The reading section on “Distant /Close, Macro /Micro, Surface/Depth” describes how the seemingly at odds methods of analyzing a small amount of information up close and analyzing a large amount of information from far away actually complement each other. Both tools that can be used to carefully look at information and tools that can be used to get a high level view of a data set are valuable tools for analyzing humanities data. Traditional humanities techniques rely primarily on close readings of information and insights are thought of as being excavated from texts through repeated rigorous readings. In modern times we have created a number of tools that rely on computational power to aid researchers in gaining insights about high-level trends in previously unimaginably large datasets. While these tools may not offer the same kinds of insights as close readings, they can be used in conjunction with traditional techniques to identify regions of interest worthy of further study.

I agree with the points made in this reading, in particular that a high-level statistical analysis of a data set is often not a substitute for traditional close reading techniques. I think that data analysis tools can be used very effectively to gain both insights into trends that couldn’t be seen at the macro level and to identify where in a large data set close reading techniques should be applied.