The State of Non-Traditional Authorship Attribution Studies—2012: Some Problems and Solutions

Abstract

In 1998, an article appeared in Computers and the Humanities with the following abstract: The statement, “Results of most non traditional authorship attribution studies are not accepted as definitive,” is explicated. A variety of problems in these studies are listed and discussed: studies governed by expediency; a lack of competent research; flawed statistical techniques; corrupted primary data; lack of expertise in allied fields; a dilettantish approach; inadequate treatment of errors. Various solutions are suggested: construct a correct and complete experimental design; educate the practitioners; study style in its totality; identify and educate the gatekeepers; develop a complete theoretical framework; form an association of practitioners.1 1Rudman, “State of Authorship Studies,” 351. Fourteen years later we can see a muddled but gradual advancement in some areas.2However, all of the old problems not only remain but many have been exacerbated. A slew of new, unproven methodologies, new problems, and new controversies have the field in turmoil. This paper uses that earlier publication as a starting point to assess the present state of non-traditional authorship attribution studies—its successes, failures, problems, and prospects. 2Khosmood and Levinson.