Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 354.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
[1] From: "Norman D. Hinton" <hinton@springnet1.com> (19)
Subject: Re: 13.0351 research in the humanities
[2] From: "Malcolm Hayward, English, IUP, Indiana PA 15705" (25)
<MHAYWARD@grove.iup.edu>
Subject: Empirical Approaches to the Humanities
[3] From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk> (21)
Subject: shortcomings
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:58:19 +0000
From: "Norman D. Hinton" <hinton@springnet1.com>
Subject: Re: 13.0351 research in the humanities
> [2] From: Steven Totosy <steven.totosy@ualberta.ca> (15)
> >
>
> --[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:22:16 +0000
> From: Steven Totosy <steven.totosy@ualberta.ca>
> Subject: the humanities
>
> your letter about shortcomings in the humanities, especially with regard to
> the empirical, is unfortunately an important observation.
I wasn't aware that Willard said these were shortcomings, and I'm not sure I
think so. Now I 've been in "humanities computing" since the early 1970's, and
have been using stat and suchlike tools in my research in historical
linguistics for about the same length of time, and Willard knows I've been an
enthusiastic member of Humanist off and on for a long time--but much of what I
read here these days just seems irrelevant to anything I do or care about
doing.
I regard that as a shortcoming of many of the writers to the List, not mine (so
there).
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:59:19 +0000
From: "Malcolm Hayward, English, IUP, Indiana PA 15705"
<MHAYWARD@grove.iup.edu>
Subject: Empirical Approaches to the Humanities
I would like to second (or third or whatever number we may be
at) the points made by Steven and others on the need for empirical
research in the humanities and particularly in the study of
literature. There are, at least, two ways that empirical
studies can be useful. First as an adjunct to other theoretical
approaches--a way of testing out some of the basic and perhaps
unexamined hypotheses upon which theories are grounded. Second
as a way to generate new questions and new approaches--I've never
yet done a quantitative/statistical analysis that has not yielded
some results that were entirely unexpected. The "not what I was
looking for at all" experience is one of the best a researcher
can have.
In line with this I'd like to encourage humanists moving in this
direction to submit proposals to the Computer Studies in Language
and Literature Discussion Group meeting for next December's
MLA. David has posted or will post the call--if you missed
it as I may have--David Hoover's address is dh3@is.nyu.edu.
I will also call for submissions in this area to Studies in
the Humanities, the journal I edit. Most of the articles we've
published over the last 30 years have been on literature and film
and have been informed by literary theory. I'd like to broaden
our perspectives and include articles that take an empirical
approach. Work may be sent to me: Malcolm Hayward, Editor,
Studies in the Humanities, English Department, Indiana University
of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA 15705.
Malcolm Hayward
--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:03:56 +0000
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk>
Subject: shortcomings
In Humanist 13.346 I was indeed pointing to SOME shortcomings in the
humanities: (1) the lack of attention to research methods, which if taught
would save graduate/postgraduate students precious time and effort; and (2)
the relegation of material culture in humanities research to a lesser
status than the supposedly vehicle-free content. These failings concern me
because computing the humanities depends on attention being paid to them. I
certainly did not intend to suggest that a data-centred (or empirical)
approach is the only one, though I am intensely interested in the
differences that it makes to what we see -- and don't see.
Why is it, do you suppose, that research methods are often given such a
short shrift? What is the argument, if any, against a strong methodological
component to the postgraduate curriculum? What do we gain, if anything,
from ignoring the technological vehicle, be it codex or hypertext, as if
the artefact were simply words without specific material embodiment?
Subtracting the straw men and women, what sort of a battle do we have here?
Yours,
WM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Willard McCarty, Senior Lecturer, King's College London
voice: +44 (0)171 848 2784 fax: +44 (0)171 848 5081
<Willard.McCarty@kcl.ac.uk> <http://ilex.cc.kcl.ac.uk/wlm/>
maui gratia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 17 2000 - 23:20:19 CUT