The discussion leads to a final conclusion that scholars should use both traditional qualitative analysis and the new quantitative methods to complement, correct, and complete each other.
It offers a new definition of the work suitable for the digital era, extending Eggert's concept of the work as a "regulative concept": the work is the set of texts which is hypothesized as organically related, in terms of the communicative acts which they present.In this definition, the task of an editor is to identify the documents which witness the communicative act, in all its parts; to identify the communicative act present in those documents; and then to define exactly how all the documents are related to each other and what each tells us of the communicative act.A particularly egregious example is the socalled "Social edition of the Devonshire manuscript," whose claim to be "social" is poorly based.However, there is real potential in the making of editions which are more inclusive in their making, which achieve a wider impact and create new understandings in expanding circles of readership, whether or not we choose to label these as "social." Cet article examine les nombreuses significations du terme « social » dans les contextes de l'édition, de la révision et du texte.First, it is an error to understand the results of any quantitative analysis of textual traditions as if they represent exactly what happened in the actual making of these copies.
Second, phylogenetic methods can give useful results on uncorrected, unregularized data for vernacular and other traditions, where the spelling of individual words is relatively stable across copies.
This article questions that thesis, demonstrating the problems that can arise with collaborative projects applying digital methodologies to scholarly work through analysis of the Shakespeare Quartos and the European Virtual Museum Transnational Network projects and arguing that the term ‘collaboration’ needs critical examination.
Indeed, to the extent that ‘collaboration’ may be closed, and may serve narrow scholarly purposes, it can be the antithesis of ‘social’.
There appears an obvious fit between the application of ‘social media’ technologies to the making of scholarly editions in digital form and the markedly collaborative nature of the typical digital humanities project.
Accordingly, it may be argued that the model of the collaborative project-based edition need only to be extended, to become ‘social’.
The paper argues that several recent editions by women (of Emily Dickinson by Marta Werner and Martha Nell Smith), of Charles Darwin by Barbara Bordalejo and of Dante by Prue Shaw) may be characterized as feminist, and looks toward further discussion of a feminist framework for textual scholarship).