Hi everyone!

Shall we consider making **Theory** a separate category – alongside **Data**, **Modeling**, and others?

*Suggested brief description of this category:*

Theoretical foundations of computational humanities: basic premises, hypotheses, large-scale questions about cultural change.

**Why should people use this category? What is it for?**

The **Theory** category could contain questions like the one about stochasticity/drift by @folgert , as well as many others on cultural evolution (biases, complexity, innovation…), broader implications of computation in culture, etc. Also, it could become a place for sharing recent theoretical findings/papers. My opinion is that theory must become a crucial part of computational humanities. It is very important for formulating hypotheses and for sensible operationalization of these hypotheses.

**How exactly is this different than the other categories we already have?**

So far most categories seem to be focused on research methods. The **Theory** category would focus on hypotheses, big questions, and basic premises of computational humanities. The theoretical foundations, so to say.

**What should topics in this category generally contain?**

- Cultural evolution: drift, transmission biases, cultural complexity, cultural innovation.
- Basic assumptions of computational humanities. Say, should they be hypothesis-driven or exploratory? How should hypotheses be operationalized?
- Theories and concepts from other disciplines (linguistics, anthropology, complex systems theory, etc.) that can be useful for comput. humanities.
- Sharing the papers on novel theoretical findings relevant to comp. humanities.

**Do we need this category? Can we merge with another category, or subcategory?**

The most similar category, at the moment, is **Modeling**, but modeling is a more technical side of theorizing: not every theory is described with a mathematical model (though, ideally, it should).