For context, I'm in the humanities but do quantitative research in that area applied computational linguistics . I'm trying to gauge how representative my experience of how quantitative methods are generally viewed by traditional humanities scholars is. Basically, it seems like there is a general distaste for quantitative methods, stemming from a few sources. First, quantitative methods are aligned with capitalism, patriarchy, and are overhyped by zelous quants who are mostly men. I can understand an association between power and quantification it's very useful on many levels, so it's not surprising that those in power use it. But I don't see that as a barrier to using quantification for other goals and interests. In other words, an association between quantification and power is an accident of history, not something essential to quantification itself. Second, quantitative methods have limited applicability to humanistic goals and questions. I agree it has limits. But I feel like I encounter assertions about these limits that don't make sense. Like someone saying I don't know how to measure fear ignoring the immense amount of cognitive science on measurement and conceptualization of affect. Or, statements that quantitative methods can't be intersectional because they must treat variables like race and sexual orientation as independent which is just plain wrong. It's trivial to run two models with y f x f z and y f x, z and test which model is better. Or, legitimate limitations of a quantitative method are treated as insurmountable. Examples I've seen include peopling acting as if time series analysis doesn't exist, mixed models don't exist, or non linear models don't exist. Basically outright ignorance of how flexible modern statistical methods are leads to a fatalistic attitude towards the capabilities of quantitative methods. Likewise, quantitative researchers are believed to be less thoughtful about their methods than they really are. Basically ignoring how much scientists think deeply about underlying issues in interpreting and presenting data, and never acknowledging perspectives like this Now, I know there are plenty of dudebros who wield the word objectivity like a verbal cudgel in debates but these guys are your average internet commenter, and don't represent the depth to which my quant colleagues understand their methods. My perception is that these sorts of ignorant anti quantitative attitudes are widespread. I'm hoping I'm wrong and my view is distorted by either my biases or the pecularities of my experience. .
anti-quantitative biases are pervasive in the humanities and are based on a straw-man conception of quantitative methods