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.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000012-QINU`"' Numerous scholars have studied the stone later and the main results have been replicated multiple times.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000013-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000014-QINU`"' 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”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000015-QINU`"' 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.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000016-QINU`"' 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.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000017-QINU`"' Publishing platform [https://opencontext.org/ Open context], founded by archaeologists, also supports and encourages replication in the humanities.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000018-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000019-QINU`"'
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”.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"' 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.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"' 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.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000F-QINU`"' 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.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000010-QINU`"' Further intra-disciplinary and interdisciplinary debates regarding this topic should be encouraged. '"`UNIQ--references-00000011-QINU`"'
Undergraduate Student / Graduate Student
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.
Replicability in the Humanities# QUERYb80b12b23e22413786f4ef890f104523
[[:Theme:D4b207e5-cbcc-452b-aced-4d7357c8dcb0]] [[Page author.Full Name::+]]
Replicability in the Humanities# QUERYb0472309f9ac031b1153ee386b79c7e7
Replicability in the Humanities# QUERY43587afa64f0a461534a9efdebba5ab8
Is there an overall theme which already addresses some relevant points?