This is a very old issue in the Classics field,  in the humanities 
and the 'human sciences' generally. And it has to do with more 
than just investigative methodology, informed critical judgement, 
( or heaven forbid ! ) replicability etc. It would be fascinating to 
go into great length on the factors and issues involved, in a SSK 
sort of way -- but this isn't the place to do that, it seems to me. 
Bruce Fraser is quite right :  "a stimulating question, and useful 
replies", but only a small first step, actually.
 
Regarding the earlier formulation :  
 
> I should just specify the procedure I used, while sharing my data 
> with the reader, for him to interpret them (this are the basics of 
> methodology in positive sciences).
 
I'd say myself that we ought to be extremely careful in brandishing 
this kind of analogy. It's not just a matter of terms like "positive 
[ ? :  positivistic ? :-) ] sciences", but of how one must understand 
concepts like "procedure" and "data" when considering particle 
physics, cognitive psychology, Greek philology and so on.
 
Complex but, as I said, potentially extremely fascinating. My own 
impression is that Classicists generally speaking have never been 
terribly keen on methodological candour, reflexivity ( in the 
Woolgarian sense ) and the like. Quite understandable.
 
- Laval Hunsucker
  Breukelen, Nederland


________________________________

Van: The Digital Classicist List namens bruce fraser
Verzonden: ma 1-2-2010 12:02
Aan: [log in to unmask]
Onderwerp: Re: [DIGITALCLASSICIST] Use of digital projects by others


A stimulating question, and useful replies.

Although I didn't think that a discussion of "impact" would reach these pages so soon, it is worth 'stepping back' to consider how digital resources fit into the overall frameworks of our subjects.

With that in mind, I'd hope we always cite any substantial use of digital sources like the TLG, just as we would cite any other bibliographic resource and investigative methodology.  This would firstly be helpful to the TLG, because such citations provide more specific data on usage than mere 'footfall', which can help their strategic planning [I'll come back to this below], and can also be used by them to support funding bids.

It will also help our readers and students, in two ways. First, by showing the methodology used in a particular piece of research, and secondly by showing the data-set used.

This second point is, I think, easily overlooked. In a linguistic investigation, say a study of vocabulary used in Presocratic philosophy, it's worth noting that we've used the TLG rather than an Oxford or Teubner text, even if it's the same text as used by TLG. This is because the TLG text-formatting doesn't distinguish between the Presocratic 'fragment' as quoted by a much later author, and that author's own text which includes the quotation. So our conclusions on the vocabulary of Heraclitus may be seriously skewed, unless this is taken into account. And if we're studying New Comedy, the TLG texts give very outdated readings: most of the fragments of Menander, for example, are still taken from the 1888 Teubner edition. [While a small number of the plays are from the 1972 Oxford, current scholarship will wish to include the readings of the de Gruyter edition of 1984 and other more recent editions.]

I do not mention these details to criticise the TLG, which is a wonderful and indispensable resource, but simply to point out that scholarship rests upon the quality of its data, and we also owe it to our readers to tell them how it's been gathered. And we owe it to the staff of TLG to give them feedback on their texts, so they have the information to update texts where necessary [a very expensive operation, of course]. 

Although I've stuck with the TLG as example, because it's a resource I know quite well, I'd wish to apply the same standards of academic courtesy and transparency when using any resource, digital or otherwise.

On the first point above, I would also heartily support what Peter has written on the topic of search software. It's worth noting that the TLG is, despite its name, not a Thesaurus [a semantically-organised reference-book] but a Digital Library, and the search-software operates and makes selections within its texts. Information on that is therefore equally helpful not only for readers of research-work, but for the software developers like Peter. I see that the question of how this feedback can be gathered is being addressed by the latest posts. Perhaps the owners of digital resources might wish to make more explicit requests for user-feedback.

Thanks,

Bruce


 

.


Paolo Monella wrote: 

	Very interesting question! Which, in my opinion, becomes even more interesting when the tool has a deep impact on our research procedures. For example, the TLG changes the way we study intertextuality. The occurrence of a phrase in similar passages is today no discovery of the philologist's "Ohrenphilologie" (philology "by ear": learned reader's memory), but given data, since one can perform a search through digital textual corpora like the TLG automatically. Most philologists today do so. Yet, hardly anyone writes a footnote saying "From a TLG search it results that...".
	
	I find that this issue is even more serious if we think of the limits that these tools (like every tool) have. When I search the PHI5.2 Latin corpus with the Diogenes application for the co-occurrence of "hodie" and "cras" and I find 40 matches, this doesn't mean that, as we often write in our papers, "there are 40 instances of this direct opposition in the Latin literature". There are certainly a number of instances that are not included in the PHI5.2 corpus (Late Antiquity, textual variants etc.).
	
	This does not mean that my results are "wrong" or useless. I should just specify the procedure I used, while sharing my data with the reader, for him to interpret them (this are the basics of methodology in positive sciences).
	
	I am under the impression that:
	a) we classicists are often somewhat ashamed of using these tools, and indulge in leaving the doubt in the reader whether our "parallel texts hunt" is the result of our noble "Ohrenphilologie" or of "trivial" computing;
	b) we also often forget the relevance that the limits of our tools have on the interpretation of the results (this may also happen, I think, with tools like the traditional print Thesaurus Linguae Graecae).
	
	All best,
	Paolo
	
	
	-------- Original-Nachricht --------
	  

		Datum: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:29:39 +0200
		Von: Robert Barron <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
		An: [log in to unmask]
		Betreff: [DIGITALCLASSICIST] Use of digital projects by others
		    

	  

		Hello,
		
		There are dozens of projects in the digital classics;
		http://www.arts-humanities.net/disciplines/classics_ancient_history
		http://wiki.digitalclassicist.org/Category:Projects
		
		Is there any measurement of how much these projects are used, and cited,
		by
		researchers outside of the origional groups?
		
		If someone uses the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, Volterra or The
		History
		of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama (to name just three random ones I
		picked), would you expect them to be cited?
		Or would it be "transparent", like not citing Lewis & Short or Perseus
		when
		all you did was look up a word?
		
		Robert Barron