View source for Theme:D4b207e5-cbcc-452b-aced-4d7357c8dcb0

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Replicability in the Humanities
|Is About=There is an ongoing discussion whether replicability is possible and even desirable in the humanities. While some scholars argue in favor of it, others criticize the idea and claim that replicability is neither possible or necessary in all of humanities.
|Important Because=Some scholars argue that replicability is possible at least in the fields of humanities which are empirical, such as history, archeology, linguistics, literature, art and theology. In other words, they are based on “the collection of data”.<ref name=":0">Peels R. Replicability and replication in the humanities. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2019;4(2):1-12.</ref> One of the most common arguments that refute this idea is that study objects in the humanities are usually “unique phenomena”, for example certain historical events.<ref name=":1">Britt Holbrook J, [https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2v2a4&title=the-humanities-do-not-need-a-replication-drive#authors Penders] B, [https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2v2a4&title=the-humanities-do-not-need-a-replication-drive#authors de Rijcke] S. The humanities do not need a replication drive. CWTS Meaningful metrics. 2019 Jan 21. [cited 2020 Dec 18]. Available from: https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2v2a4&title=the-humanities-do-not-need-a-replication-drive. </ref> Therefore, it is not clear ''how'' a study should be replicated.

Scholars advocating for replicability in the humanities provide a counterargument: although subjects studied in the humanities are unique, they still have “multiple instances”. For example, French Revolution was as a unique event, however, a researcher can study it several times and each time generate new data (in artifacts, literary accounts and paintings) which enables repetition of a particular method (studying a text) and discovering new things about that unique event.<ref name=":0" /> 

Majority of scholars who refute the idea of replication in the humanities maintain that replication might be possible in some, but it is not possible in all fields of humanities. because the main reason for this is that the research issues and questions often rely on interpretation.<ref name=":1" /> Further intra-disciplinary and interdisciplinary debates regarding this topic should be encouraged. 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Students; Research institutions; Peer-reviewers; Journals
|Has Best Practice=There have been some cases of successful study replication. One of the most known cases is deciphering the Rosetta Stone. The Stone which was discovered during the Napoleonic Egyptian Campaign in 1799 contains texts both in Ancient Egyptian (hieroglyphic and Demotic script) and in Ancient Greek. By comparing the Demotic, hieroglyphic and ancient Greek texts, British scholar Thomas Young and French scholar Jean-François Champollion managed to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphic.<ref name=":0">Peels R. Replicability and replication in the humanities. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2019;4(2):1-12.</ref> Numerous scholars have studied the stone later and the main results have been replicated multiple times.<ref name=":0" /> <ref>Peels R, Bouter L. The possibility and desirability of replication in the humanities. Palgrave Commun. 2018;4(95):1-4.</ref>

Although there is no consensus in the research community, some research organisations, academic journals and platforms have been encouraging replication in the humanities. One of them is the [https://www.nwo.nl/en/about-nwo Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research] (NWO). The NWO recognizes that while not all humanities research is suitable for replication, this practice is possible in the empirical humanities and this is what it aims to “encourage and facilitate”.<ref>Third round in pilot Replication Studies now includes the humanities. 2019 March 12. [cited 2020 Dec 18]. Available from: https://www.nwo.nl/en/news/third-round-pilot-replication-studies-now-includes-humanities. </ref>

Cambridge University based journal [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-teaching Language Teaching] is also fostering original research articles which replicate previous experimental studies in the field of language learning and teaching.<ref name=":1">Replication studies in language learning and teaching: Questions and answers. Cambridge University Press. 2008 Jan 1. [cited 2020 Dec 18]. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-teaching/article/replication-studies-in-language-learning-and-teaching-questions-and-answers/00C85C01313CF18DEA75B49D1F997335. </ref> It emphasizes that replication studies can improve the way we interpret empirical research because they provide a second opinion regarding the hypotheses, methods and results of the original paper.<ref name=":1" /> 

Publishing platform [https://opencontext.org/ Open context], founded by archaeologists, also supports and encourages replication in the humanities.<ref>Challenges and Changes in Publishing, Spotlight on Classical Studies Part II: Multi-modal Publishing in the Humanities. 2020 March 21. [cited 2020 Dec 18]. Available from: https://www.classicslibrarians.org/challenges-and-changes-in-publishing-spotlight-on-classical-studies-part-ii-multi-modal-publishing-in-the-humanities/.</ref> 
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:4e8a521b-5c05-4284-b688-59bbd4921e33
|Related To Theme=Theme:7e07b7fa-793a-4282-a036-6fefe8480b3a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Lex Bouter; Rik Peels
|Has Virtue And Value=Transparency; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication Ethics; Data Management; Responsible research
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}