Page:Open access and the humanities - contexts, controversies and the future.pdf/44

 Fundamentally, research – as opposed to ‘scholarship’, at least in some deﬁnitions – can be speciﬁed as the practice of either (1) discovering new aspects or interpretations of reality/cultures and communicating these ﬁndings; or (2) refuting previously communicated ﬁndings. This deﬁnition remains true across the sciences and the humanities and seems unaffected by methodological differences.52 In terms of differences, it is certainly the case that in the practice of literary criticism, for just one example, it is rare to work on the model of a hypothesis followed by a controlled experiment. It is also true that few scientists would adopt the practice-based research methodologies seen among live-art researchers, for instance. That said, although different methodologies in the humanities and sciences may be thought of as respectively more subjective or objective, each is also concerned with fostering intersubjective understandings through repetition, whether that be through persuasive argument or hypothesis-driven experimentation. As Hannah Arendt put it, ‘The reality of the public realm relies on the simultaneous presence of innumerable perspectives and aspects. . . Only where things can be seen by many in a variety of aspects without changing their identity can worldly reality truly and reliably appear.’53 It is also worth noting that the interpretation of data in many parts of scientiﬁc practice relies on mediated subjective thinking and interpretation: the data do not speak for themselves.

None of this is to elide the very real differences in practice between the humanities and the sciences; the problem has not been referred to as the ‘Two Cultures’ for no reason.54 It is instead, however, to note that the fundamental bases of conducting research are the same: the discovery and communication of new ﬁndings or interpretations. Furthermore, the ways in which such research is ‘used’ by others also has many overlapping characteristics between disciplinary ﬁelds, despite the problematic rhetoric of ‘utility’. For instance, the uses of preceding work through citation in both the humanities and the sciences remain broadly the same: (1) to inform the reader of the existing body of work upon which the new research rests, along with its applicability to or difference from the new material; (2) to refute existing work when inaccuracies of fact are alleged or disagreements over interpretation have arisen; (3) to credit the preceding work and author(s) with value and novelty or to discredit through dissent;