An ongoing debate in the humanities is that of methodology: hypothetico-deductive approaches are often rejected, and analytical definitions of the objects of study are usually believed impossible or not desirable. However, suitable alternatives are rarely produced without friction or heated discussion.
It is true that methodologies are taught at universities and considered an important aspect of research by most scholars; however, I have not found many occasions where methodologies were documented and communicated in a systematic way by practitioners. For this reason, I argue that methodological guidance in the digital humanities is scarce, which makes reproducibility of interim and final research results, as well as the communication of work processes to colleagues or the public, very difficult. This is especially relevant in relation to the separation of descriptive vs. interpretive processes. By descriptive processes I refer to formalising tasks by which researchers generate data from observed evidence, e.g. by recording finds at an archaeological excavation site. By interpretive processes I refer to deductive, inductive or abductive tasks by which scholars generate new knowledge from existing data and through argumentation, sense-making and other cognitive devices. Such poor separation of descriptive and interpretive processes in the digital humanities leads to bigger reuse barriers and scenarios where collaboration is harder, especially between individuals of different disciplinary backgrounds.