IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v34y2025iprvaf052..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Replicability and the humanities: the problem with universal measures of research quality

Author

Listed:
  • Chloe Patton

Abstract

Responding to claims that replication studies represent epistemic progress in the humanities, this article outlines how empirical research in the humanities renders universal metascientific measures of research quality problematic at best. It uses Samuel Huntington’s often-replicated Clash of Civilizations as a case study to introduce key onto-epistemic issues at stake, highlighting the incompatibility of non-positivist humanities research paradigms with replicability. It then considers two recent efforts to replicate a seminal humanities text from the field of religion and science, arguing that while these studies make useful findings, they do not translate to epistemic progress in the humanities more generally. In doing so, this paper serves not only as a rejoinder to STEM-centric conceptions of research quality, but also a defence of transformative humanities research in the context of widespread attacks on humanities scholarship.

Suggested Citation

  • Chloe Patton, 2025. "Replicability and the humanities: the problem with universal measures of research quality," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 34, pages 1-052..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf052.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaf052
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf052.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.