Author discussed: Ivan Katchanovski
Reviewed by: Huseyin Oylupinar
Type: Critical essay / review essay
Field: Ukrainian Studies, Memory Studies, Political Violence, Methodology
Abstract
This critical essay examines Ivan Katchanovski’s interpretation of the Maidan shootings of February 2014 and argues that the thesis rests on methodologically unstable foundations. The review analyses problems of source validation, forensic inference, disciplinary accountability, evidentiary standards, and causal overreach. It argues that the accumulation of fragmented materials does not by itself constitute reliable analysis and that politically consequential claims require stronger methodological and expert grounding. Particular attention is given to the use of visual materials, the Hotel Ukraina thesis, the treatment of state violence, and the movement between political interpretation and forensic claims.
Keywords
Maidan; Ukraine; political violence; methodology; forensic evidence; Ivan Katchanovski; state violence; memory politics
Introduction
The Maidan shootings of February 2014 remain one of the most painful and politically abused episodes in Ukraine’s recent history. They are painful because people were killed in the centre of Kyiv during a mass protest against an increasingly violent state. They are abused because the unresolved and complex evidentiary record has repeatedly been turned into a battlefield for political manipulation, conspiracy, and false equivalence.
Ivan Katchanovski’s writings on the so-called “Maidan massacre” belong to this contested space. His central thesis is well known: he argues that the killing of protesters was not primarily the responsibility of the Yanukovych security apparatus, but was instead connected to shooters allegedly operating from opposition-controlled locations, including Hotel Ukraina. This thesis has circulated widely because it is politically explosive. It appears to reverse the moral and political meaning of Maidan. It suggests that the protest movement itself, or radical elements within it, may were responsible for the deaths that helped bring down the Yanukovych government.
The problem is not that Katchanovski offers a controversial thesis. Controversy is not a scholarly weakness in itself. The problem is that his conclusion is stronger than the method that supports it. His work moves through videos, court materials, witness statements, forensic fragments, ballistic claims, and political interpretation, but it does not provide the methodological infrastructure required to make such a claim responsibly. Accumulation of material is not the same as analysis. A large archive of fragments does not become evidence unless the author explains how those fragments are selected, tested, compared, and interpreted.
Katchanovski’s problem is not that he enters a difficult debate. His problem is that he claims expert authority in fields where he has not demonstrated expert competence. His thesis depends on forensic reconstruction, ballistic interpretation, criminal evidentiary analysis, visual-source assessment, and perpetrator identification. These are expert domains. He is not a recognised expert in them. He has not demonstrated recognised expertise as a forensic scientist, ballistic expert, criminologist, legal expert in criminal procedure, or professional specialist in crime-scene reconstruction. Yet the central evidentiary work of his thesis depends precisely on these forms of knowledge.
This essay argues that Katchanovski’s Maidan thesis fails not because it is uncomfortable, but because it is methodologically unstable and disciplinarily unaccountable. It borrows the language of forensic reconstruction without entering the field of forensic science. It makes claims about state repression without adequately engaging the scholarship on state violence. It uses legal and court materials without sufficiently clarifying their evidentiary limits. It invokes political science frameworks without showing how those frameworks structure the analysis. Above all, it isolates the shootings from the broader violence inflicted on Maidan protesters and then builds a politically consequential interpretation on that isolation.
The Maidan shootings deserve serious research. They do not deserve detective work dressed as scholarship.
- The appearance of evidence
One reason Katchanovski’s thesis attracts attention is that it appears heavily documented. His work refers to videos, witness testimony, court proceedings, forensic reports, ballistic findings, and media materials. To a non-specialist reader, this can create the impression of exhaustive research. But the key scholarly question is not whether a study contains many references. The question is whether it explains how those references become evidence.
This distinction is essential. A video clip does not automatically prove who fired a shot. A witness statement does not automatically establish command responsibility. A forensic report does not automatically produce a political conclusion. A court proceeding does not automatically become a historical explanation. Each type of material has its own limits, and each requires its own rules of interpretation.
Katchanovski’s work repeatedly depends on moving from one type of material to another without adequately explaining the transition. A sound in a video becomes an inferred direction of fire. An inferred direction of fire becomes a probable shooting location. A probable shooting location becomes a claim about who controlled the building. Control of the building becomes a claim about the political identity of the shooters. The political identity of the shooters becomes a conclusion about the nature of Maidan itself.
These steps are vital. They are the whole argument. If they are not methodologically secured, the conclusion cannot stand.
The weakness of this book, therefore, is not a lack of material. It is the absence of a transparent evidentiary protocol. What makes one witness reliable and another unreliable? What makes one video decisive and another marginal? What is the standard for identifying a shooter? What is the difference between possibility, probability, and proof? How are contradictory materials weighed? How are politically compromised sources handled? These are basic questions. Without answers to them, the work may look empirical, but it remains analytically fragile.
What is presented as evidence is often inference; what is presented as method is often accumulation. The result is not expertise, but the use of expert-looking material without the discipline that such material requires.
- Selective data and the problem of source validation
A central weakness in Katchanovski’s work is not simply that he uses videos, court excerpts, public testimony, and media materials. Scholars must use imperfect sources when they study violent and chaotic events. The problem is that he does not consistently explain how these sources are validated before they are used as the basis for major claims.
This matters especially for visual material. Hours of video footage do not automatically become reliable evidence. Video requires authentication, contextualisation, synchronisation, and source criticism. Who produced the footage? Who edited it? What is missing from the sequence? What angle does it show? What angle does it not show? What political or institutional background does the producer have? What other evidence confirms or contradicts it? These questions cannot be skipped.
If a video, interpretation, or evidentiary fragment comes from actors connected to Russian lobbying, Russian state interests, or pro-Russian information networks, this does not automatically make the material false. But it absolutely requires source criticism. It requires disclosure. It requires caution. It requires the author to explain why the material is reliable despite its political environment. To use such material without serious contextualisation is methodologically irresponsible.
Katchanovski’s thesis often gives the impression that all fragments can be placed on the same evidentiary table, as long as they appear to support the argument. But not all fragments have the same status. Some are court materials. Some are media products. Some are activist accounts. Some are interpretations produced within politically charged networks. Some may be technically useful but politically contaminated. A serious scholar does not simply collect them. A serious scholar ranks them, tests them, and explains their limits.
This problem becomes especially visible when politically compromised visual materials are treated as if they were neutral evidentiary objects. In one argumentative moment, Katchanovski relies on a video whose production background itself should have required serious caution: the producer had worked in Russia in public-relations and image-making circles, and the project was reportedly financed by a Russian oligarch. Such a source is not automatically false. But it is not neutral either. It cannot simply be inserted into the evidentiary chain without explaining who produced it, who financed it, what political environment shaped it, and why it should be trusted.
This is precisely where source criticism matters. A politically compromised source can still contain useful information, but only if its provenance is openly examined. Without that contextualisation, using it as evidence is not careful scholarship; it is selective trust.
The problem is selective validation: materials that support the thesis are treated as revealing, while materials that complicate it are treated as secondary, uncertain, or politically compromised. That is confirmation bias with footnotes.
- Hotel Ukraina and the problem of inference
The Hotel Ukraina claim is not a minor detail. It is one of the load-bearing pillars of Katchanovski’s thesis. If the presence, identity, and affiliation of shooters in that building cannot be demonstrated, then the political conclusion built on that claim collapses. If this pillar fails, the broader political interpretation loses its foundation.
Katchanovski argues that shots came from buildings allegedly controlled by the protesters, including Hotel Ukraina. He then moves from this claim toward the conclusion that the shooters were connected to radical Ukrainian nationalist elements or the opposition side of Maidan. This is the crucial move. It is also the weakest one.
A building is not an organisation. A window is not a political programme. Access to a location is not proof of command responsibility. To move from “shots may have come from Hotel Ukraina” to “radical nationalist protesters were responsible” requires additional evidence. It requires identification of the shooters, their organisational affiliation, their command structure, and their purpose. Without that, the argument rests on inference piled upon inference.
There is no sufficient evidentiary basis, in this thesis, for identifying alleged shooters in Hotel Ukraina by name, physical description, organisational chain, or command relationship. The thesis does not provide a witness identification of such shooters by name or reliable physical description, nor does it provide visual evidence that clearly shows them operating from Hotel Ukraina. Without such evidence, the argument depends on a chain of assumptions rather than a demonstrated identification.
The existence of possible shooting positions is not the same as proof of who used them. Nor is the alleged control of a building by protesters sufficient to identify every possible actor inside that space as politically representative of Maidan.
The problem is even more serious because the Maidan events unfolded in an environment of intense political confrontation, intelligence activity, and information warfare. Any serious analysis must consider the possibility of infiltration, provocation, uncontrolled armed actors, state manipulation, or foreign intelligence activity. These possibilities are not exotic. They are central to the study of protest violence in contested political environments.
Katchanovski does not sufficiently confront this problem. His thesis depends on treating protest-controlled space as if it were politically transparent. But the presence of a shooter in or near a protest-controlled building, even if established, would not automatically make that shooter a representative of Maidan. This is a basic analytical distinction, and ignoring it allows a speculative conclusion to appear stronger than it is.
Location does not establish identity, access does not prove affiliation, and inference cannot stand in for proof.
- The problem of negative evidence
Another recurring weakness is the treatment of negative evidence. The absence of a direct written order from Viktor Yanukovych or senior officials to kill protesters cannot be treated as proof that the state was not responsible. Modern state violence rarely announces itself in perfectly preserved documents. Orders may be oral, indirect, coded, delegated, or deliberately deniable. Repressive systems often function through permissive environments rather than explicit written commands.
This is not an argument for assuming guilt without evidence. It is an argument against a naive standard of evidence. Historians and political scientists studying state violence do not normally ask only whether a signed order exists. They ask how institutions behaved, how force escalated, how command structures operated, what forms of violence were tolerated, and what political conditions made lethal repression possible.
In the Maidan case, the broader pattern of violence matters. Protesters had already faced beatings, intimidation, abductions, torture, and deaths before the mass shootings of February 2014. The state’s coercive apparatus was not a neutral background actor. It was an active force in the radicalisation of the crisis.
Forensic work on weapons used against protesters, including modified stun grenades and added striking components such as nails, nuts, stones, and other hard materials, is essential to understanding the violence of Maidan. Such material shows that the violence against protesters was not only a matter of the final shootings. It was embedded in a broader repertoire of coercion, injury, intimidation, and escalation. A narrow focus on the fatal shootings sidelines this wider material record of state violence.
To isolate the killings from this longer chain of coercion is to distort the historical field. The question is not only who fired particular shots. The question is how a political regime created the conditions in which such violence became possible.
Katchanovski’s work narrows the problem too much. It turns a history of repression into a puzzle of trajectories. It treats the absence of one kind of document as if it neutralised a wider pattern of coercion. Simply for that his work is not a historical analysis but an evidentiary minimalism serving a maximal conclusion.
- The missing context of violence against protesters
The most troubling feature of Katchanovski’s thesis is not simply that it challenges the dominant interpretation of the shootings. It is that it does so by removing the shootings from the larger history of violence during Maidan.
Maidan was not a peaceful dispute that suddenly became violent on 20 February 2014. The protest movement developed under conditions of escalating state repression. Students were beaten. Activists were attacked. People disappeared. Protesters were tortured. Earlier deaths had already occurred. The state’s coercive apparatus was not a neutral background actor. It was an active force in the radicalisation of the crisis.
A study that focuses narrowly on selected shooting episodes while neglecting this wider context risks producing a distorted moral geography. It makes the state fade into the background and turns the protest movement into the primary object of suspicion. This is not a neutral methodological choice, it is opted to change the meaning of the event.
Of course, the existence of state violence does not mean that every death can be automatically attributed to the state. But the reverse is also true: the possibility of violence from within or around protest spaces does not erase the state’s responsibility for the broader repressive environment. Protest violence, state violence, provocation, and infiltration can coexist. The scholarly task is to analyse that complexity, not to simplify it into a politically convenient reversal.
This is where Katchanovski’s work becomes most problematic. It does not merely ask whether the official narrative is incomplete. That would be a legitimate question. It constructs an alternative interpretation that appears to transfer the central burden of responsibility away from the Yanukovych government. Such a move requires exceptional evidentiary discipline. That discipline is missing.
- Forensic claims without forensic expertise
Katchanovski’s work relies heavily on materials that belong to expert fields: bullet trajectories, wounds, ballistic analysis, shooting locations, visual synchronisation, court records, and crime-scene reconstruction. These are not ordinary political-science materials. They require specialised training and professional competence. A scholar may certainly read across fields, but reading across fields is not the same as being qualified to make expert conclusions in them.
This is a central weakness of Katchanovski’s thesis. He has not demonstrated recognised expertise as a forensic scientist, ballistic expert, criminologist, legal expert in criminal procedure, or professional specialist in crime-scene reconstruction. Yet his thesis depends on precisely these forms of expertise. This is not a minor issue of academic background. It goes to the heart of the argument. If the central claim depends on forensic and criminal-evidentiary analysis, then the author must either possess recognised expertise in those fields or build the work through sustained collaboration with those who do.
A dentist cannot perform brain surgery because both dentistry and neurosurgery are “medical.” Expertise is not transferable by general proximity. The same principle applies here. A political scientist cannot simply move into forensic reconstruction, ballistic interpretation, and criminal evidentiary analysis and expect the authority of expertise to follow automatically. The fact that one can read court documents or watch videos does not make one competent to reconstruct a killing.
The problem is not that Katchanovski uses forensic material. The problem is that he uses forensic material to make politically explosive conclusions without submitting those conclusions to the standards of the expert fields on which they depend. He does not sufficiently show how competing ballistic interpretations are evaluated. He does not clearly explain how video material is authenticated and synchronised. He does not establish a robust framework for moving from physical evidence to perpetrator identification. He does not show that the relevant expert fields have accepted him as one of their own.
The result is a hybrid form of argument: technical enough to impress non-specialists, but not sufficiently expert to satisfy the standards of the technical fields it invokes. This is a dangerous position. It allows forensic language to function rhetorically. It gives the impression of precision while leaving the core interpretive leaps insufficiently tested.
A serious reconstruction of the Maidan shootings would require forensic scientists, criminologists, legal scholars, and specialists in visual evidence. At minimum, it would require the author to explain where his own expertise ends and where expert collaboration begins. Katchanovski’s work does not do this. It blurs the line between political interpretation and expert determination, and then asks the reader to accept that blur as scholarship.
- A thesis without a stable field
Another problem is disciplinary instability. Katchanovski is a political scientist, but the central question he pursues — who killed specific protesters, from which locations, using what weapons — is not a standard political science question unless it is embedded in a broader theory of state violence, repression, protest dynamics, or political accountability. If the question is instead treated as a criminal reconstruction, then it belongs to fields that require different expertise. At times, his work gestures toward political-science frameworks, including rational choice or theories of state repression. But these frameworks do not appear to organise the analysis in any sustained way.
The thesis has no stable scholarly home. It is not developed as political science, because it does not use political-science theory to explain state repression in a sustained way. It is not forensic science, because the author is not a forensic expert and does not submit the work to forensic standards. It is not criminology, because it does not operate with the methods of criminal investigation. It is not history, because it decontextualises the violence. It moves between fields without being accountable to any of them.
Interdisciplinarity can be productive, but only when the researcher accepts the obligations of the disciplines being brought together. Here, the movement between fields often looks less like interdisciplinarity and more like evasion. When the argument needs forensic authority, it uses forensic material. When it needs political significance, it speaks the language of regime change. When it needs legal seriousness, it draws on court records. But it does not fully belong to any of these fields.
What is obvious in this work is that it is not interdisciplinary. Author is just moving between fields without accountability.
This matters because every field has standards. Political science requires theoretical clarity. History requires contextualisation and source criticism. Forensic science requires technical validation. Legal analysis requires procedural precision. Criminology requires attention to perpetration, motive, opportunity, and evidentiary thresholds. A study that moves across these fields without clearly meeting their standards risks becoming academically homeless.
Katchanovski’s authority on the Maidan shootings is not grounded in a long-standing record of specialised work in forensic science, criminology, criminal law, or the history of political violence in Ukraine. His earlier scholarly profile was built elsewhere, including work on trade unions and later on regional divisions in Ukraine. Scholars can change fields. They can develop new expertise. They can move into new topics. But when they do so, especially when the new topic requires expert evidentiary competence, the burden of methodological demonstration becomes higher, not lower.
This is not a personal objection to intellectual movement across fields. It is an objection to the academic habit of treating general social-science credentials as if they automatically authorise expert claims in any politically relevant subject. This habit has damaged public trust in scholarship. In politically charged areas of the social sciences, this is a recurring problem: scholars trained in one domain perform the equivalent of dentists doing brain surgery — competent in one field, confident in another, and insufficiently accountable to the expert standards of the field they have entered.
The issue is not simply that Katchanovski approaches the topic from another discipline. The issue is that the central evidentiary labour of his thesis belongs to fields in which he has not demonstrated recognised expertise. A scholar who moves into such a topic must show how expertise is acquired, where collaboration with experts occurs, and how the standards of the relevant fields are met. Otherwise, the work feeds a wider reliability crisis in the social sciences: confidence replacing competence.
- Dismissing scholarship is not engagement
A further weakness is the treatment of existing scholarship. Research on Maidan, Ukrainian politics, state violence, Russian intervention, and post-Soviet protest has developed across several disciplines. A serious challenge to existing interpretations must engage this scholarship at its strongest points. It is not enough to dismiss critical scholars as politically engaged, emotionally invested, or pro-Ukrainian.
Such dismissals are intellectually cheap. They avoid the real work of scholarly debate: identifying arguments, reconstructing evidence, testing interpretations, and showing where existing studies fail. All scholarship is written from somewhere. The question is not whether an author has political sympathies. The question is whether the argument can withstand methodological scrutiny.
Katchanovski demands that critics of his thesis be treated as politically compromised, while he does not apply the same level of scrutiny to authors, platforms, or sources that support his interpretation. This asymmetry centrally critical to criticism. If political proximity is a reason to discount one body of scholarship, then it must also be applied to the materials and authors that sustain the counter-thesis. Otherwise, “political bias” becomes not an analytical category, but a weapon used only against critics.
The same applies to those who cite or repeat Katchanovski’s thesis. Circulation is not validation. A claim can travel widely because it is useful, provocative, or politically convenient. That does not mean it has transformed the field. The measure of scholarly contribution is not whether a thesis appears in public debate, but whether it generates sustained, critical engagement among specialists who work on the relevant subject.
Despite years of circulation, Katchanovski’s thesis has not become a productive research direction in Ukrainian Studies, East European Studies, or Maidan scholarship. It has circulated more effectively as controversy than as field-shaping scholarship. It has been presented and repeated, but repetition is not reception. It has been invoked in public argument, but invocation is not scholarly consolidation.
The publication pattern itself is part of the problem. A thesis that claims to transform the understanding of one of the central events in contemporary Ukrainian history should be tested in the core scholarly spaces where that event and its evidence are studied: Ukrainian Studies, East European Studies, contemporary Ukrainian history, political violence, criminology, forensic science, and legal analysis. Instead, Katchanovski’s thesis has remained largely peripheral to the mainstream scholarly development of these fields. It has found visibility, but visibility is not the same as disciplinary acceptance.
A controversial argument may be discussed in conferences, cited in political debate, or circulated online without becoming a recognised research direction. A field-changing thesis does more than provoke attention. It forces specialists to reorganise questions, methods, archives, and interpretations. Katchanovski’s thesis has not done that in Ukrainian Studies or East European Studies. It remains politically useful, but that is not the same as being academically productive.
This is not a new research direction but a controversy that failed to become part of a study field.
- From Maidan to 2022: causal overreach
One of the most questionable tendencies in this line of interpretation is the construction of a direct causal chain from the Maidan shootings to the fall of Yanukovych, the annexation of Crimea, the war in Donbas, and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
This is historical overreach. It is reasonable to argue that the shootings played a major role in the collapse of Yanukovych’s authority. It is reasonable to argue that Maidan changed Ukraine’s political trajectory and intensified confrontation with Russia. But it is not reasonable to compress eight years of history into a linear chain in which the Maidan shootings become the originating cause of Russia’s later war.
Such a framing reduces complex historical processes to a simplified sequence. It underplays Russian agency. It underplays the longer history of Russian pressure on Ukrainian sovereignty. It underplays Crimea’s strategic place in Russian policy, the manufactured dynamics of the Donbas war, and the decisions made by the Russian state before and after 2014. Most importantly, it risks shifting explanatory weight away from the state that launched the aggression.
This framing does not merely simplify history. It inflates the importance of Katchanovski’s own thesis. By making the Maidan shootings the first domino leading to Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion, he turns his interpretation into a master key for explaining the whole war. That is not historical explanation. It is argumentative self-magnification.
This kind of causal compression is not innocent. It can make Russian actions appear reactive rather than aggressive. It transforms invasion into consequence and this is a politically loaded simplification.
- Why this matters
The debate over the Maidan shootings is not only an academic dispute. It matters because interpretations of Maidan are used to legitimise or delegitimise Ukraine’s political transformation after 2014. They are used in arguments about Russian aggression. They are used in propaganda. They are used to construct moral equivalence between protesters and the state that repressed them.
This is why methodological weakness is not a minor technical problem. In politically charged cases, weak method has political effects. A speculative claim, once dressed in academic language, can circulate as expertise. A selective interpretation can become a weapon in public debate. A poorly grounded thesis can gain authority simply because it appears controversial and counter-intuitive.
Scholarship must be able to challenge national myths. It must be able to criticise Ukrainian actors, including Maidan participants, opposition leaders, nationalist groups, and post-Maidan governments. But critique requires method. Without method, critique becomes suspicion. Without evidentiary discipline, revision becomes reversal. Without context, complexity becomes manipulation.
The question, then, is not whether Maidan should be protected from scrutiny. It should not. The question is whether Katchanovski’s work provides the kind of scrutiny that advances knowledge. I do not think it does.
- The cost of unmerited scholarship
The danger of Katchanovski’s thesis is not limited to its immediate claims about the Maidan shootings. The danger is that a methodologically unstable argument, once published and circulated as scholarship, becomes a resource for future distortion. It enters bibliographies. It appears in footnotes. It is cited by authors who do not examine its evidentiary base. It is repeated in public debate as if publication itself were proof of validity.
This is how unmerited scholarship pollutes a field. It does not need to convince specialists. It only needs to create enough apparent legitimacy for politically motivated actors to say: “There is an academic study that proves this.” From that point onward, scholars must spend time and resources correcting the record, explaining the methodological flaws, and separating evidence from inference. Years may be spent undoing what should not have been granted scholarly authority in the first place.
In the case of Maidan, the consequences are especially serious. Arguments that shift responsibility away from the Yanukovych state and toward the protest movement are not neutral academic exercises. They can be used by actors invested in anti-Ukrainian or pro-Russian narratives to claim that Maidan was not a democratic uprising against state violence, but a manipulation built on murder and deception. Once such a claim is dressed in academic form, the damage is difficult to contain.
The pollution may never be fully cleaned. Even after a thesis is criticised, corrected, or discredited among specialists, it can continue to circulate in public discourse. Bad arguments often outlive their scholarly defeat. This is why the standards of expertise, method, and disciplinary accountability matter before publication, not only after.
- Conclusion
The Maidan shootings require serious, interdisciplinary, and methodologically transparent research. They require historians, political scientists, forensic experts, criminologists, legal scholars, and specialists in visual evidence to work with care and caution. They require a willingness to confront uncertainty, contradiction, and political pressure. They require more than the accumulation of fragments.
This is not a thesis that requires minor correction. It requires a different research design, different expertise, and different evidentiary discipline. The issue is not whether Katchanovski may ask uncomfortable questions. The issue is whether he has built the expert apparatus required to answer them.
Katchanovski’s Maidan thesis has gained attention because it offers a dramatic reversal of responsibility. But dramatic reversal is not the same as scholarly contribution. The thesis depends on unstable movement between evidence and inference, location and identity, absence and exoneration, forensic fragments and political conclusions. It decontextualises the shootings from the broader violence against protesters and then builds a politically consequential claim on that narrowed field.
The problem is not that the thesis is controversial. The problem is that controversy has been mistaken for courage, and accumulation has been mistaken for method.
The issue is not only that Katchanovski’s thesis is weak. The issue is that weak theses, when published and circulated as scholarship, do damage beyond themselves. They create unmerited authority. They consume the time of serious scholars. They provide material for political distortion. They enter public discourse in forms that may never be fully corrected. In this sense, the problem is not simply one author or one thesis. The problem is the pollution of the field by work that has not earned the authority it claims.
Maidan deserves serious scholarship, not piles of data mistaken for knowledge.
We build custom AI models for Social Science Research Projects here at IKRS
The Institute for Knowledge, Research and Society focuses on the design, evaluation, and application of Custom AI Systems as Methodological Infrastructure as methodological infrastructure for research in the humanities and social sciences.
The Institute develops AI systems tailored to specific research tasks such as structuring complex sources, supporting comparative analysis, and assisting in the interpretation of large, multilingual, or heterogeneous bodies of material. Artificial intelligence is treated not as a general-purpose solution, but as a set of methods designed in close relation to defined intellectual goals.
Contact us at oylupina@ualberta.ca