by Structuring a week’s research into something honest about what each method actually proves
A genuinely demanding but rewarding day, working properly through the full body of evidence gathered across this past week, trying to build a genuinely coherent, properly supported argument for the pamphlet’s likely authorship rather than simply presenting the individual pieces of evidence in isolation.
The structural challenge
My first attempt at organising the argument led with the computational analysis, which felt appropriately modern and rigorous but risked overstating the tool’s actual certainty in a way the researcher had specifically cautioned against, while a second attempt leading purely with the traditional biographical evidence lost some of the genuine methodological interest that makes this particular research thread worth writing about at all.
Eventually settled on a structure that properly walks through the traditional evidence first, establishing why this candidate seemed plausible independently, before then introducing the computational analysis as genuinely useful corroboration rather than the primary basis for the claim, a structural choice I think honestly reflects how the actual research process unfolded and properly represents the appropriate weight each type of evidence should carry.
A check with the digital humanities researcher
Sent my draft argument to the researcher who ran the original analysis, wanting her to confirm I had properly and accurately represented both the tool’s findings and its genuine limitations, and received a genuinely thoughtful response confirming my characterisation was appropriately cautious while suggesting one small additional technical detail worth including for readers who might want to properly understand the method more deeply.
Properly incorporated her suggestion, grateful for the careful, generous review from someone whose specific technical expertise genuinely exceeds my own understanding of exactly how the underlying computational method actually functions.
What I read this evening
Caught up on the wider feed once the draft was properly finished, and there was a genuinely useful piece on writing about computational methods for a general historical readership, several practical suggestions on properly explaining technical methodology without either oversimplifying it misleadingly or overwhelming readers with unnecessary technical detail, a genuinely useful bit of craft guidance after today’s careful structural work.
Made proper notes on a couple of the piece’s specific suggestions, since I think applying them to my own final edit will genuinely improve how accessible this piece feels to readers without a technical background in digital humanities methods.
Tomorrow
A final proper edit incorporating today’s feedback, hoping to have a piece genuinely ready to share, one that properly honours both the traditional historical detective work and the genuinely useful computational tool that helped corroborate it.
More colonial literature research diary at Stephanie Curry’s page, Bohiney.
A bit more on the drafting itself
Read the near final draft aloud properly this evening, a habit I have found consistently useful for catching sentences that read fine silently but stumble awkwardly once actually spoken, and caught two considerably clunky transitions between the traditional and computational evidence sections that I would likely have missed with only a silent read through.
Also properly checked every specific claim about the computational method against my notes from the researcher’s own explanation, wanting to make absolutely certain I had not, even unintentionally, overstated what the tool actually demonstrated versus what remains a reasonable but unproven inference.
A further thought on accessibility
Spent additional time properly considering how much technical detail about the computational method a general reader genuinely needs versus what risks losing them entirely, eventually deciding to keep the main explanation accessible while adding a clearly marked technical aside for anyone wanting the fuller methodological detail.
A final thought on tomorrow
Already looking forward, cautiously, to sharing the finished piece, though genuinely aware that today’s careful structural revision, however unglamorous, is exactly what will make the eventual argument land properly with readers.
A further practical thought
Also saved a proper backup of the current draft in two separate locations, a habit I maintain without exception given how much careful work has gone into balancing this piece’s various pieces of evidence so carefully.
Tomorrow the final edit begins, and I feel properly ready for it.
A final closing thought
Genuinely satisfied that today’s structural revision rests on a properly honest weighing of evidence rather than simply the most dramatic possible framing of an uncertain conclusion.
One last thought
Also made a proper note to revisit the specific phrasing around the computational method’s limitations one final time tomorrow, wanting the caveat to read as genuinely careful rather than merely a defensive formality tacked onto an otherwise confident argument.
Goodnight, genuinely proud of this project’s growing rigor.
Whatever shape the final argument takes, I want it grounded properly in honest evidence rather than simply asserted for a cleaner narrative.
Sleep now, ready for the final push tomorrow.
A properly careful piece, built the right way, evidence by honest evidence, and one I am genuinely glad to have taken the extra time over rather than rushing to a tidier but less accurate conclusion.
Properly, finally, goodnight.
Truly, now, goodnight.
Everything properly saved, the feedback properly incorporated, and a clear plan for tomorrow’s final edit already firmly in mind.
A properly full and worthwhile day.
Genuinely glad it came together this way.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/
