When I started working on my PhD, in 1987 at the University of California, San Diego (US), I wanted to examine how a public debate on a controversial issue results in consensus. My PhD thesis resulted in a book on the course of the public debate around in vitro fertilization in the US news media between 1978 and 1985 (Van Dijck, 1995). Due to the enormous supply of newspapers and journals it was infeasible to retrieve all information from this debate, so selection was necessary. Fortunately, I encountered a (private) archive of an institute that had documented very systematically (though not exhaustively) clippings about this subject. Audiovisual sources were almost impossible to collect and, even if I would have had them, I would have lacked the time to plow through all of them. Thus my corpus was limited, and within this limitation, I had to show my mastery. The interpretative approach I chose turned out to be an excellent exercise in analyzing a public debate. The most important lesson from that aptitude test, now twenty-five years ago: available data determine the nature of the research question as well as the set of instruments with which you can query the sources.
[1]
Bernhard Rieder,et al.
Conflicts of interest and incentives to bias: A microeconomic critique of Google’s tangled position on the Web
,
2014,
New Media Soc..
[2]
José van Dijck,et al.
Search engines and the production of academic knowledge
,
2010
.
[3]
P. Verbeek.
Op de vleugels van Icarus: hoe techniek en moraal met elkaar meebewegen
,
2014
.
[4]
Federica Frabetti,et al.
Rethinking the Digital Humanities in the Context of Originary Technicity
,
2011
.
[5]
José van Dijck.
The Transparent Body
,
2005
.
[6]
Maarten Marx,et al.
Who said what to whom?: capturing the structure of debates
,
2009,
SIGIR.
[7]
José van Dijck,et al.
Wisdom of the crowd or technicity of content? Wikipedia as a sociotechnical system
,
2010,
New Media Soc..
[8]
Patrik Svensson.
Envisioning the Digital Humanities
,
2012,
Digit. Humanit. Q..
[9]
Kees Ribbens,et al.
Digital Historical Research: Context, Concepts and the Need for Reflection
,
2013
.
[10]
J. Noordegraaf.
De digitale erfenis - enter en return
,
2014
.