1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application
  4. Volume 5, 2018
  5. Article

Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application

Volume 5, 2018

Words, Words, Words: How the Digital Humanities Are Integrating Diverse Research Fields to Study People

Abstract

The rapidly developing field of digital humanities (DH) is showing how unprecedented volumes of data such as written expression can be studied to reveal new insights into humans and, therefore, into individual and collective experiences within and across societies. Scholars from disciplines such as literature and history are collaborating with scientists from disciplines such as statistics and computer science. Moreover, these interdisciplinary teams often reach beyond campuses to companies as well as local, national, and international public and nonprofit institutions. Surprisingly, the computational research that began in the humanities in the 1950s did not develop an important presence within mainstream scholarship until half a century later. The DH experiences thus far reflect the complexity of both human expression and research collaborations across diverse fields and sectors. Learning from past successes and failures will help meet today's data analytic challenges and prepare us for opportunities in statistical applications ranging from literary studies and cybersecurity to business intelligence and health indicators.

Keyword(s): culture, history, interdisciplinary, society, statistics, text
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-031017-100547
2018-03-07
2025-04-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/statistics/5/1/annurev-statistics-031017-100547.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-031017-100547&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aitken AJ, Bailey RW, Hamilton-Smith N. 1973. The Computer and Literary Studies Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Amer. Assoc. Univ. Women. 2016. Solving the equation: the variables for women's success in engineering and computing Washington, DC: Amer. Assoc. Univ. Women. http://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation/ [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayers EL. 1999. The pasts and futures of digital history Charlottesville: Va. Cent. Digit. Hist http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/PastsFutures.html [Google Scholar]
  4. Bailey RW. 1982. Computing in the Humanities Amsterdam: North Holland [Google Scholar]
  5. Baskerville P. 2015. Big Data: So What?!. Presented at McMaster Univ., Dep. Hist. Annu. Grad. Colloq., Big History, March 26 Hamilton, Ont., Can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRtcyaJ6CqI&index=7&list=PLzLUWMt2NZLQIvHuAQZ3IYCLCWDD0FAiv
  6. Baskerville P, Sager EW. 1998. The census as historical source. Unwilling Idlers: The Urban Unemployed and Their Families in Late Victorian195–216 Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press [Google Scholar]
  7. Berry DM. 2011. The computational turn: thinking about the digital humanities. Cult. Mach. 12:1–22 [Google Scholar]
  8. Blustain H, Spicer D. 2005. Digital humanities at the crossroads: the University of Virginia ECAR case study 6 Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE https://library.educause.edu/∼/media/files/library/2005/7/ecs0506-pdf.pdf [Google Scholar]
  9. Bod R. 2013. Who's afraid of patterns? The particular versus the universal and the meaning of humanities 3.0. BMGN: Low Ctries. Hist. Rev. 128:4171–80 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bogue AG. 1983. Clio and the Bitch Goddess: Quantification in American Political History Beverly Hills, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  11. Bonnett J, Kee K. 2009. Transitions: a prologue and preview of digital humanities research in Canada. Digit. Stud./Le Champ Numér. 1:2 https://www.digitalstudies.org/articles/10.16995/dscn.106/ [Google Scholar]
  12. Br. Acad. 2012. Society counts—quantitative studies in the social sciences and humanities: a British Academy position statement October London: Br. Acad https://www.britac.ac.uk/publications/society-counts-quantitative-studies-social-sciences-and-humanities [Google Scholar]
  13. Bridenbaugh C. 1963. The great mutation. https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/presidential-addresses/carl-bridenbaugh
  14. Burrows JF. 1992. Computers and the study of literature. Computers and Written Texts CS Butler 167–204 Oxford: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  15. Busa R. 1980. The annals of humanities computing: the Index Thomisticus. Comput. Humanit. 14(2):83–90 [Google Scholar]
  16. Citro CF. 2016. The US federal statistical system's past, present, and future. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 3:347–73 [Google Scholar]
  17. Clement T. 2013. Text analysis, data mining, and visualizations in literary scholarship. Literary Studies in the Digital Age: An Evolving Anthologyed. KM Price, R Siemens. New York: Mod. Lang. Assoc. Am https://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/text-analysis-data-mining-and-visualizations-in-literary-scholarship/ [Google Scholar]
  18. Coats RH. 1946. Beginnings in Canadian statistics. Can. Hist. Rev. 37:109–30 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cohen P. 2010. Digital keys for unlocking the humanities’ riches. New York Times Nov. 16 C1 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/arts/17digital.html [Google Scholar]
  20. Cohen PC. 1999. A Calculating People: The Spread of Numeracy in Early America New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  21. Connelly M, Immerman RH. 2015. What Hillary Clinton's emails really reveal. New York Times March 4 A25 [Google Scholar]
  22. Curti M. 1959. The Making of an American Community: A Case Study of Democracy in a Frontier County Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  23. Curtis B. 1994. On the local construction of statistical knowledge: making up the 1861 census of the Canadas. J. Hist. Sociol. 7:4416–34 [Google Scholar]
  24. Darroch G, Soltow L. 1991. Property and Inequality in Victorian Ontario: Structural Patterns and Cultural Communities in the 1871 Census Toronto: Univ. Toronto [Google Scholar]
  25. DeRose SJ, Durand DG, Mylonas E, Renear AH. 1990. What is text, really?. J. Comput. High. Educ. 1:23–26 [Google Scholar]
  26. De Veaux RD, Agarwal M, Averett M, Baumer BS, Bray A. et al. 2017. Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate programs in data science. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 4:15–30 [Google Scholar]
  27. Dom. Bur. Stat. 1955. Mechanical techniques. Ninth Census of Canada 1951 Vol. 11: Administrative Report, pp. 125–52. Ottawa, Can.: Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery [Google Scholar]
  28. Drummond C, Matwin S, Gaffield C. 2006. Inferring and revising theories with confidence: analyzing bilingualism in the 1901 Canadian census. Appl. Artif. Intel. 20:11–33 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dunae PA. 1998. Making the 1891 census in British Columbia. Hist. Soc./Soc. Hist. 31:6222–39 [Google Scholar]
  30. Faller G. 2016. Women in STEM winning in digital humanities: press release News Release: May 19, 2015. https://www.insight-centre.org/content/women-stem-winning-digital-humanities [Google Scholar]
  31. Fenton N, Neil M, Berger D. 2016. Bayes and the law. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 3:51–77 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fitch N. 1984. Statistical fantasies and historical facts: history in crisis and its methodological implications. Hist. Meth. 17:239–54 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fortini A. 2009. Literary Alzheimer's. New York Times Dec. 13 [Google Scholar]
  34. Franke B, Plante J-F, Roscher R, Lee EA, Smyth C. et al. 2016. Statistical inference, learning and models in big data. Int. Stat. Rev. 84:3371–89 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gaffield C. 1988. Machines and minds: historians and the emerging collaboration. Hist. Soc./Soc. Hist. 21:42312–17 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gaffield C. 2005. Evidence of what? Changing answers to the question of historical sources as illustrated by research using the census. Building New Bridges: Sources, Methods, and Interdisciplinarity J Keshen, S Perrier 265–74 Ottawa, Can.: Univ. Ottawa Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Gaffield C. 2007. Conceptualizing and constructing the Canadian Century Research Infrastructure. Hist. Meth. 40:254–64 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gaffield C. 2016.a Mindset and guidelines: insights to enhance collaborative, campus-wide, cross-sectoral digital humanities initiatives. Int. J. Humanit. Arts Comput. 10:18–21 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gaffield C. 2016.b The surprising ascendance of digital humanities: and some suggestions for an uncertain future. Digit. Stud./Le Champ Numér. 9: http://doi.org/10.16995/dscn.2 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Graff H. 2015. Undisciplining Knowledge: Interdisciplinarity in the Twentieth Century Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  41. Graham S, Milligan I, Weingart S. 2016. Exploring Big Historical Data: The Historian's Macroscope London: Imperial College Press [Google Scholar]
  42. Golumbia D. 2009. The Cultural Logic of Computation Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  43. Gouglas S, Rockwell G, Smith V, Hoosein S, Quamen H. 2013. Before the beginning: the formation of humanities computing as a discipline in Canada. Digit. Stud./Le Champ Numér. 3:1 https://www.digitalstudies.org/articles/10.16995/dscn.244/ [Google Scholar]
  44. Green AG, Gutmann MP. 2007. Building partnerships among social science researchers, institution-based repositories and domain specific data archives. OCLC Syst. Serv. Int. Digit. Libr. Perspect. 23:135–53 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hacking I. 1990. The Taming of Chance Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  46. Hockey S. 2004. The history of humanities computing. A Companion to Digital Humanities S Schreibman, R Siemens, J Unsworth Oxford, UK: Blackwell https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470999875.ch1 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hoover D. 2013. Quantitative analysis and literary studies. A Companion to Digital Literary Studies R Siemens, S Schreibman 517–33 London: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  48. Ide N, Véronis J. 1995. Text Encoding Initiative: Background and Context Dordrecht, Ger.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  49. Inst. Adv. Technol. Humanit. 2017. About IATH Charlottesville, VA: Inst. Adv. Technol. Humanit http://www.iath.virginia.edu/about_iath.html [Google Scholar]
  50. Irvine D. 2015. From angel to agile: the business of the digital humanities. Schol. Res. Commun. 6:4 https://doi.org/10.22230/src.2015v6n4a208 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. Jockers ML. 2013. Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press [Google Scholar]
  52. Jones SE. 2016. Roberto Busa, S.J., and the Emergence of Humanities Computing: The Priest and the Punched Cards New York: Taylor and Francis [Google Scholar]
  53. Keller S, Korkmaz G, Orr M, Schroeder A, Shipp S. 2017. The evolution of data quality: understanding the transdisciplinary origins of data quality concepts and approaches. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 4:85–108 [Google Scholar]
  54. Klein LF, Gold MK. 2016. Digital humanities: the expanded field. Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016 MK Gold, LF Klein ix Minneapolis, MN: Univ. Minn. Press [Google Scholar]
  55. Lamont M. 2010. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  56. Lancashire I. 2005. Computers in the linguistic humanities: an overview. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics K Brown 789–809 Amsterdam: Elsevier. , 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  57. Lancashire I. 2010. Forgetful Muses: Reading the Author in the Text Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press [Google Scholar]
  58. Lancashire I, Hirst G. 2009. Vocabulary changes in Agatha Christie's mysteries as an indication of dementia: a case study Presented at the 19th Annu. Rotman Res. Inst. Conf., Cognitive Aging: Research and Practice, March 8–10, 2009 Toronto: ftp://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Lancashire+Hirst-extabs-2009.pdf [Google Scholar]
  59. Leroi AM. 2015. One republic of learning: digitizing the humanities. New York Times Feb. 13. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/opinion/digitizing-the-humanities.html?_r=0 [Google Scholar]
  60. Li J. 2016. Exploring the logic and landscape of the knowledge system: multilevel structures, each multiscaled with complexity at the mesoscale. Engineering 2:276–85 [Google Scholar]
  61. Liu K, Meng X-L. 2016. There is individualized treatment. Why not individualized inference?. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 3:79–111 [Google Scholar]
  62. Luhn HP. 1960. Key word-in-context index for technical literature (KWIC index). Am. Doc. 11:288–95 [Google Scholar]
  63. Lusignan S, North JS. 1977. Computing in the Humanities Waterloo, Can.: Waterloo Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  64. McCusker JJ. 1969. Book review: Enterprise & Empire: Merchant and Gentry Investments in the Expansion of England, 1575–1630. Hist. Meth. Newsl. 2:314–18 [Google Scholar]
  65. Michel J-B, Shen YK, Aiden AV, Veres A, Gray MK. et al. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331:176–82 [Google Scholar]
  66. Miller JH, Page SE. 2007. Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  67. Milligan I. 2013. Illusionary order: online databases, optical character recognition, and Canadian history, 1997–2010. Can. Hist. Rev. 94:4540–69 https://doi.org/10.3138/chr.694 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. Mitchell JL. 1974. Computers in the Humanities Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press [Google Scholar]
  69. Munro H. 1964. The impacts of culture, technology on each other: research project with awesome implications. Globe Mail May 7 2 [Google Scholar]
  70. Novak P. 1988. That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity” Question and the American Historical Profession Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  71. Nyhan J, Welsh A. 2013. Uncovering the “hidden histories” of computing in the humanities 1949–1980: findings and reflections on the pilot project. Digital Humanities 2013: Conference Abstracts326–29 Univ. Neb. Lincoln: July 16–19. http://dh2013.unl.edu [Google Scholar]
  72. Perron P, Sbrocchi LG, Colilli P, Danesi M. 2000. Semiotics as a Bridge Between the Humanities and the Sciences Toronto: LEGAS [Google Scholar]
  73. Porter TM. 1986. The Rise of Statistical Thinking, 1820–1900 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  74. Priego E. 2011. “Father Roberto Busa: one academic's impact on HE and my career.”. Higher Education Network Blog, The Guardian Aug. 12. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2011/aug/12/father-roberto-busa-academic-impact [Google Scholar]
  75. Roberts E, Woollard M, Ronnander C, Dillon LY, Thorvaldsen G. 2003. Occupational classification in the North Atlantic population project. Hist. Meth. 36:89–96 [Google Scholar]
  76. Rothberg M. 2010. Quantifying culture? A response to Eric Slauter. Am. Lit. Hist. 22:2319–24 https://academic.oup.com/alh/article-abstract/22/2/341/172183?redirectedFrom=fulltext [Google Scholar]
  77. Sawyer RK. 2005. Social Emergence: Societies as Complex Systems Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  78. Schreibman S, Siemens R, Unsworth J. 2004. A Companion to Digital Humanities Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  79. Siemens L. 2013. Developing academic capacity in digital humanities: thoughts from the Canadian community. Digit. Humanit. Q. 7:1 https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/8201/Siemens_Lynne_DHQ_2013.pdf?sequence=1 [Google Scholar]
  80. Siemens R, Moorman D. 2006. Mind Technologies: Humanities Computing and the Canadian Academic Community Calgary, Can.: Univ. Calgary Press [Google Scholar]
  81. Sinclair S, Rockwell G. 2014. Towards an archaeology of text analysis tools. Digital Humanities 2014: Conference Abstracts359–60 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and Univ. de Lausanne Switz: July 7–12. http://dharchive.org/paper/DH2014/Paper-778.xml [Google Scholar]
  82. Smith PH. 1984. Statistics, epistemology and history. Hist. Meth. 17:3 [Google Scholar]
  83. Social Sci. Humanit. Res. Counc. (SSHRC). 2009. Image, text, sound and technology Summer 2009 competition. http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/itst/workshops-ateliers-eng.aspx [Google Scholar]
  84. Stat. Can. 2009. Statistics Canada Quality Guidelines Ottawa, Can.: Stat. Can. , 5th ed.. [Google Scholar]
  85. Swierenga RP. 1970. Clio and computers: a survey of computerized research in history. Comput. Humanit. 5:11–21 [Google Scholar]
  86. Tasman P. 1957. Literary data processing. IBM J. Res. Dev. 1:3249–56 [Google Scholar]
  87. Thomas WG. 2004. Computing and the historical imagination. A Companion to Digital Humanities S Schreibman, R Siemens, J Unsworth Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  88. Va. Cent. Digit. Hist. 2017. History and highlights. Outreach Univ. Va., Charlottesville, VA. http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/index.php?page=Outreach [Google Scholar]
  89. Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. 2016. The ASA's statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Amer. Stat. 70:2129–33 [Google Scholar]
  90. Williford C, Henry C. 2012. One Culture. Computationally Intensive Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Washington, DC: Counc. Libr. Info. Resour. [Google Scholar]
  91. Winchester I. 1970. The linkage of historical records by man and computer: techniques and problems. J. Interdiscip. Hist. 1:107–24 [Google Scholar]
  92. Winter TN. 1999. Roberto Busa, S.J., and the Invention of the Machine-Generated Concordance Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department Paper 70. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/classicsfacpub/70 [Google Scholar]
  93. Wisbey RE. 1971. The Computer in Literary and Linguistic Research Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  94. Zemsky RM. 1969. Numbers and history: the dilemma of measurement. Comput. Humanit. 4:31–40 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-031017-100547
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error