重新思考和重新审视数据

IF 0.4 3区 社会学 Q4 MATERIALS SCIENCE, CHARACTERIZATION & TESTING
M. Bigold, Marie‐Louise Coolahan, Betty A. Schellenberg
{"title":"重新思考和重新审视数据","authors":"M. Bigold, Marie‐Louise Coolahan, Betty A. Schellenberg","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2021.0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"• The three projects we describe here seek to expand the ways in which we understand women’s relationships with texts by theorizing and applying robust methodologies to the study of early modern women’s book ownership, eighteenthcentury women’s libraries, and women’s compilation of manuscript verse miscellanies. This work challenges assumptions and biases in book history—in particular, the perceived absence of evidence in terms of both the texts themselves and the textual and intellectual labor involved in their production. One of the most exciting aspects of women’s book history is the variety and scope of “new” source materials hiding in plain sight in libraries and archives around the world. Although many of these items remain inaccessible to scholars for various practical reasons (location, time, and funds are always factors), often the primary barrier is conceptual: the simple perception of a lack of evidence. In fact, we have found plenty of material when searching for women-created manuscript verse miscellanies and the records of women’s libraries and book ownership. The sheer numbers of manuscript or textual witnesses involved have, however, made it difficult to assess and analyze the material. We have all struggled with the problem of genre, because of both the lack of defining conceptual parameters and the idiosyncrasies of surviving witnesses. Each of our studies aims, therefore, to make some of these “new” forms of contemporary evidence accessible to more systematic study and interpretation. Such data-driven work has the potential to transform histories of reading. Like many of our colleagues in this special issue, we believe that careful framing and processing of the quantitative data is a necessary groundwork for qualitative analyses. This calls for preliminary theorizing and categorizing. We have found ourselves","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking and Re-viewing Data\",\"authors\":\"M. Bigold, Marie‐Louise Coolahan, Betty A. Schellenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/hlq.2021.0017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"• The three projects we describe here seek to expand the ways in which we understand women’s relationships with texts by theorizing and applying robust methodologies to the study of early modern women’s book ownership, eighteenthcentury women’s libraries, and women’s compilation of manuscript verse miscellanies. This work challenges assumptions and biases in book history—in particular, the perceived absence of evidence in terms of both the texts themselves and the textual and intellectual labor involved in their production. One of the most exciting aspects of women’s book history is the variety and scope of “new” source materials hiding in plain sight in libraries and archives around the world. Although many of these items remain inaccessible to scholars for various practical reasons (location, time, and funds are always factors), often the primary barrier is conceptual: the simple perception of a lack of evidence. In fact, we have found plenty of material when searching for women-created manuscript verse miscellanies and the records of women’s libraries and book ownership. The sheer numbers of manuscript or textual witnesses involved have, however, made it difficult to assess and analyze the material. We have all struggled with the problem of genre, because of both the lack of defining conceptual parameters and the idiosyncrasies of surviving witnesses. Each of our studies aims, therefore, to make some of these “new” forms of contemporary evidence accessible to more systematic study and interpretation. Such data-driven work has the potential to transform histories of reading. Like many of our colleagues in this special issue, we believe that careful framing and processing of the quantitative data is a necessary groundwork for qualitative analyses. This calls for preliminary theorizing and categorizing. We have found ourselves\",\"PeriodicalId\":45445,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2021.0017\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, CHARACTERIZATION & TESTING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2021.0017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, CHARACTERIZATION & TESTING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

•我们在这里描述的三个项目试图扩大我们理解女性与文本关系的方式,通过理论化和应用强大的方法来研究早期现代女性的图书所有权,18世纪女性图书馆,以及女性手稿诗歌杂集的汇编。这项工作挑战了书籍历史上的假设和偏见,特别是在文本本身以及文本和智力劳动方面缺乏证据的感知。女性书籍历史中最令人兴奋的方面之一是隐藏在世界各地图书馆和档案馆的“新”原始材料的多样性和范围。尽管由于各种实际原因(地点、时间和资金总是因素),学者们仍然无法获得其中的许多项目,但通常主要的障碍是概念性的:缺乏证据的简单看法。事实上,我们在寻找女性创作的手稿诗歌杂记以及女性图书馆和图书所有权的记录时,发现了大量的材料。然而,所涉及的手稿或文字证人的数量之多,使评估和分析材料变得困难。我们都在与类型问题作斗争,因为缺乏明确的概念参数和幸存目击者的特质。因此,我们的每一项研究都旨在使这些“新”形式的当代证据能够得到更系统的研究和解释。这种数据驱动的工作有可能改变阅读的历史。与本期特刊的许多同事一样,我们认为,仔细构建和处理定量数据是进行定性分析的必要基础。这需要初步的理论化和分类。我们找到了自己
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking and Re-viewing Data
• The three projects we describe here seek to expand the ways in which we understand women’s relationships with texts by theorizing and applying robust methodologies to the study of early modern women’s book ownership, eighteenthcentury women’s libraries, and women’s compilation of manuscript verse miscellanies. This work challenges assumptions and biases in book history—in particular, the perceived absence of evidence in terms of both the texts themselves and the textual and intellectual labor involved in their production. One of the most exciting aspects of women’s book history is the variety and scope of “new” source materials hiding in plain sight in libraries and archives around the world. Although many of these items remain inaccessible to scholars for various practical reasons (location, time, and funds are always factors), often the primary barrier is conceptual: the simple perception of a lack of evidence. In fact, we have found plenty of material when searching for women-created manuscript verse miscellanies and the records of women’s libraries and book ownership. The sheer numbers of manuscript or textual witnesses involved have, however, made it difficult to assess and analyze the material. We have all struggled with the problem of genre, because of both the lack of defining conceptual parameters and the idiosyncrasies of surviving witnesses. Each of our studies aims, therefore, to make some of these “new” forms of contemporary evidence accessible to more systematic study and interpretation. Such data-driven work has the potential to transform histories of reading. Like many of our colleagues in this special issue, we believe that careful framing and processing of the quantitative data is a necessary groundwork for qualitative analyses. This calls for preliminary theorizing and categorizing. We have found ourselves
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY
HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信