The History of Science and the Science of History: Computational Methods, Algorithms, and the Future of the Field. Gibson, A. & Ermus, C. Isis, 110(3):555–566, August, 2019. ![The History of Science and the Science of History: Computational Methods, Algorithms, and the Future of the Field [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Many researchers insist that computational methods will transform the historical profession, while an equally large number reject these claims as unwarranted hype. This study attempts to place the debate in historical and social context. The essay is divided into three parts. The first part offers a brief review of computational history. It asks whether the “computational turn” bears any resemblance to quantitative history and how it fits within the digital humanities. The second part describes the authors’ recent attempts to apply computational methods to an existing project in the history of science using a standardized workflow. It demonstrates that each step of the workflow adds another layer of subjectivity. The third part reflects on what computational methods mean for the historical profession. It systematically reviews the positive aspects of computational history (open access, interdisciplinary collaboration, and new perspectives) as well as the negative aspects (inequality, fragility, and the threat of automation) and offers prescriptions based on the authors’ experiences.
@article{gibson_history_2019,
title = {The {History} of {Science} and the {Science} of {History}: {Computational} {Methods}, {Algorithms}, and the {Future} of the {Field}},
volume = {110},
issn = {0021-1753},
shorttitle = {The {History} of {Science} and the {Science} of {History}},
url = {https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705543},
doi = {10.1086/705543},
abstract = {Many researchers insist that computational methods will transform the historical profession, while an equally large number reject these claims as unwarranted hype. This study attempts to place the debate in historical and social context. The essay is divided into three parts. The first part offers a brief review of computational history. It asks whether the “computational turn” bears any resemblance to quantitative history and how it fits within the digital humanities. The second part describes the authors’ recent attempts to apply computational methods to an existing project in the history of science using a standardized workflow. It demonstrates that each step of the workflow adds another layer of subjectivity. The third part reflects on what computational methods mean for the historical profession. It systematically reviews the positive aspects of computational history (open access, interdisciplinary collaboration, and new perspectives) as well as the negative aspects (inequality, fragility, and the threat of automation) and offers prescriptions based on the authors’ experiences.},
number = {3},
urldate = {2019-10-10},
journal = {Isis},
author = {Gibson, Abraham and Ermus, Cindy},
month = aug,
year = {2019},
pages = {555--566},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"EtJtmW8zCm7J5bKcT","bibbaseid":"gibson-ermus-thehistoryofscienceandthescienceofhistorycomputationalmethodsalgorithmsandthefutureofthefield-2019","author_short":["Gibson, A.","Ermus, C."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"The History of Science and the Science of History: Computational Methods, Algorithms, and the Future of the Field","volume":"110","issn":"0021-1753","shorttitle":"The History of Science and the Science of History","url":"https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705543","doi":"10.1086/705543","abstract":"Many researchers insist that computational methods will transform the historical profession, while an equally large number reject these claims as unwarranted hype. This study attempts to place the debate in historical and social context. The essay is divided into three parts. The first part offers a brief review of computational history. It asks whether the “computational turn” bears any resemblance to quantitative history and how it fits within the digital humanities. The second part describes the authors’ recent attempts to apply computational methods to an existing project in the history of science using a standardized workflow. It demonstrates that each step of the workflow adds another layer of subjectivity. The third part reflects on what computational methods mean for the historical profession. It systematically reviews the positive aspects of computational history (open access, interdisciplinary collaboration, and new perspectives) as well as the negative aspects (inequality, fragility, and the threat of automation) and offers prescriptions based on the authors’ experiences.","number":"3","urldate":"2019-10-10","journal":"Isis","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gibson"],"firstnames":["Abraham"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Ermus"],"firstnames":["Cindy"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"August","year":"2019","pages":"555–566","bibtex":"@article{gibson_history_2019,\n\ttitle = {The {History} of {Science} and the {Science} of {History}: {Computational} {Methods}, {Algorithms}, and the {Future} of the {Field}},\n\tvolume = {110},\n\tissn = {0021-1753},\n\tshorttitle = {The {History} of {Science} and the {Science} of {History}},\n\turl = {https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705543},\n\tdoi = {10.1086/705543},\n\tabstract = {Many researchers insist that computational methods will transform the historical profession, while an equally large number reject these claims as unwarranted hype. This study attempts to place the debate in historical and social context. The essay is divided into three parts. The first part offers a brief review of computational history. It asks whether the “computational turn” bears any resemblance to quantitative history and how it fits within the digital humanities. The second part describes the authors’ recent attempts to apply computational methods to an existing project in the history of science using a standardized workflow. It demonstrates that each step of the workflow adds another layer of subjectivity. The third part reflects on what computational methods mean for the historical profession. It systematically reviews the positive aspects of computational history (open access, interdisciplinary collaboration, and new perspectives) as well as the negative aspects (inequality, fragility, and the threat of automation) and offers prescriptions based on the authors’ experiences.},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2019-10-10},\n\tjournal = {Isis},\n\tauthor = {Gibson, Abraham and Ermus, Cindy},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tpages = {555--566},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Gibson, A.","Ermus, C."],"key":"gibson_history_2019","id":"gibson_history_2019","bibbaseid":"gibson-ermus-thehistoryofscienceandthescienceofhistorycomputationalmethodsalgorithmsandthefutureofthefield-2019","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705543"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/groups/2386895/collections/NZUH6GJC/items?format=bibtex&limit=100","dataSources":["ZSPeFD7aTg23knb8Q"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["history","science","science","history","computational","methods","algorithms","future","field","gibson","ermus"],"title":"The History of Science and the Science of History: Computational Methods, Algorithms, and the Future of the Field","year":2019}