The double bind of validation: distant reading and the digital humanities' “trough of disillusionment”

Abstract

Abstract The digital humanities (DH) is currently in the phase of the “hype cycle” known as the “trough of disillusionment.” Franco Moretti, perhaps the most prominent practitioner of the most prominent discipline of DH—“distant reading,” the computational analysis of large quantities of literary texts—recently expressed his exasperation with the state of DH, reflecting “our work could have been better” and asking why, “considering the amount of energy, talent, and tools, going into [DH], that we have such difficulty producing great results.” Surveying leading recent work in distant reading by Moretti, Matthew L. Jockers, Laura Mandell, Ryan Heuser, Long Le‐Khac, and Joanna Swafford, this paper provides a twofold explanation to the field's failure to produce “great results.” Both explanations relate to “validation,” the process by which quantitative results are shown to be reliable and trustworthy. Many distant reading projects have produced disappointing results because they have been more interested in validating their tools—showing that their computational methods are able to confirm existing stereotypes—than in pursuing genuine discoveries. Many others, meanwhile, produce provocative results that cannot be meaningfully validated. Although the double bind of validation is real, I propose collaboration and “interdisciplinary adaptation” as promising solutions.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 19 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.