Replicability and replication in the humanities.

IF 10.7 Q1 ETHICS Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2019-01-09 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-018-0060-4
Rik Peels
{"title":"Replicability and replication in the humanities.","authors":"Rik Peels","doi":"10.1186/s41073-018-0060-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A large number of scientists and several news platforms have, over the last few years, been speaking of a replication crisis in various academic disciplines, especially the biomedical and social sciences. This paper answers the novel question of whether we should also pursue replication in the humanities. First, I create more conceptual clarity by defining, in addition to the term \"humanities,\" various key terms in the debate on replication, such as \"reproduction\" and \"replicability.\" In doing so, I pay attention to what is supposed to be the object of replication: certain studies, particular inferences, of specific results. After that, I spell out three reasons for thinking that replication in the humanities is not possible and argue that they are unconvincing. Subsequently, I give a more detailed case for thinking that replication in the humanities is possible. Finally, I explain why such replication in the humanities is not only possible, but also desirable.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"4 ","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6348612/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0060-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A large number of scientists and several news platforms have, over the last few years, been speaking of a replication crisis in various academic disciplines, especially the biomedical and social sciences. This paper answers the novel question of whether we should also pursue replication in the humanities. First, I create more conceptual clarity by defining, in addition to the term "humanities," various key terms in the debate on replication, such as "reproduction" and "replicability." In doing so, I pay attention to what is supposed to be the object of replication: certain studies, particular inferences, of specific results. After that, I spell out three reasons for thinking that replication in the humanities is not possible and argue that they are unconvincing. Subsequently, I give a more detailed case for thinking that replication in the humanities is possible. Finally, I explain why such replication in the humanities is not only possible, but also desirable.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人文学科中的可复制性和可复制性。
在过去几年里,大量科学家和几个新闻平台一直在谈论各个学术学科的复制危机,尤其是生物医学和社会科学。本文回答了一个新颖的问题,即我们是否也应该在人文学科中追求复制。首先,除了“人文学科”一词之外,我还定义了关于复制的辩论中的各种关键术语,如“复制”和“可复制性”,从而使概念更加清晰。在这样做的过程中,我关注复制的对象:特定的研究、特定的推论、特定的结果。在那之后,我列出了三个理由,认为在人文学科中复制是不可能的,并认为它们不令人信服。随后,我给出了一个更详细的案例来思考在人文学科中复制是可能的。最后,我解释了为什么在人文学科中这样的复制不仅是可能的,而且是可取的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reverse spin bias: preliminary observations of reporting bias in medical systematic reviews. The role of research ethics committees in addressing optimism in sample size calculations: a meta-epidemiological study. Using reporting guidelines to improve the reproducibility of cooking Christmas tree meringues: the "People tasting trees" cluster-randomised controlled trial. The disclosure of potential conflicts of interest among editors and members of editorial boards in leading ethics journals. Research methodology education in Europe: a multi-country, cross-disciplinary survey of current practices and perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1