As the author states at the outset “this book does not fit easily into established categories”. As we shall see this is both its strength and its weakness.
Andrea Bonaccorsi is a highly respected researcher in the economics of science, technology and innovation. It was during his work on policy design and research assessment that he began to engage systematically with the humanities research community, an engagement during which he developed great respect and admiration for their work. This was the starting point of a decade-long journey leading to this book which is founded upon extensive literature review combined with in-depth discussions with members of the humanities research community.
A self-declared outsider to humanities research, the author deftly exploits his training in quantitative methods and his expertise in the philosophy of science. The result is an innovative and original perspective on the humanities in general and on research in particular.
The Preface, with the intriguing title “Market for cheese and the epistemologies of humanities” , presents the overall context of the work. Bonaccorsi is convinced that “the lack of systematic effort to clarify and deepen the epistemologies of humanities is a major source of weakness in the research landscape.” This has contributed to “under representation, under evaluation and under funding of research in the humanities.” Among others international bodies including the European Commission are mentioned in this regard. It is hard to disagree with the above.
Whether the frequently cited “crisis of the humanities” is real or exaggerated , their value, role and funding are under scrutiny as never before. That this is the case for research is bad enough while arguably the more insidious and long-term threat is in higher education . Universities, the natural homes of the humanities, are facing cutbacks, falling enrollment numbers and shutting down of humanities courses.
As the EASSH community is well aware, intense political discussions are currently taking place concerning the EU’s new 7 year financial perspectives (2028-2034).In parallel, the objectives, architecture, financing and broad contents of the new 10th Framework Programme (FP), Horizon Europe, are also being debated. This leads to a personal reflection : Based on my experience as a DG Research official, including serving as head of the unit “Research in the social sciences and humanities” (1999- 2005) I would guess that discussions on the next FP will include vigorous debate concerning the place and role of research in the humanities as well as in the social sciences. My guess is informed by precedent : during the preparation of almost every FP, the role, funding and aims of SSH research has been a hot topic with strong views both for and against. Bonaccorsi’s book is both timely and relevant in this regard. Until recently, the debate has focused on social sciences. While humanities research was explicitly mentioned as far back as FP5 there has been very little of it so far in practice. To be clear: this refers primarily to challenge driven parts of FP. Since its foundation the European Research Council has been a major funder of excellent research in the field.
Having elaborated on the overall rationale and approach in the Preface, the following chapter “The value of humanities ? A review of the main arguments” highlights those frequently put forward to defend and promote the humanities to key actors and stakeholders including policy makers, funding agencies and the broader public.
Arguments identified by Bonaccorsi include cultural and creative industries, economic growth, health and wellbeing, neuroscience, educated conversation and democratic values, cultural heritage and societal challenges. While acknowledging their value to society and the economy the author believes that, in themselves, they fall short of making a case for research in humanities and above all for fundamental research in the humanities (author’s italics).
Having set out its central argument, the main body of the book consists of a comparative epistemology of historiography, literary criticism, history of art and history of architecture.
Lacking expertise in any of these disciplines this reviewer should resile from attempting detailed discussion of these 4 chapters. The author has clearly delved deeply into each of the disciplines. At the same time, measured against its aim “to compare systematically their epistemologies”, the book is not convincing. The whole does not appear to be materially greater than the sum of its parts.
An important conclusion in the Summing Up section of these chapters is that research in each of these disciplines fall within the generally accepted definitions of what constitutes scientific enquiry (my italics).
Entitled “At the end of the journey. Are humanities scientific disciplines ?” the penultimate chapter is undoubtedly the most substantial and the most original. It is also a challenging read for a non-philosopher of science . Early on Bonaccorsi anticipates the answer to his own question by concluding that “humanities are sciences” in other words, that “ (these) differences do not imply an epistemological divide between humanities and other sciences”.
The author sets out (at least) two different but interrelated lines of enquiry . The first attempts to examine whether and how research in the humanities use scientific methods. Such methods include generation of hypotheses, categorization, attribution, interpretation, causation, testing of hypotheses, use of empirical facts as well as of theory. Humanities research is “tested” against each of these. Bonaccorsi marshals convincing arguments to conclude that humanities research makes use of all of these scientific methods.
The second approach starts by asserting that during the last century humanities research arrived at an epistemological bifurcation. One path entailed constantly responding to the epistemological challenge of “hard” science ( especially of theoretical physics). The second path ( in the opposite direction) followed the “philosophical elaboration of new methods and concepts that had emerged within the humanities”.
Bonaccorsi argues that, under pressure to demonstrate scientific rigor, humanities research chose the first path -leading to nowhere. The title of this Section is telling: “ Chasing the wrong hare? The endless quest for scientific laws in the humanities”.
In the rest of this chapter Bonaccorsi explores the second path. He identifies “as many as seven scientific methods in the humanities”. These are discovery, inspection, saturation, triangulation or independent evidential sources, novelty detection, regularity detection, downward causation.
The final chapter “Some conclusions and a research agenda” draws attention to the rise of demand for uniqueness at the global, societal and individual levels. In terms of the latter humanities research can and should lead in the scientifically rooted explorations of identity and conflict . Furthermore, at a time of great uncertainties and risks, giving meaning to history becomes ever more important
Overall this is a well-researched book providing new perspectives on the humanities. The author’s respect and admiration for its research community shines throughout the volume. For the reasons already mentioned it is also highly timely.
If there is a weakness it manifests as lack of coherence. The contents of the 4 discipline based chapters contain numerous deviations from the central question addressed by this work while the intercomparison of their respective epistemologies could have been more clearly articulated. A chapter specifically dedicated to the latter might have offered more clarity. Overall the book tends to move across different levels of argument and as a reader I found it challenging to make some essential interconnections. Nonetheless, I found the book to be an admirable and timely work of scholarship.