We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2022
In recent years there has been an upsurge in what has come to be called “quantitative history.” Despite the enthusiasm for this approach, however, some of its critics have validly claimed that its payoffs have all too often failed to live up to its promises of new and more accurate findings. Perhaps a central reason for this criticism is that although the quantitative historian may have been sufficiently thorough in collecting his data, he has often failed to apply to them the sensitive techniques of modern data analysis. Rather, he has continued to rely on more traditional methods of description such as means and percentages. As a result, quantitative works are often long on tables and short on analysis.
Grateful acknowledgment is given to Professors Paul A. Beck, Raymond Corrado, James M. Malloy, Michael Margolis, Reid R. Reading, and Harold D. Sims of the University of Pittsburgh, and to Professor Peter H. Smith of the University of Wisconsin for their helpful comments on an earlier, unpublished version of this note.
You have
Access
