“…What it means is that when we work with textual and symbolic material quantitatively versus qualitatively there is potential to obtain different types and levels of insight (e.g., see Zuccala et al 2014). In fact, the history of 'citation-ology' (i.e., the study of referencing and citation behavior) has already demonstrated that what we learn from approaching the highly textual, contextual, and symbolic citation, using a qualitative method of investigation can differ greatly than when we approach the same citation using a quantitative method of analysis (Bornmann and Daniel 2008;Brooks 1985;McCain 2006;Small 1978). When we grapple with measuring products and citations from humanistic research, it is less important; therefore, to distinguish data for specific forms of 'treatment' (e.g., this data is qualitative/quantitative and that is not, so this should only be examined quantitatively/qualitatively), and more important to focus on how the data needs to be curated to effectively support a chosen method.…”