Abstract
While the use of computers for humanities and social science research has a long history1, the immense success of networked personal computing has made both physical machines and software more accessible to scholars. But even more importantly, digital artifacts now populate every corner of post-industrial societies. This means that besides the study of non-digital objects and phenomena with the help of computers, there now is a continuously expanding space of cultural production and social interaction riddled by machine mediation, which has been, from the beginning, tied to digital schemes and formats. An obvious effect of this expansion has been the explosion of material available in digital form. ‘Traditional’ cultural artifacts like books or movies, ‘native’ digital forms such as software programs, online publications or computer games, and a deluge of all kinds of ‘information’ – logged traces of use practices, online interaction, and so forth – contribute to a growing mountain of data begging to be analysed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Adamic, L. and Glance, N. (2005), ‘The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog’, LinkKDD ‘05:Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery, http://arsky.com/WWW2005/WorkshopCD/workshop/wf10/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf, date accessed 1 December 2010.
Agre, P. E. (1997), ‘Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI’, in G. C. Bowker, et al. (eds), Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 131-57).
Anderson, C. (2008), ‘The End of Theory. The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete’, Wired,http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16–07/pb_theory,date accessed 1 December 2010
I. Ayres (2007), Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-by-Numbers Is the New Way to Be Smart (New York: Bantam Books).
Barabási, A-L. and Fowler, J. (2010) ‘Social Networks. Albert-László Barabási and James Fowler’, in A. Bly (ed.), Science Is Culture:Conversations at the New Intersection of Science + Society (New York: Harper Perennial, 297–312).
L. Bertalanffy (1957), ‘Allgemeine Systemtheorie. Wege zu einer Mathesis universalis’,Deutsche Universitätszeitung 5/6: 8–12.
E. A. Bowles (1967), Computers in Humanistic Research: Readings and Perspectives (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Carvalho, J. and Ribeiro, A. (2008), ‘Using Network Analysis on Parish Register. How Spiritual Kinship Uncovers Social Structure’, in J. Carvalho (ed.), Bridging the Gaps:Sources, Methodology, and Approaches to Religion in History (Pisa: Pisa University Press,171–86).
Cha, M., et al. (2010), ‘Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy’,ICWSM ‘10: Proceedings of International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media,http://www.mpi-sws.mpg.de/~gummadi/papers/icwsm2010_cha.pdf, date accessed 1 December 2010.
Cohen, P. (2010), ‘Digital Keys for Unlocking the Humanities’ Riches’, New York Times,16 November 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/arts/17digital.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print, date accessed 1 December 2010.
Computers and the Humanities (1966), ‘Prospect’, Computers and the Humanities 1(1):1–2.
Daston, L. and Galison, P. (2007), Objectivity (New York: Zone Books).de Certeau, M. (1990), L’invention du quotidien (Paris: Gallimard).
Desrosières, A. (1993), La politique des grands nombres. Histoire de la raison statistique (Paris:La Découverte).
Galison, P. (1996), ‘Computer Simulations and the Trading Zone’, in P. Galison and D. J. Stump (eds) The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power (Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press, 118–57).
Gigerenzer, G., et al. (189), The Empire of Chance: How Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press).
Hacking, I. (1983), Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press).
Heintz, B. (2007), ‘Zahlen, Wissen, Objektivität: Wissenschaftssoziologische Perspektiven’, in A. Mennicken and H. Vollmer (eds), Zahlenwerk. Kalkulation,Organisation und Gesellschaft (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 65–86).
Hofstadter, D. R. (1985), Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern (New York: Basic Books).
Jones, C. A. and Galison, P. (1998), Picturing Science, Producing Art (New York: Routledge).
Knobloch, E. (2004), ‘Mathesis – The Idea of a Universal Science’, in R. Seising,M. Folkerts and U. Hashagen (eds), Form, Zahl, Ordnung. Studien zur Wissenschafts-undTechnikgeschichte (Stuttgart: Steiner, 77–90). \
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1992), ‘Science as Practice and Culture’, in A. Pickering (ed.), The Couch, the Cathedral, and the Laboratory: On the Relationship between Experiment and Laboratory in Science (Chicago/London: Chicago University Press, 113–38).
Kuhn, T. S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Machlup, F. and Mansfield, U. (1983), The Study of Information: Interdisciplinary Messages (New York: Wiley).
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994), Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation (Chicago:University of Chicago Press).
Murtagh, F., Ganz, A., and McKie, S. (2009), ‘The Structure of Narrative: The Case of Film Scripts’, Pattern Recognition 42(2): 302–12.
Nagel, T. (1986), The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press).
Prieur, C., et al. (2008), ‘The Strength of Weak Cooperation: A Case Study on Flickr’,http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2317v1, date accessed 1 December 2010.
Rieder, B. (2007), Étudier les réseaux comme phénomènes hétérogènes: quelle place pourla ‘nouvelle science des réseaux’ en sciences humaines et sociales?’, Journées d’étude:dynamiques de réseaux – information, complexité et non-linéarité, http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00379526/, date accessed 1 December 2010.
Rieder, B. (2010), ‘One Network and Four Algorithms,’ http://thepoliticsofsystems.net/2010/10/06/one-network-and-four-algorithms/, date accessed 1 December 2010.
Rieger, O. Y. (2010), ‘Framing Digital Humanities: The Role of New Media in HumanitiesScholarship,’ First Monday 10, http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index. php/fm/article/view/3198/2628, date accessed 1 December 2010.
Rogers, R. (2009), The End of the Virtual: Digital Methods (Amsterdam: Vossiuspers UvA).
Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985), Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Snow, C. P. (1959), The Two Cultures (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press).
Tukey, J. W. (1962), ‘The Future of Data Analysis’, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33: 11–67.
Tufte, E. R. (2001), The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 2nd ed. (Cheshire, CT:Graphics Press).
Wang, H. (1963), ‘Toward Mechanical Mathematics’, in K. M. Sayre and F. J. Crosson (eds), The Modeling of Mind (South Bend, IN: Notre Dame University Press).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2012 Bernhard Rieder and Theo Röhle
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Röhle, B.R.T. (2012). Digital Methods: Five Challenges. In: Berry, D.M. (eds) Understanding Digital Humanities. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230371934_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230371934_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-29265-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37193-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Media & Culture CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)