Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-gndc8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:24:15.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Promises and Problems of Quantitative Research in Central European History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Konrad H. Jarausch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Suggestion
Information
Central European History , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 1978 , pp. 279 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1978

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

1. Iggers, George G., Deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft (Munich, 1972)Google Scholar, and New Directions in European Historiography (Middletown, 1975), chap. 3.Google Scholar

2. This attitude is cogently expressed by Barzun, Jacques, Clio and the Doctors: Psycho-History, Quanto-History and History (Chicago, 1974)Google Scholar, and by Wolfgang Sauer in his paper “West German Historiography since 1945” at the 1976 meeting, at Washington, of the American Historical Association (AHA).

3. See only the collections by Rowney, D. K., ed., Quantitative History (Homewood, III., 1969)Google Scholar, Swierenga, R. P., ed., Quantification in American History (New York, 1970)Google Scholar, Bogue, Alan and Fogel, R., eds., The Dimensions of Quantitative Research in History (Princeton, 1972).Google Scholar

4. E.g., Louise, Charles, and Tilly, Richard, The Rebellious Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1975).Google Scholar

5. Mommsen, Wolfgang J., Puhle, H.-J., Wehler, H.-U., “Vorwort der Herausgeber,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 1 (1975): 5–7Google Scholar, and Peter Stearns's programmatic statement “Coming of Age” in the Journal of Social History 9 (1976): 246–55.Google Scholar

6. Conze, Werner, “Die deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft seit 1945: Bedingungen und Ergebnisse,” Historische Zeitschrift 225 (1977): 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; H.-U. Wehler, “Kritik und kritische Antikritik,” ibid., 347–84; and Otto Pflanze's presentation, “Bismarck's Quest for Social Consensus,” at the 1976 AHA meeting, all agree on this cardinal point.

7. Lückerath, C. A., “Prolegomena zur elektronischen Datenverarbeitung im Bereich der Geschichtswissenschaft,” Historische Zeitschrift 207 (1968): 265ff.CrossRefGoogle ScholarRiedenauer, E., “Elektronische Datenverarbeitung im Dienst von Landes- und Gesellschaftsgeschichte,” Zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte 35 (1972): 379–435Google Scholar; and Arnold, Klaus, “Geschichtswissenschaft und elektronische Datenverarbeitung,” in Schieder, T., ed., Methodenprobleme der Geschichtswissenschaft, Historische Zeitschrift, Beiheft 3 (n.s.) (Munich, 1974), pp. 98–148.Google Scholar

8. Gundlach, R. and Lückerath, C. A., “Nichtnumerische Datenverarbeitung in den historischen Wissenschaften,” Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 20 (1969): 385–98Google Scholar; Irsigler, F., ed., Quantitative Methoden in der Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte der Vorneuzeit (Stuttgart, 1977)Google Scholar; Bundesarchiv Koblenz, Protokoll der ersten Sitzung des Ausschusses der EDV- Referenten und Sachbearbeiter der Archivverwaltungen des Bundes und der Länder am 28./29. November 1972 im Bundesarchiv Koblenz (printed as manuscript), and numerous articles by H. Boberach, W. Buchmann, et al., in Der Archivar.

9. Geiss, I., ed., Ansichten einer künftigen Geschichtswissenschaft (Munich, 1974)Google Scholar, and Sywotteck, A., Geschichtswissenschaft in der Legitimationskrise (Braunschweig, 1974), are, generally, methodical traditionalists.Google Scholar

10. Best, H., “QUANTUM's First Year,” QUANTUM Information no. 1 (1976): 1–3.Google Scholar

11. QUANTUM Information, nos. 1–5 (1976–78) and Historisch-Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschungen (HSF) (Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1977).Google Scholar For vol. 1 see n. 13, for vol. 2 see n. 24, and for vol. 3 (containing J. Kocka's introduction, “Quantifizierung in der Geschichtswissenschaft,” pp. 4–10) see n. 25 below.

12. A. Dorpalen, “The Marxist Historiography of East Germany,” paper at the 1976 AHA meeting.

13. Bick, W., Müller, P. J., and Reinke, H., eds., Quantitative historische Forschung 1977: Eine Dokumentation der QUANTUM-Erhebung (Stuttgart, 1977), vol. 1 of HSF. Table 1 is based on a handcount of the German projects.Google Scholar

14. Vierhaus, R., “Zur Lage der historischen Forschung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” in Arbeitsgemeinschaft ausseruniversitärer historischer Forschungseinrichtungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Jahrbuch der historischen Forschung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1 (Stuttgart, 1974): 17–32Google Scholar, and subsequent volumes of the same series, providing a listing of all reported research projects in German history.

15. Sheehan, J. J., “Quantification in the Study of Modern German Social and Political History,” in Lorwin, V. R. and Price, J., eds., The Dimensions of the Past: Materials, Problems and Opportunities for Quantitative Work in History (New Haven, 1972), 301–32.Google Scholar

16. Shorter, E., The Historian and the Computer (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971), still one of the most useful introductions into the method.Google Scholar

17. Ridgway, J., conference report on “Quantification in German Studies,” Historical Methods Newsletter 6 (1973): 170–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Jarausch, Konrad H., ed., Quantifizierung in der Geschichtswissenschaft: Probleme und Möglichkeiten (Düsseldorf, 1976)Google Scholar, with essays on method and methodology by the editor, Charles Tilly, Lawrence Stone, Thomas B. Alexander, and Rolf Gundlach/Carl August Lückerath, and research reports by Donald J. Mattheisen, James F. Harris, Michael H. Kater, Lamar Cecil, Richard Tilly/Gerd Hohorst, Hartmut Kaelble, Wolfgang Köllmann, Eckart Schremmer, and Peter Lundgreen.

19. Minutes of the Conference Group for Central European History December Meeting, Washington, D.C., 1976, distributed to the members. The author is the current chairman of this committee.

20. In September, 1977, 550 questionnaires were mailed to the membership of the Conference Group for Central European History. Since initially there were only 30 useful returns (indicating projects), a reminder was sent out which produced another 28 responses, while the rest of the titles were gathered from the United States portion of the QUANTUM survey or from published work. Cf. also the research roster put together by David P. Conradt for the Conference Group on German Politics, CGGP Newsletter 11 (1977).

21. Wheeler, Robert F., “Quantitative Methoden und die Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung,” Internationale Wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz 10 (1974): 40–51Google Scholar, and Lundgreen, P., “Quantifizierung in der Sozialgeschichte der Bildung,” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozialund Wirtschaftsgeschichte 63 (1976): 433ff.Google Scholar

22. The increasing frequency of quantitative articles in the Vierteljahrschrift für Sozialund Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Social Science History, and other historical Journals, etc., is only one indication. See also Rürup, R., ed., Historische Sozialwissenschaft: Beiträge Zur Einführung in die Forschungspraxis (Göttingen, 1977)Google Scholar, with essays by A. Imhof, K. Hausen, P. Lundgreen, and W. Lepenies.

23. The recommendations of Landes, D. S. and Tilly, Ch., History as Social Science (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971)Google Scholar, were largely ignored. Cf. also Müller, Bick, and Reinke, , “Quantitative History in Transition,” Social Science Information 16 (1977): 694–714Google Scholar, and Jarausch, K. H., “Möglichkeiten und Probleme der Quantifizierung in der Geschichtswissenschaft,” in Quantifizierung, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar

24. Bick, W. and Müller, P. J., “Die Buchführung der Verwaltungen als sozialwissenschaftliche Datenbasis,” pp. 42–88Google Scholar in Méller, P. J., ed., Die Analyse prozess-produzierter Daten (Stuttgart, 1977), vol. 2.Google Scholar of HSF (based on a panel of the 1976 Soziologentag at Bielefeld). P. Borscheid and H. Schomerus, “Mobilität und soziale Lage der württembergischen Fabrikarbeiterschaft im 19. Jahrhundert,” ibid., 199–224.

25. Best, H. and Mann, R., eds., Quantitative Methoden in der historisch-sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung (Stuttgart, 1977), vol. 3Google Scholar of HSF, also including articles by W. H. Schröder, R. Spree, H. Best, and H. L. Schwippe.

26. Jarausch, K. H., “Studenten, Gesellschaft und Politik im Kaiserreich,” Informationen zur Erziehungs- und Bildungshistorischen Forschung 3 (1976): 61–90Google Scholar, and “Liberal Education as Illiberal Socialization: The Case of Students in Imperial Germany,” forthcoming in the Journal of Modern History in December 1978.

27. See especially Fogel, R. W., “The Limits of Quantitative Methods in History,” American Historical Review 80 (1975): 329–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Stromberg, versus R., “A Note on Quantification (by a Zealous Obscurantist?),” American Historical Association Newsletter 9 (1973): 31–33.Google Scholar For the continuation of exaggerated expectations cf. Kousser, J. M., “The Agenda for ‘Social Science History,’” Social Science History 1 (1977): 383–91.Google Scholar

28. See Kater, M. H., “Quantifizierung und NS-Geschichte: Methodologische Überlegungen über Grenzen und Möglichkeiten einer EDV-Analyse der NSDAP Sozialstruktur,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 3 (1977): 453ff.Google Scholar, and James F. Harris's review essay on German electoral history, forthcoming in the Historical Methods Newsletter in 1979, for some of the prospects as well as problems of quantitative work.