(Doing) Computational History: The Role of Data Work in Computational Approaches

Computational methods have become increasingly prominent within the historical sciences, generating significant enthusiasm among some scholars. Yet their practical demands, epistemic limits, and ethical implications are less often critically examined than praised. This article explores what it means to do computational history today, arguing that it is not primarily defined by algorithms but by datasets. It is methodologically specific, resource-intensive, selective in scope, labour-heavy, and dependent on pre-digitised sources, specialised infrastructure, and interdisciplinary collaboration. These dependencies limit the scope of research questions and can produce narrow outcomes despite substantial effort, lending some validity to the concern over whether the field yields sufficient historiographical return for the labour invested. Corpus construction and data work lie at the epistemic core of computational history. These often undervalued tasks are not merely technical precursors to analysis, but interpretive and epistemic acts. Data are shaped by digitisation politics, historical bias, and institutional power. They shape the questions asked, the answers produced, and the legitimacy of findings. Recognising and valuing data work is essential, both to embed critical perspectives into computational humanities and to counteract the privileging of certain forms of labour over others. Due to the association of quantification with rigour and scholarly prowess, algorithmic work receives more credit, creating a two-tier system in this division of labour in which those who develop algorithms are elevated above those who curate data, despite their symbiotic interdependence. Computational history, when done well, requires deep engagement with our sources, be they historical or data. For computational history to stabilise as a meaningful discipline, it must prioritise building better datasets over pursuing increasingly complex algorithms on an unstable basis of data.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Histories
Published
2026-03-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/histories6020026
Primary Topic
Digital Humanities and Scholarship
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

(Doing) Computational History: The Role of Data Work in Computational Approaches

Sarah Lang
Histories
Digital Humanities and Scholarship
article

(Doing) Computational History: The Role of Data Work in Computational Approaches

Sarah Lang
article en

Abstract

Computational methods have become increasingly prominent within the historical sciences, generating significant enthusiasm among some scholars. Yet their practical demands, epistemic limits, and ethical implications are less often critically examined than praised. This article explores what it means to do computational history today, arguing that it is not primarily defined by algorithms but by datasets. It is methodologically specific, resource-intensive, selective in scope, labour-heavy, and dependent on pre-digitised sources, specialised infrastructure, and interdisciplinary collaboration. These dependencies limit the scope of research questions and can produce narrow outcomes despite substantial effort, lending some validity to the concern over whether the field yields sufficient historiographical return for the labour invested. Corpus construction and data work lie at the epistemic core of computational history. These often undervalued tasks are not merely technical precursors to analysis, but interpretive and epistemic acts. Data are shaped by digitisation politics, historical bias, and institutional power. They shape the questions asked, the answers produced, and the legitimacy of findings. Recognising and valuing data work is essential, both to embed critical perspectives into computational humanities and to counteract the privileging of certain forms of labour over others. Due to the association of quantification with rigour and scholarly prowess, algorithmic work receives more credit, creating a two-tier system in this division of labour in which those who develop algorithms are elevated above those who curate data, despite their symbiotic interdependence. Computational history, when done well, requires deep engagement with our sources, be they historical or data. For computational history to stabilise as a meaningful discipline, it must prioritise building better datasets over pursuing increasingly complex algorithms on an unstable basis of data.

HistoriesVol. 6(2)
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (DE)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Digital Humanities and Scholarship
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.