The possibility and desirability of replication in the humanities

Rik Peels*, Lex Bouter

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalComment / Letter to the editorAcademic

296 Downloads (Pure)


In this article, we argue that the debate on the poor reproducibility of scientific research has overlooked an entire field: replication is also possible and desirable in the humanities. So far, the debate on replicability has been carried out primarily in the biomedical, natural and social sciences. It turns out that, for a wide variety of reasons, many of which lead to selective reporting, a large proportion of studies in these fields are not replicable, sometimes as many as 70 percent. In this paper, we leave these fields mostly aside, since they have been extensively addressed in the recent literature, and turn to the humanities. First, we distinguish between replicability and replication. Subsequently, we defend the view that replication is entirely possible in the humanities: it meets all the criteria that have been identified for biomedical, natural and social science research. The uniqueness of many research objects in the humanities does not present an obstacle to this. We also explain why replication is desirable and urgently needed in the humanities. Finally, we give various practical guidelines for how replication in the humanities could be carried out, such as focusing on the replication of cornerstone studies or a random selection of published research in a sub-discipline, and opting, if possible, for a conceptual replication, so that triangulation becomes possible.

Original languageEnglish
Article number95
Pages (from-to)1-4
Number of pages4
JournalPalgrave Communications
Publication statusPublished - 7 Aug 2018


Dive into the research topics of 'The possibility and desirability of replication in the humanities'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this