Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspective

Autores
Küsters, Anselm; Volkind, Maria Laura; Wagner, Andreas
Año de publicación
2020
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
For reasons of curiosity, we perused the two recent Oxford handbooks on legal history looking for discussions of digital methods in legal history. One of the fundamental decisions to be made when organizing such a handbook is defining which methodological approaches deserve an article of their own and which ones are to be understood rather as cross-cutting themes to be discussed in the context of many articles dedicated to other things. In the case of digital methods in legal history, this decision seems to have been a tough one – at one point, you can find a curious reference to a »chapter on ›Legal History and Digital Humanities‹« (OHBLH 354), but in the final publication there is no such text. However, discussing digital methods in the context of other subjects has, in our opinion, the disadvantage that more systematic, methodological arguments cannot really be developed. Put more concretely, the most ›substantial‹ contributions regarding digital methods are, for whatever reason, those on »The Intellectual History of Law« by Assaf Likhovski, on »Taking the Long View« by Paul D. Halliday, on »Quantitative Legal History« by Daniel Klerman, and on »Indian Law« by Mitra Sharafi, all of which are in the Oxford Handbook on Legal History. (Equally surprising, there is no mention of digital methods at all in Angela Fernandez’s »Legal History as The History of Legal Texts«.) However, even these articles do not really ›discuss‹ digital methods, rather they merely refer to them (and to some projects) as contributions of sorts to their respective fields of interest. Thus, if you are looking for digital methods in those handbooks, you can hardly find more than some namedropping passages where things like »digital mapping […], network analysis […], text analysis« (OHBLH 845f.) are mentioned, together with references to example projects where they have been employed but without any explanation as to: – why these methods are mentioned and not others, – what they are doing, to which end and under what circumstances, – what, possibly transformative, impact these methods have on the (respective sub-) field of legal history, and – what a scholar considering to apply these methods should be aware of. While the space for this is limited, the present Forum contribution tries to mitigate the scarcity of such discussions by presenting and discussing a few textual analyses that make use – for demonstration purposes – of digital methods. Some other methods of analysis, network analysis, and geo-mapping (among others), cannot be covered here, but we provide a link to an online bibliography where you can find them applied to legal history or a related domain, and discussed critically. A general discussion of digital perspectives beyond concrete methods of analysis concludes this contribution.
Fil: Küsters, Anselm. Max-planck-institut Für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte.; Alemania
Fil: Volkind, Maria Laura. Instituto de Investigaciones de Historia del Derecho; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Wagner, Andreas. Max-planck-institut Für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte.; Alemania
Materia
Digital Humanities
Legal History
Text Mining Perspective
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/170658

id CONICETDig_583785174acc06587553b47dc76e40b2
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/170658
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspectiveKüsters, AnselmVolkind, Maria LauraWagner, AndreasDigital HumanitiesLegal HistoryText Mining Perspectivehttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.5https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5For reasons of curiosity, we perused the two recent Oxford handbooks on legal history looking for discussions of digital methods in legal history. One of the fundamental decisions to be made when organizing such a handbook is defining which methodological approaches deserve an article of their own and which ones are to be understood rather as cross-cutting themes to be discussed in the context of many articles dedicated to other things. In the case of digital methods in legal history, this decision seems to have been a tough one – at one point, you can find a curious reference to a »chapter on ›Legal History and Digital Humanities‹« (OHBLH 354), but in the final publication there is no such text. However, discussing digital methods in the context of other subjects has, in our opinion, the disadvantage that more systematic, methodological arguments cannot really be developed. Put more concretely, the most ›substantial‹ contributions regarding digital methods are, for whatever reason, those on »The Intellectual History of Law« by Assaf Likhovski, on »Taking the Long View« by Paul D. Halliday, on »Quantitative Legal History« by Daniel Klerman, and on »Indian Law« by Mitra Sharafi, all of which are in the Oxford Handbook on Legal History. (Equally surprising, there is no mention of digital methods at all in Angela Fernandez’s »Legal History as The History of Legal Texts«.) However, even these articles do not really ›discuss‹ digital methods, rather they merely refer to them (and to some projects) as contributions of sorts to their respective fields of interest. Thus, if you are looking for digital methods in those handbooks, you can hardly find more than some namedropping passages where things like »digital mapping […], network analysis […], text analysis« (OHBLH 845f.) are mentioned, together with references to example projects where they have been employed but without any explanation as to: – why these methods are mentioned and not others, – what they are doing, to which end and under what circumstances, – what, possibly transformative, impact these methods have on the (respective sub-) field of legal history, and – what a scholar considering to apply these methods should be aware of. While the space for this is limited, the present Forum contribution tries to mitigate the scarcity of such discussions by presenting and discussing a few textual analyses that make use – for demonstration purposes – of digital methods. Some other methods of analysis, network analysis, and geo-mapping (among others), cannot be covered here, but we provide a link to an online bibliography where you can find them applied to legal history or a related domain, and discussed critically. A general discussion of digital perspectives beyond concrete methods of analysis concludes this contribution.Fil: Küsters, Anselm. Max-planck-institut Für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte.; AlemaniaFil: Volkind, Maria Laura. Instituto de Investigaciones de Historia del Derecho; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Wagner, Andreas. Max-planck-institut Für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte.; AlemaniaMax Planck Institute for European Legal History2020-09info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/zipapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/170658Küsters, Anselm; Volkind, Maria Laura; Wagner, Andreas; Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspective; Max Planck Institute for European Legal History; Rechtsgeschicht; 2020; 27; 9-2020; 244-2591619-49932195-9617CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://rg.rg.mpg.de/en/article_id/1257info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.12946/rg27/244-259info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:21:01Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/170658instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:21:01.471CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspective
title Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspective
spellingShingle Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspective
Küsters, Anselm
Digital Humanities
Legal History
Text Mining Perspective
title_short Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspective
title_full Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspective
title_fullStr Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspective
title_full_unstemmed Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspective
title_sort Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspective
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Küsters, Anselm
Volkind, Maria Laura
Wagner, Andreas
author Küsters, Anselm
author_facet Küsters, Anselm
Volkind, Maria Laura
Wagner, Andreas
author_role author
author2 Volkind, Maria Laura
Wagner, Andreas
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Digital Humanities
Legal History
Text Mining Perspective
topic Digital Humanities
Legal History
Text Mining Perspective
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.5
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv For reasons of curiosity, we perused the two recent Oxford handbooks on legal history looking for discussions of digital methods in legal history. One of the fundamental decisions to be made when organizing such a handbook is defining which methodological approaches deserve an article of their own and which ones are to be understood rather as cross-cutting themes to be discussed in the context of many articles dedicated to other things. In the case of digital methods in legal history, this decision seems to have been a tough one – at one point, you can find a curious reference to a »chapter on ›Legal History and Digital Humanities‹« (OHBLH 354), but in the final publication there is no such text. However, discussing digital methods in the context of other subjects has, in our opinion, the disadvantage that more systematic, methodological arguments cannot really be developed. Put more concretely, the most ›substantial‹ contributions regarding digital methods are, for whatever reason, those on »The Intellectual History of Law« by Assaf Likhovski, on »Taking the Long View« by Paul D. Halliday, on »Quantitative Legal History« by Daniel Klerman, and on »Indian Law« by Mitra Sharafi, all of which are in the Oxford Handbook on Legal History. (Equally surprising, there is no mention of digital methods at all in Angela Fernandez’s »Legal History as The History of Legal Texts«.) However, even these articles do not really ›discuss‹ digital methods, rather they merely refer to them (and to some projects) as contributions of sorts to their respective fields of interest. Thus, if you are looking for digital methods in those handbooks, you can hardly find more than some namedropping passages where things like »digital mapping […], network analysis […], text analysis« (OHBLH 845f.) are mentioned, together with references to example projects where they have been employed but without any explanation as to: – why these methods are mentioned and not others, – what they are doing, to which end and under what circumstances, – what, possibly transformative, impact these methods have on the (respective sub-) field of legal history, and – what a scholar considering to apply these methods should be aware of. While the space for this is limited, the present Forum contribution tries to mitigate the scarcity of such discussions by presenting and discussing a few textual analyses that make use – for demonstration purposes – of digital methods. Some other methods of analysis, network analysis, and geo-mapping (among others), cannot be covered here, but we provide a link to an online bibliography where you can find them applied to legal history or a related domain, and discussed critically. A general discussion of digital perspectives beyond concrete methods of analysis concludes this contribution.
Fil: Küsters, Anselm. Max-planck-institut Für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte.; Alemania
Fil: Volkind, Maria Laura. Instituto de Investigaciones de Historia del Derecho; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Wagner, Andreas. Max-planck-institut Für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte.; Alemania
description For reasons of curiosity, we perused the two recent Oxford handbooks on legal history looking for discussions of digital methods in legal history. One of the fundamental decisions to be made when organizing such a handbook is defining which methodological approaches deserve an article of their own and which ones are to be understood rather as cross-cutting themes to be discussed in the context of many articles dedicated to other things. In the case of digital methods in legal history, this decision seems to have been a tough one – at one point, you can find a curious reference to a »chapter on ›Legal History and Digital Humanities‹« (OHBLH 354), but in the final publication there is no such text. However, discussing digital methods in the context of other subjects has, in our opinion, the disadvantage that more systematic, methodological arguments cannot really be developed. Put more concretely, the most ›substantial‹ contributions regarding digital methods are, for whatever reason, those on »The Intellectual History of Law« by Assaf Likhovski, on »Taking the Long View« by Paul D. Halliday, on »Quantitative Legal History« by Daniel Klerman, and on »Indian Law« by Mitra Sharafi, all of which are in the Oxford Handbook on Legal History. (Equally surprising, there is no mention of digital methods at all in Angela Fernandez’s »Legal History as The History of Legal Texts«.) However, even these articles do not really ›discuss‹ digital methods, rather they merely refer to them (and to some projects) as contributions of sorts to their respective fields of interest. Thus, if you are looking for digital methods in those handbooks, you can hardly find more than some namedropping passages where things like »digital mapping […], network analysis […], text analysis« (OHBLH 845f.) are mentioned, together with references to example projects where they have been employed but without any explanation as to: – why these methods are mentioned and not others, – what they are doing, to which end and under what circumstances, – what, possibly transformative, impact these methods have on the (respective sub-) field of legal history, and – what a scholar considering to apply these methods should be aware of. While the space for this is limited, the present Forum contribution tries to mitigate the scarcity of such discussions by presenting and discussing a few textual analyses that make use – for demonstration purposes – of digital methods. Some other methods of analysis, network analysis, and geo-mapping (among others), cannot be covered here, but we provide a link to an online bibliography where you can find them applied to legal history or a related domain, and discussed critically. A general discussion of digital perspectives beyond concrete methods of analysis concludes this contribution.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-09
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/170658
Küsters, Anselm; Volkind, Maria Laura; Wagner, Andreas; Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspective; Max Planck Institute for European Legal History; Rechtsgeschicht; 2020; 27; 9-2020; 244-259
1619-4993
2195-9617
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/170658
identifier_str_mv Küsters, Anselm; Volkind, Maria Laura; Wagner, Andreas; Digital humanities and the state of legal history: A text mining perspective; Max Planck Institute for European Legal History; Rechtsgeschicht; 2020; 27; 9-2020; 244-259
1619-4993
2195-9617
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://rg.rg.mpg.de/en/article_id/1257
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.12946/rg27/244-259
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/zip
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Max Planck Institute for European Legal History
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Max Planck Institute for European Legal History
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614196168228864
score 13.260194