Replicability and the humanities: the problem with universal measures of research quality.

This article critically examines the claim that replication studies signify epistemic progress in the humanities, arguing that the ontological and epistemological foundations of much humanities research render universal standards of replicability problematic. Using Samuel Huntington's *Clash of Civilizations* and recent replication attempts of John Hedley Brooke's work on Puritanism as case studies, it highlights how humanities scholarship often operates within interpretivist or constructivist paradigms that prioritize multiple, situated interpretations over singular empirical truths. The article contends that while replication may yield useful findings in specific contexts, it does not translate into broader epistemic advancement in the humanities, which values transformative inquiry and critical reflexivity distinct from positivist scientific models. It concludes that addressing the humanities' crisis of epistemic esteem requires embracing its unique research cultures rather than imposing STEM-derived replication norms.