Jump to content

User:Phlsph7/History - Methods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Methods

[edit]
Main article: Historical method

The historical method is a set of techniques historians use to research and interpret the past. It covers the processes of collecting, evaluating, and synthesizing evidence.[a] It ensures scholarly rigor, accuracy, and reliability in how historical evidence is chosen, analyzed, and interpreted.[2] Historical research often starts with a research question to delimit the scope of the inquiry. Some research questions focus on a simple description of what happened. Others aim to explain why a particular event occurred, refute an existing theory, or confirm a new hypothesis.[3]

Sources and source criticism

[edit]

To answer research questions, historians rely on various types of evidence to reconstruct the past and support their conclusions. Historical evidence is usually divided into primary and secondary sources.[4] A primary source is a source that originated during the period that is studied. Primary sources can take various forms, such as official documents, letters, diaries, eyewitness accounts, photographs, audio recordings, and video recordings. They also include historical remains examined in archeology, geology, and the medical sciences, such as artifacts and fossils unearthed from excavations. Primary sources offer the most direct and unfiltered evidence of historical events.[5]

A secondary source is a source that analyzes or interprets information found in other sources.[6] Whether a document is a primary or a secondary source depends not only on the document itself but also on the purpose for which it is used. For example, if a historian writes a text about slavery based on an analysis of historical documents, then the text is a secondary source on slavery and a primary source on the historian's opinion.[7][b] Consistency with available sources is one of the main standards of historical works. For instance, the discovery of new sources may lead historians to revise or dismiss previously accepted narratives.[9]

Source criticism is the process of analyzing and evaluating the information a source provides.[c] Typically, this process begins with external criticism, which evaluates the authenticity of a source. It addresses the questions of when and where the source was created. It also seeks to identify the author, understand their reason for producing the source, and determine if it has undergone some type of modification since its creation. Additionally, the process involves distinguishing between original works, mere copies, and deceptive forgeries.[11]

External criticism prepares the task of internal criticism, which evaluates the content of a source. An initial step of this evaluation is typically to uncover and clarify the meaning within the source. This involves disambiguating individual terms that could be misunderstood but may also require a general translation if the source is written in an ancient language. Once the information content of a source is understood, internal criticism is specifically interested in determining accuracy. Critics ask whether the information is reliable or misrepresents the topic. They further question whether the source is comprehensive or omits important details. One way to make these assessments is to evaluate whether the author was able, in principle, to provide a faithful presentation of the studied event and to consider the influences of their intentions and prejudices. Being aware of the inadequacies of a source helps historians decide whether to rely on it at all, which aspects to trust, and how to use it to construct a narrative.[12]

Synthesis and schools of thought

[edit]

The selection, analysis, and criticism of sources result in the validation of a large collection of mostly isolated statements about the past. As a next step, sometimes termed historical synthesis, historians strive to craft a coherent narrative from this collection of statements. This process involves figuring out how the individual pieces of evidence fit together to form part of a larger story.[d] Constructing this broader perspective is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the topic as a whole. It is a creative aspect[e] of historical writing that reconstructs, interprets, and explains what happened, by showing how different events are connected.[15] In this way, historians address not only which events occurred but also why they occurred and what consequences they had.[16]

While there are no universally accepted techniques for this synthesis, historians rely on various interpretative tools and approaches in this process.[17] An important tool is the use of periodization to provide an accessible overview of complex developments. To do so, historians divide a timeframe into different periods, each organized around central themes or developments that shaped the period. For example, the three-age system divides prehistory into Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age based on the predominant materials and technologies during these periods.[18] Another methodological tool is the examination of so-called silences. Silences are gaps or omissions in the historical record of events that occurred but did not leave significant evidential traces. This can happen for facts that contemporaries found too obvious to document but may also occur if there were specific reasons to withhold or destroy information.[19][f] Conversely, when large datasets are available, quantitative approaches can be used. For instance, economic and social historians commonly employ statistical analysis to identify patterns and trends associated with large groups.[21]

Different schools of thought often come with their own methodological implications for how to write history.[22] Positivists emphasize the scientific nature of historical inquiry, focusing on empirical evidence to discover objective truths.[23] Marxists interpret historical developments as expressions of economic forces and class struggles.[24] The Annales school highlights long-term social and economic trends while relying on quantitative and interdisciplinary methods.[25] Feminist historians study the role of gender in history, with a particular interest in the experiences of women to challenge patriarchal perspectives.[26] Postmodernists reject grand narratives that claim to offer a single, objective truth. Instead, they emphasize the subjective nature of historical interpretation, which leads to a multiplicity of divergent perspectives.[27]

References

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Understood in a narrow sense, the historical method is sometimes limited to the evaluation or criticism of sources.[1]
  2. ^ The exact definitions of primary source and secondary source are disputed and there is not always consensus on how a particular source should be categorized. For example, if a person was not present at a riot but reports on it shortly after it happened, some historians consider this report a primary source while others see it as a secondary source.[8]
  3. ^ Leopold von Ranke's (1795–1886) emphasis on source evaluation significantly influenced the practice of historical research.[10]
  4. ^ This becomes particularly challenging if different sources provide seemingly contradictory information.[13]
  5. ^ The creativity and imagination needed for this step is one of the reasons why some theorists understand history as an art rather than a science.[14]
  6. ^ For example, information about homosexuality may not be widely recorded in cultures where there is a taboo against homosexuality.[20]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Ritter 1986, p. 268
  2. ^
  3. ^ Kamp et al. 2020, pp. 19–20
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^ Tosh 2002, p. 57
  9. ^ Tosh 2002, pp. 56–57
  10. ^ Tosh 2002, pp. 87
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^ Tosh 2002, p. 141
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^ Tosh 2002, p. 140
  18. ^
  19. ^ Kamp et al. 2020, pp. 77–78
  20. ^ Kamp et al. 2020, pp. 77–78
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^

Sources

[edit]
  • Christian, David (2015). "Introduction and Overview". In Christian, David (ed.). The Cambridge World History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-76333-2.
  • Lucas, Gavin (2004). The Archaeology of Time. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-38427-3.
  • Little, Daniel (2020). "Philosophy of History". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 7 November 2024.
  • Berkhofer, R. (2008). Fashioning History: Current Practices and Principles. Springer. ISBN 978-0-230-61720-9.
  • Topolski, Y. (2012). Methodology of History. D. Reidel Publishing Company. ISBN 978-94-010-1123-5.
  • Garraghan, Gilbert J. (1946). Delanglez, Jean (ed.). A Guide to Historical Method. Fordham University Press. OCLC 7545487.
  • Kamp, Jeannette; Legêne, Susan; Rossum, Matthias van; Rümke, Sebas (2020). Writing History!: A Companion for Historians. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 978-90-485-3762-4.
  • Ahlskog, Jonas (2020). The Primacy of Method in Historical Research: Philosophy of History and the Perspective of Meaning. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-28524-6.
  • McCullagh, C. Behan (1984). Justifying Historical Descriptions. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-31830-3.
  • Fazal, Tanweer (2023). "'Documents of Power': Historical Method and the Study of Politics". Studies in Indian Politics. 11 (1). doi:10.1177/23210230231166179.
  • Lloyd, Christopher (2011). "Historiographic Schools". In Tucker, Aviezer (ed.). A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-5152-1.
  • Gottschalk, Louis Reichenthal (1969). Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method (2 ed.). Knopf. OCLC 3861.
  • Shafer, Robert Jones, ed. (1969). A Guide to Historical Method. Dorsey Press. OCLC 18660.
  • Howell, Martha C.; Prevenier, Walter (2001). From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-8560-2.
  • Ritter, Harry (1986). Dictionary of Concepts in History. Greenwood press. ISBN 0-313-22700-4.
  • Tosh, John (2002). The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-582-77254-0.

Suggestions

[edit]

Hello Phlsph7! I have taken you up on your offer of reading what you wrote here. I haven't been this engaged in a WP page in a while, but this is oh so much fun! Below you will find my edits on your writing above. Please understand these are only suggestions! I do not mean in any way to be a bother, and in fact I found your draft to be very good. In that regard there is precious little CONTENT change in the below. It is mostly edited to be a bit more concise and clear. I have an aversion in academic writing to what I see as short, choppy sentences. A longer sentence is stronger, in my opinion, so long as it is not too long (see what I did there?). So as an example, in the internal criticism paragraph above you wrote:

"External criticism prepares the task of internal criticism, which evaluates the content of a source. An initial step of this evaluation is typically to uncover and clarify the meaning within the source... Once the information content of a source is understood, internal criticism is specifically interested in determining accuracy."

None of this is incorrect, but you used three sentences to explain this. I have changed it to:

Internal criticism evaluates the content of a source, which typically begins with uncovering and clarifying the meaning within the source and then determining its accuracy.

The phrase "External criticism prepares the task of internal criticism" is very clunky, and the rest flows better but still gets the point across.

I have also edited some of your word usage. For example, "delimit" is correct, but "define" is more easily understood for the general WP reader, so:

Historical research often starts with a research question to delimit the scope of the inquiry. Some research questions focus on a simple description of what happened. Others aim to explain why a particular event occurred, refute an existing theory, or confirm a new hypothesis.

Has become:

Historical research often starts with a research question to define the scope of the inquiry. Some focus on a simple description of what happened, while others aim to explain why a particular event occurred, refute an existing theory, or confirm a new hypothesis.

These are the types of changes I have mostly made. I did not include the refs etc. that you did as continually re-popping them would make this page unbearably heavy, so please add them back in as you choose. Anyway, here it is. I hope it mildly helps. And please feel free to contact me at my talk page if you have any questions about my edits. I have also added this page to my watchlist. Best! Vyselink (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Edited work

[edit]
The historical method is a set of techniques historians use to research and interpret the past, covering the processes of collecting, evaluating, and synthesizing evidence.[a] It seeks to ensure scholarly rigor, accuracy, and reliability in how historical evidence is chosen, analyzed, and interpreted.[2] Historical research often starts with a research question to define the scope of the inquiry. Some focus on a simple description of what happened, while others aim to explain why a particular event occurred, refute an existing theory, or confirm a new hypothesis.[3]

Sources and source criticism

To answer research questions, historians rely on various types of evidence to reconstruct the past and support their conclusions. Historical evidence is usually divided into primary and secondary sources, although a secondary source can also be a primary source depending on what it is used for.[4] A primary source is a source that originated during the period that is studied. Primary sources can take various forms, such as official documents, letters, diaries, eyewitness accounts, photographs, and audio or video recordings. They also include historical remains examined in archeology, geology, and the medical sciences, such as artifacts and fossils unearthed from excavations. Primary sources offer the most direct evidence of historical events.[5]
A secondary source is a source that analyzes or interprets information found in other sources[6] It seeks to analyze and restate primary sources and is usually removed from the event by either time or distance, with the author not having been a participant in the event. For example a book on slavery based on primary sources is a secondary source on slavery. While consistency with available sources is one of the main standards of historical works, the discovery of new sources may lead historians to revise or dismiss previously accepted narratives.[9] Secondary sources can also be primary sources when for example the work is used to determine what the author’s views on a topic are, in which case the text becomes a primary source on the author’s opinion.[7][b]
Source criticism is the process of analyzing and evaluating the information a source provides.[c] Typically, this process begins with external criticism, which evaluates the authenticity of a source. It addresses the questions of when and where the source was created and seeks to identify the author, understand their reason for producing the source, and determine if it has undergone some type of modification since its creation. Additionally, the process involves distinguishing between original works, mere copies, and deceptive forgeries.[11]
Internal criticism evaluates the content of a source, which typically begins with uncovering and clarifying the meaning within the source and then determining its accuracy. This involves disambiguating individual terms that could be misunderstood by modern readers, for example “awful” originally meant “worthy of awe” not the modern “bad or terrible”. This clarification may also require a general translation if the source is written in an ancient language. Critics then ask whether the information is reliable or misrepresents the topic and further question whether the source is comprehensive or omits important details. One way to make these assessments is to evaluate whether the author was able to provide a faithful presentation of the topic they examined or whether the author’s personal prejudices or pre-conceived notions influenced their determinations. Being aware of the inadequacies of a source helps historians decide whether and which aspects of it to trust, and how to use it to construct a narrative.

Synthesis and schools of thought

[You may think of adding a "Main Pages" link to articles for a number of the tools that won't be listed below]

The selection, analysis, and criticism of sources result in the validation of a large collection of mostly isolated statements about the past. As a next step, sometimes termed historical synthesis, historians process how the individual pieces of evidence fit together to form part of a larger story.[d] Constructing this broader perspective is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the topic as a whole. It is a creative aspect[e] of historical writing that reconstructs, interprets, and explains what happened by showing how different events are connected.[15] In this way, historians address not only which events occurred but also why they occurred and what consequences they had.[16] While there are no universally accepted techniques for this synthesis, historians rely on various interpretative tools and approaches in this process.[17]
One tool is the use of periodization, dividing a timeframe into different periods, to provide an accessible overview of complex developments. For example, the three-age system divides prehistory into Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age based on the predominant materials and technologies during these periods.[18] Another methodological tool is the examination of silences, the gaps or omissions in the historical record that did not leave significant evidence behind. Silences can occur when contemporaries found information too obvious to document but may also occur if there were specific reasons to withhold or destroy information.[19][f] For example Martha Washington burned all of the letters between her and her husband George Washington, leaving decades worth of silences not only on their relationship but also many other topics the two may have discussed. [link to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Martha_Washington#Later_life_and_death_(1797%E2%80%931802)]. Conversely, when large datasets are available, quantitative approaches can be used. For instance, economic and social historians commonly employ statistical analysis to identify patterns and trends associated with large groups.[21]
Different schools of thought often come with their own methodological implications for how to write history.[22] Positivists emphasize the scientific nature of historical inquiry, focusing on empirical evidence to discover objective truths.[23] In contrast Postmodernists reject grand narratives that claim to offer a single, objective truth, instead emphasizing the subjective nature of historical interpretation, which leads to a multiplicity of perspectives.[27] Marxists interpret historical developments as expressions of economic forces and class struggles.[24] The Annales school highlights long-term social and economic trends while relying on quantitative and interdisciplinary methods.[25] Feminist historians study the role of gender in history, with a particular interest in the experiences of women to challenge patriarchal perspectives.[26]

@Vyselink: Thanks for your input, I implemented various suggestions at History#Methods. Personally, I agree that long sentences better reflect an academic style and are usually more ellegant for conveying information. However, there are many Wikipedia editors who prefer short and simple sentences to keep articles as accessible as possible to general readers. I usually strive to find a middle way that upsets neither camp too much, but this is sometimes difficult to achieve. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You said something about adding links to articles about tools not mentioned. Which articles did you have in mind? Depending on which and how many, we could try to mention them in the text or add them to the main section "See also". Phlsph7 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Phlsph7/History_-_Methods&oldid=1258013773"