Empirical Studies of Literature --

Kloek & Kruif, 2001

Kloek, Joost and José Kruif. "Readers and Reading Behavior in the Past. The Question Is: What Is the Question?" The Psychology and Sociology of Literature: In Honor of Elrud Ibsch. Eds. Dick Schram and Gerard Steen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001. 315-322.
index

Summary

In the 1970s, the turn of literary studies to psychological and sociological empirical approaches put new life into the historical study of literature. The first manifestation of this new research area was the "histoire du livre" which focused on the dissemination and reception of books (315-316). In this tradition, Robert Darnton has produced some interesting studies, such as his work on Rousseau's readers (316-317). The social turn resulted eventually in the development of new theoretical research models and two different types of research: case studies and serial research projects. Both the models and the studies suffer from shortcomings. The research models appear to be too comprehensive and too general to provide insight into (the relationships between) societal constituents (317-318). Case studies, that is, studies that are based on one source, e.g., the records of one single publishing house, or literary culture, or region, lead to results that are too detailed and idiosyncratic, making it impossible to draw broader conclusions (318). Serial research projects make use of one specific sort of source material, such as advertisements, auction catalogues, or bookshop administrations, and result in fairly limited, perhaps even superficial generalizations. Both case studies and serial research projects tend to lack clearly articulated research questions and their outcomes are so fragmentary that they do not allow for comparisons beyond the boundaries of individual projects (319). More recently, the disappointment about the findings of the historical study of literature has resulted in studies that concentrate exclusively on one rich source, the ego-document (e.g., letters and diaries), while Chartier, "the godfather of the histoire du livre," said goodbye to empiricism altogether. Chartier now tries to reveal the text's implicit reader by examining the text itself and its physical factors such as typographical features and type of paper; an enterprise which cannot meet the approval of Kloek and Kruif (319).
Darnton link

Chartier, Chs. 3, 7

Kloek and Kruif propose two solutions to overcome the problems in the historical study of literature. First, instead of the availability of sources, the motivation and formulation of research questions and hypotheses should form the starting-point for research. Historical empirical research benefits above all from hypotheses that contain a comparison of a number of variables in either time or place, so that historical development and local differences can be revealed (320). Second, historians of literature should increase their statistical knowledge and familiarize themselves with computer technology, such as database management. These improvements will eventually lead to historical studies of literature in which the data and the results can be compared (321).

Critique

Kloek and Kruif's article is a lucid account of the developments in the research area of the historical study of literature of the last thirty years. They focus primarily on research-movements, but also touch upon theoretical research models developed in the field. These models are dismissed, though, on the basis of their reductive and simplistic presentation of matters. However, there is not only more theory available, but it is more relevant as well, especially in the broad corpus of the sociology of literature. Scholars such as Escarpit (empirical research of the book market), Bourdieu (sociology of the literary field), Luhmann (system-theory), and Viala (theory of prismatic effects), but also De Certeau (literature as a social construction) and Smith (theory about the judgment of literature) have developed extensive theoretical models and/or theoretical insights, often based on empirical data. That Kloek and Kruif do not mention any of these theoretical sources is strange and unfortunate. Perhaps it has something to do with the ideological (Marxist) agendas of some of these scholars, for it can be argued that prevalent political motives may compromise the academic objectivity of their findings. Although this may be the case with some of the theoretical models, one might as well profit from what is there, and select what is useful, whether or not adopting the propagated ideological stance. Furthermore, it is an illusion to assume that research less driven by explicit (political) ideological convictions is free from ideological preferences. All research questions, interests, and approaches are based on ideological research paradigms that often more or less directly reflect the thinking and interests of certain (distinguished) scholars and/or traditions in the field. As yet, a study of the ideological convictions prevailing in the empirical research of literature has not been carried out.
Bourdieu link

De Certeau link

The fact that Kloek and Kruif overlook an enormous body of theory is all the stranger, since they give preference to hypothesis-driven research and this approach, besides being based on previous findings, also draws extensively on theory. By dismissing the availability of research-material as the starting-point for exploration, they also reject the combination of the top-down and bottom-up approaches, a combination that often leads to some of the best studies.

Kloek and Kruif's article concludes with a pleading for an "intersubjective apparatus of concepts and methods" which should make "effective comparisons a real possibility" (321) -- a very noble endeavor indeed! Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves how realistic this is. Universities seem, above all, a collection of individual interests, perhaps with the exception of research-teams. How feasible is it, then, to propose that researchers of the historical study of literature all over the world must adopt the same methods, terminology, and even database-management-systems? For now, the most realistic endeavor will be to hope that academics of the historical study of literature adopt more lucid methods while combining both case studies and more comprehensive materials.

References

Chartier, Roger. Lectures et lecteurs dans la France d'Ancien Regime. Paris: Seuil, 1987.

Document created March 4th 2005

Kloek & Kruif, 2001
Kloek, Joost and José Kruif. "Readers and Reading Behavior in the Past. The Question Is: What Is the Question?" The Psychology and Sociology of Literature: In Honor of Elrud Ibsch. Eds. Dick Schram and Gerard Steen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001. 315-322.	index
Summary
In the 1970s, the turn of literary studies to psychological and sociological empirical approaches put new life into the historical study of literature. The first manifestation of this new research area was the "histoire du livre" which focused on the dissemination and reception of books (315-316). In this tradition, Robert Darnton has produced some interesting studies, such as his work on Rousseau's readers (316-317). The social turn resulted eventually in the development of new theoretical research models and two different types of research: case studies and serial research projects. Both the models and the studies suffer from shortcomings. The research models appear to be too comprehensive and too general to provide insight into (the relationships between) societal constituents (317-318). Case studies, that is, studies that are based on one source, e.g., the records of one single publishing house, or literary culture, or region, lead to results that are too detailed and idiosyncratic, making it impossible to draw broader conclusions (318). Serial research projects make use of one specific sort of source material, such as advertisements, auction catalogues, or bookshop administrations, and result in fairly limited, perhaps even superficial generalizations. Both case studies and serial research projects tend to lack clearly articulated research questions and their outcomes are so fragmentary that they do not allow for comparisons beyond the boundaries of individual projects (319). More recently, the disappointment about the findings of the historical study of literature has resulted in studies that concentrate exclusively on one rich source, the ego-document (e.g., letters and diaries), while Chartier, "the godfather of the histoire du livre," said goodbye to empiricism altogether. Chartier now tries to reveal the text's implicit reader by examining the text itself and its physical factors such as typographical features and type of paper; an enterprise which cannot meet the approval of Kloek and Kruif (319).	Darnton link Chartier, Chs. 3, 7
Kloek and Kruif propose two solutions to overcome the problems in the historical study of literature. First, instead of the availability of sources, the motivation and formulation of research questions and hypotheses should form the starting-point for research. Historical empirical research benefits above all from hypotheses that contain a comparison of a number of variables in either time or place, so that historical development and local differences can be revealed (320). Second, historians of literature should increase their statistical knowledge and familiarize themselves with computer technology, such as database management. These improvements will eventually lead to historical studies of literature in which the data and the results can be compared (321).
Critique
Kloek and Kruif's article is a lucid account of the developments in the research area of the historical study of literature of the last thirty years. They focus primarily on research-movements, but also touch upon theoretical research models developed in the field. These models are dismissed, though, on the basis of their reductive and simplistic presentation of matters. However, there is not only more theory available, but it is more relevant as well, especially in the broad corpus of the sociology of literature. Scholars such as Escarpit (empirical research of the book market), Bourdieu (sociology of the literary field), Luhmann (system-theory), and Viala (theory of prismatic effects), but also De Certeau (literature as a social construction) and Smith (theory about the judgment of literature) have developed extensive theoretical models and/or theoretical insights, often based on empirical data. That Kloek and Kruif do not mention any of these theoretical sources is strange and unfortunate. Perhaps it has something to do with the ideological (Marxist) agendas of some of these scholars, for it can be argued that prevalent political motives may compromise the academic objectivity of their findings. Although this may be the case with some of the theoretical models, one might as well profit from what is there, and select what is useful, whether or not adopting the propagated ideological stance. Furthermore, it is an illusion to assume that research less driven by explicit (political) ideological convictions is free from ideological preferences. All research questions, interests, and approaches are based on ideological research paradigms that often more or less directly reflect the thinking and interests of certain (distinguished) scholars and/or traditions in the field. As yet, a study of the ideological convictions prevailing in the empirical research of literature has not been carried out.	Bourdieu link De Certeau link
The fact that Kloek and Kruif overlook an enormous body of theory is all the stranger, since they give preference to hypothesis-driven research and this approach, besides being based on previous findings, also draws extensively on theory. By dismissing the availability of research-material as the starting-point for exploration, they also reject the combination of the top-down and bottom-up approaches, a combination that often leads to some of the best studies.
Kloek and Kruif's article concludes with a pleading for an "intersubjective apparatus of concepts and methods" which should make "effective comparisons a real possibility" (321) -- a very noble endeavor indeed! Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves how realistic this is. Universities seem, above all, a collection of individual interests, perhaps with the exception of research-teams. How feasible is it, then, to propose that researchers of the historical study of literature all over the world must adopt the same methods, terminology, and even database-management-systems? For now, the most realistic endeavor will be to hope that academics of the historical study of literature adopt more lucid methods while combining both case studies and more comprehensive materials.
References
Chartier, Roger. Lectures et lecteurs dans la France d'Ancien Regime. Paris: Seuil, 1987.