{"word_count": 241, "character_count": 1501}
Since spring 2019, we've all been aware of the debate triggered by Nan Z. Da's “Computational Case against Computational Literary Studies”. The article addresses methodological dimensions and among other things revealed that we still need to work on an awareness of the field in its entire breadth. Some time ago, the SIG-DLS steering committee published a statement in Cultural Analytics. You can read it here. After all, we are A maturing field that is now ripe for some benevolent peer criticismAlthough Da's article has various problems, we think it can actually serve as a valuable pointer to discuss issues of replicability and the theory-method fit of our tools. After all, we are maturing field that is now ripe for some benevolent peer criticism! In our SIG-endorsed workshop at the international conference DH2019 at Utrecht, we will take things from there, and engage in a peer-to-peer conversation about the how's and what's of our research. With a critical look at our main types of inquiry, Mike Kestemont (Stylometry), Clémence Jacquot (Textométrie), and Steffen Pielström (Semantic Text Mining) will each ‘dissect’ one of our typical methods with regard to theoretical modelling and research questions. The ws will also address the future shape of tool inventory (DLS-TI), one of our initiatives. Are you going to be at Utrecht? You can still register! In case you have trouble registering for the workshop post hoc (bc you’re already registered for the conference) please let us know.