RE: https://nerdculture.de/@aufdroeseler/116494919391760424

Wondering how much humanities scholarship is in there...

Historical scholarship sometimes frames itself as empirical as reliant on sources. Do we provide sufficient documentation so that our historical findings and conclusions really can be reproduced? Has anyone reproduced a historical study, as the goal of a reproduction study?

The ERC requires that "information is given via the repository about any research output, or any other tools and instruments needed to validate the conclusions of the scientific publication."
@scigma in CLS this would be my go-to paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42803-023-00073-y @christof would be the person to talk to, too.
Repetitive research: a conceptual space and terminology of replication, reproduction, revision, reanalysis, reinvestigation and reuse in digital humanities - International Journal of Digital Humanities

This article is motivated by the ‘reproducibility crisis’ that is being discussed intensely in fields such as Psychology or Biology but is also becoming increasingly relevant to Artificial Intelligence, Natural Language Processing and Digital Humanities, not least in the context of Open Science. Using the phrase ‘repetitive research’ as an umbrella term for a range of practices from replication to follow-up research, and with the objective to provide clarity and help establish best practices in this area, this article focuses on two issues: First, the conceptual space of repetitive research is described across five key dimensions, namely those of the research question or hypothesis, the dataset, the method of analysis, the team, and the results or conclusions. Second, building on this new description of the conceptual space and on earlier terminological work, a specific set of terms for recurring scenarios of repetitive research is proposed. For each scenario, its position in the conceptual space is defined, its typical purpose and added value in the research process are discussed, the requirements for enabling it are described, and illustrative examples from the domain of Computational Literary Studies are provided. The key contribution of this article, therefore, is a proposal for a transparent terminology underpinned by a systematic model of the conceptual space of repetitive research.

SpringerLink

@stefan_hessbrueggen @scigma

Thanks, Stefan, for looping me in!

The Replication Research journal is open for submissions from Digital Humanities, but in #FLoRA, I also suspect there might not be many studies from the humanities.

When you submit a study, you can specify the "field", but the search doesn't (currently) include that filter, so it is hard to know what's actually in there. And there's no plain list of all entries.

I'll suggest to them adding this facet to the search.

@christof @stefan_hessbrueggen
Thank you!
Admittedly, the original questions were slightly rhetorical. And presumably, there are several humanities articles on metascientific and methodological reflections on the matter but little proof of concept and actual reproduction studies, let alone when using a qualitative method.

SCIGMA aims to take this matter seriously 🤞

@scigma @stefan_hessbrueggen

Not a historical study, but an actual attempt at some sort of reproduction across the qualitative/quantitative and analog/digital divide in the field of literary studies:

Schöch, Christof: "Repetitive Research: Spitzer and Racine", in Hesselbach, Robert et al. (Hrsg.): Digital Stylistics in Romance Studies and Beyond, Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing, 2024, S. 119–148.
https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.1157.c19369

Repetitive Research: Spitzer and Racine | Heidelberg University Publishing

@scigma @stefan_hessbrueggen

Also, the good folks at #FLoRA / #FORRT replied to me very quickly, saying they are planning to include a search by keywords and fields in a future release of the database interface.