human sciences. In the first part of this paper, I propose to examine the historical and disciplinary context in which the concept of reproducibility has developed within the human sciences, and the disciplinary struggles involved in this process, especially for art history and literature studies. In the second part, I will explore the question of reproducibility through two art history research projects that utilize various computational methods. I argue that issues of corpus, method, and interpretation cannot be separated, rendering a procedural definition of reproducibility impractical. Consequently, I propose the adoption of ‘post-computational reproducibility’, which is based on FAIREST criteria as far as digital corpora are concerned (FAIR + Ethics and Expertise, Source mention + Time-Stamp), but extended to include further sources that confirm computational results with other non-computational methodologies.
Funder
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
Agence nationale pour la Recherche, France
European Commission
University of Geneva
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference39 articles.
1. Benjamin, W. (2015). Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit - in Walter Benjamin – Gesammelte Schriften Band I, Teil 2. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1980, 471–508. https://doi.org/10.22148/16.006
2. Bishop, C. (2018). Against Digital Art History. International Journal for Digital Art History, 3. https://doi.org/10.11588/dah.2018.3.49915.
3. Bloom, H. (1997). The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. Oxford University Press.
4. Bode, K. (2020). Why You Can’t Model Away Bias. Modern Language Quarterly, 81(1), 95–124. https://doi.org/10.1215/00267929-7933102
5. Bourdieu, P. (1970). La reproduction. Éléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignement. Minuit.
Cited by
1 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