Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:06:55.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Dimension of Quantitative History: Some Introductory Reflections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Konrad H. Jarausch
Konrad H. Jarausch*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In contrast to their interest in interdisciplinary cooperation, quantitative historians have neglected the international dimension of their work. Many of the pioneers of quantitative methods in the United States (like L. Stone, C. Tilly, or W. O. Aydelotte) specialize in European history, but the bulk of quantitative work deals with American topics; or, if it ventures abroad, investigates other countries in their own national terms (Kousser, 1980). Where there is a broader awareness, scholars tend to draw upon British and, due to the acclaim of the Annales school, also on French examples; while Germany, and even more so Russia, Latin America, or the Far East, remain in the outer darkness of quantitative consciousness (Rowney and Graham, 1969, as can be contrasted with Aydelotte, 1972). Some fields like economic history (due to its strong international organization) are internationalized; but others like the “new political history” are somewhat provincial, considering that few countries developed comparable democratic institutions in the nineteenth century, thereby providing material for similar research (Temin, 1981; Bogue, 1980). In less cosmopolitan scholarly communities than the American, the situation is worse, if anything. French quantitative historians seem to have shown some interest in their British or Hispanic neighbors, but have done little international or comparative work (Bourdelais, this issue; for an exception see Graham, 1982). Similarly, German historical social scientists appear to borrow methods freely, but do not occupy themselves much with transnational concerns (Jarausch, 1978).

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Science History , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Spring 1984 , pp. 123 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 1984 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AHA Newsletter (1982) “Quantitative history conference report.” 20 (May-June): 8.Google Scholar
Arminger, G. (1983) “Multivariate Analysen von qualitativen abhängigen Variablen mit verallgemeingarten linearen Modellen.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 12.Google Scholar
Aydelotte, W. P. [ed.] (1972) The Dimensions of Quantitative Research in History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Berdahl, R. M. [ed.] (1982) Klassen und Kultur. Die sozial-anthropologische Perspektive in der Geschichtsschreibung. Frankfurt: Syndikat.Google Scholar
Best, H. (1981) “Quantifizierende Historische Sozialforschung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.” Geschichte in Köln 9: 121–157.Google Scholar
Best, H. et al. (1979) “Editorial.” Historical Social Research 12: 3.Google Scholar
Bogue, A.G. (1980) “The new political history in the 1970s,” pp. 113–135 in Bogue, A. (ed .) Clio and the Bitch Goddess. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bogue, A.G.and Clubb, J. (1977) “History, quantification and the social sciences.” Amer. Behavioral Scientist 21: 167–186.Google Scholar
Clubb, J. and Scheuch, E. K. [eds.] (1980) Historical Social Research: The Use of Historical and Process-Produced Data. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
Floud, R. (1979) An Introduction to Quantitative Methods for Historians. London: Methuen. (Orginally published in 1973)Google Scholar
Fogel, R. (1982) “‘Scientific history’ and traditional history,” pp. 15–61 in Cohen, L. J. (ed.) Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 6. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Graham, J. Q. Jr., (1982) “Legislative careers in the French chamber and U.S. House, 1871-1940.” Legislative Studies Q. 1 (February): 37–56.Google Scholar
Grew, R. (1980) “The case for comparing histories.” Ameri. Historical Rev. 85:763–778.Google Scholar
Herlihy, D. (1981) “Numerical and formal analysis in European history.” J. of Interdisciplinary History 12: 115–136.Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1971) “From social history to the history of society.” Daedalus 100: 20–45.Google Scholar
Iggers, G. G. (1974) New Directions in European Historiography. Middletown: Weslyan University Press.Google Scholar
Jarausch, K. H. [ed.] (1983) The Transformation of Higher Learning: Expansion, Diversification, Social Opening and Professionalization in England, Germany, Russia, and the U.S. Stuttgart and Chicago: Klett-Cotta and Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jarausch, K. H. (1982) “Quantitative history in transition.” AHA Perspectives 20, 6: 14–21.Google Scholar
Jarausch, K. H. (1978) “Promises and problems of quantitative research in Central European history.” Central European History 11: 279–291.Google Scholar
Jarausch, K. H., Arminger, G. and Thaller, M. (1984) Quantitative Methoden in der Geschichtswissenschaft: Eine Einführung in die Forschung, Datenverarbeitung and Statistik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Kahk, J. and Kovalcenko, I. (1982) “About the role of the method in the quantitative analysis of historical phenomena.” Presented at the International Conference on Quantitative History, Washington, D.C., March.Google Scholar
Kocka, J.(1982) “Theorie Orientierung und Theorieskepsis in der Geschichtswissenschaft. Alte and Neue Argumente.” Historical Social Research 23: 4–19.Google Scholar
Kousser, J. M. (1982) “Log-linear analysis of contingency tables: an introduction for historians.” California Institute of Technology. Social Science Working Paper 417.Google Scholar
Kousser, J. M. (1980) “Quantitative social scientific history,” pp. 437–456 in Kammen, M. (ed.) The Past Before Us. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Kousser, J. M.(1977) “The agenda for ‘Social Science History.’“ Social Science History 1: 383–391.Google Scholar
Kovalchenko, I. (1984) “Model-building for historical phenomena and processes,” in Rowney, D. K. (ed.) Soviet Quantitative History. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Kovalchenko, I. (1970) “Quantitative and machine methods of processing historical information.” Presented at the Thirteenth Congress of Historical Sciences.Google Scholar
Le Roy Ladurie, E. (1979) The Territory of the Historian. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Le Roy Ladurie, E. (1977) “Motionless history.” Social Science History 1: 115–136.Google Scholar
Rabb, T. K. (1983) “The development of quantification in historical research.” J. of Interdisciplinary History 13: 591–601.Google Scholar
Rowney, D. K. and Graham, J. Q. [eds.] (1969) Quanitative History. Selected Readings in the Quantitative Analysis of Historical Data. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Rurup, R. [ed.] (1977) Historische Sozialwissenschaft. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. (1982) “Die Bildungsentwicklung in den west-europäischen Staaten 1870-1975.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 11: 207–226.Google Scholar
Stone, L. (1979) “The revival of narrative: reflections on a new old history.” Past and Present 85: 3–24.Google Scholar
Swierenga, R. P. (1974) “Computers and comparative history.” J. of Interdisciplinary History 5: 267–296.Google Scholar
Temin, P. (1981) “The future of the new economic history.” J. of Interdisciplinary History 12: 179–198.Google Scholar
Tilly, L. (1982) “How not to—and how to—use quantification in international comparative history.” Presented at the International Conference on Quantitative History, Washington, D.C., March.Google Scholar
Van Der Wee, H. (1982) “Quantitative methods in international comparison of social and economic phenomena.” Presented at the International Conference on Quantitative History, Washington, D. C. March.Google Scholar