The potential of combining distant and close reading in the history of ideas

In this article we discuss the benefits of applying a mixed methods approach to the history of ideas. The article is based upon two cases of different character, applying methods from the field of digital textual analysis, and from the field of digital spatio-temporal map visualization. One case concerns all churches and prayer chapels in the Diocese of Luleå, and comprises 1200 entry points. The project originates in the question of whether a Bible belt exists in the north of Sweden; what it (if there is one) looks like, what its characteristics are, and how it has evolved over time. The spatio-temporal visualization both clarifies general patterns of religious fervor, but also reveals “white spots” and areas of conflicting interests, creating questions for further research. The second case stems from a larger project investigating contemporary online use of the concept  “Creativity”. Here, distributional concept analysis is performed using Sketch Engine on the corpus English Web 2020 (enTenTen20), consisting of 38 billion English words gathered in 2020 from Wikipedia, blogs, online magazines and journals.  Lists are assembled over which words are most often used together (co-locates) with creativity. Then, the research process is outlined, where use of such distant reading tools encourages returns to close readings of other materials (for instance speeches by American presidents) in an iterative process. The two cases illustrate the possibilities inherent in the process of moving between overarching, “distant”, levels, where digital methods can show large patterns, and more specific and detailed, “close” levels, with focus on particular places or points of interest. The mixed method approach we propose is not new, but we argue that by using digital (instead of analogous) methods this can be done at a much larger scale, with less effort. Furthermore, we will show how this oscillation between on the one hand distant, large-scale, computer aided methods, and on the other close readings and interpretations, generate new, interesting historical questions in an iterative process. Finally, we discuss our experiences of multidisciplinary approaches to digital history, describe setbacks and unexpected wins, and argue that the benefits and potential of this approach outweigh the risks.