The Historical Approach to Research

From http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/historical.htm The process of learning and understanding the background and growth of a chosen field of study or profession can

offer insight into organizational culture, current trends, and future possibilities. The historical method of research

applies to all fields of study because it encompasses their: origins, growth, theories, personalities, crisis, etc. Both

quantitative and qualitative variables can be used in the collection of historical information. Once the decision is

made to conduct historical research, there are steps that should be followed to achieve a reliable result. Charles

Busha and Stephen Harter detail six steps for conducting historical research (91):

1. the recognition of a historical problem or the identification of a need for certain historical knowledge.

2. the gathering of as much relevant information about the problem or topic as possible.

3. if appropriate, the forming of hypothesis that tentatively explain relationships between historical factors.

4. The rigorous collection and organization of evidence, and the verification of the authenticity and veracity

of information and its sources.

5. The selection, organization, and analysis of the most pertinent collected evidence, and the drawing of

conclusions; and

6. the recording of conclusions in a meaningful narrative.

There are a variety of places to obtain historical information. Primary Sources are the most sought after in historical

research. Primary resources are first hand accounts of information. “Finding and assessing primary historical data

is an exercise in detective work. It involves logic, intuition, persistence, and common sense…(Tuchman, Gaye in

Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, 252). Some examples of primary documents are: personal diaries, eyewitness

accounts of events, and oral histories. “Secondary sources of information are records or accounts prepared by

someone other than the person, or persons, who participated in or observed an event.” Secondary resources can be

very useful in giving a researcher a grasp on a subject and may provided extensive bibliographic information for

delving further into a research topic.

Historical Method From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other

evidence, such as secondary sources and tertiary sources, to research and then to write history. The question of the

nature, and indeed the possibility, of sound historical method is raised in the philosophy of history, as a question of

epistemology. The following summarizes the history guidelines commonly used by historians in their work, under

the headings of external criticism, internal criticism, and synthesis.

External criticism: authenticity and provenance

Garraghan divides criticism into six inquiries

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?

2. Where was it produced (localization)?

3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?

4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?

5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?

6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism. The sixth

and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism.

R. J. Shafer on external criticism: "It sometimes is said that its function is negative, merely saving us from using

false evidence; whereas internal criticism has the positive function of telling us how to use authenticated evidence."

Higher criticism

R. J. Shafer writes, "Determination of authorship and date involves one or all of the following: (a) content analysis,

(b) comparison with the content of other evidence, (c) tests of the physical properties of the evidence." Content

analysis includes examinations of anachronisms in language, datable references, and consistency with a cultural

setting. Comparison with other writings may involve palaeography, the study of style of handwriting, the study of

stylometry and comparison of literary style with known authors, or something as simple as a reference to the

document's author in another one of his works or by a contemporary. Physical properties include the properties of

the paper, the consistency of the ink, and the appearance of a seal, as well as the results of radioactive carbon dating.

Lower criticism

Lower criticism is more frequently known as "textual criticism," and it is concerned with determining an accurate

text in cases where we have copies instead of the original. Approaches to textual criticism include eclecticism,

stemmatics, and cladistics. At the heart of eclecticism is that one should adopt the reading as original that most

easily explains the derivation of the alternative readings. Stemmatics attempts to construct a "family tree" of extant

manuscripts to help determine the correct reading. Cladistics makes use of statistical analysis in a similar endeavor.

Internal criticism: historical reliability

Noting that few documents are accepted as completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk sets down the general rule, "for

each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of

the general credibility of the author." An author's trustworthiness in the main may establish a background probability

for the consideration of each statement, but each piece of evidence extracted must be weighed individually.

Eyewitness evidence

R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:

1. Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not

employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?

2. How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his

physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he

understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by

his wife or the secret police?

3. How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?

1. Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place

for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?

2. When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later?

3. What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be

likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?

4. Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus

probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not

seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to

mislead?

4. Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we

know?

5. Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.

6. Are there inner contradictions in the document?

Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain

kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely. If an

ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be

doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the

road was built during the principate of Augusutus. If an advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be

bought at any reliable grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the advertisement

may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of coffee on the market called 'A and B

Coffee.'"

Garraghan says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who were not present on the scene

but heard of the events from someone else. Gottschalk says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence. He

writes, "In cases where he uses secondary witnesses, however, he does not rely upon them fully. On the contrary, he

asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary

witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the

primary testimony? Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole

or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such

cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source, in the sense of being the 'origin' of his knowledge.

Insofar as this 'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of

the primary testimony itself."

Oral tradition

Gilbert Garraghan maintains that oral tradition may be accepted if it satisfies either two "broad conditions" or six

"particular conditions", as follows:

1. Broad conditions stated.

1. The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series of witnesses, reaching from the

immediate and first reporter of the fact to the living mediate witness from whom we take it up, or

to the one who was the first to commit it to writing.

2. There should be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in

question.

2. Particular conditions formulated.

1. The tradition must report a public event of importance, such as would necessarily be known

directly to a great number of persons.

2. The tradition must have been generally believed, at least for a definite period of time.

3. During that definite period it must have gone without protest, even from persons interested in

denying it.

4. The tradition must be one of relatively limited duration. [Elsewhere, Garraghan suggests a

maximum limit of 150 years, at least in cultures that excel in oral remembrance.]

5. The critical spirit must have been sufficiently developed while the tradition lasted, and the

necessary means of critical investigation must have been at hand.

6. Critical-minded persons who would surely have challenged the tradition — had they considered it

false — must have made no such challenge.

Other methods of verifying oral tradition may exist, such as comparison with the evidence of archaeological

remains.

More recent evidence concerning the potential reliability or unreliability of oral tradition has come out of fieldwork

in West Africa and Eastern Europe.

Synthesis: historical reasoning

Once individual pieces of information have been assessed in context, hypotheses can be formed and established by

historical reasoning.

Argument to the best explanation

C. Behan McCullagh lays down seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation:

1. The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements

describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement 'the hypothesis', and the

statements describing observable data, 'observation statements'.)

2. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible hypothesis about the

same subject; that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation statements.

3. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the

same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.

4. The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that

is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied

more strongly than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less

strongly than any other.

5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is,

it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by

existing beliefs.

6. It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same

subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other

statements which are believed to be false.

7. It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6,

that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in

these respects.

McCullagh sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number

and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."

Statistical inference

McCullagh states this form of argument as follows:

1. There is probability (of the degree p1) that whatever is an A is a B.

2. It is probable (to the degree p2) that this is an A.

3. Therefore (relative to these premises) it is probable (to the degree p1 × p2) that this is a B.

McCullagh gives this example:

1. In thousands of cases, the letters V.S.L.M. appearing at the end of a Latin inscription on a tombstone stand

for Votum Solvit Libens Merito.

2. From all appearances the letters V.S.L.M. are on this tombstone at the end of a Latin inscription.

3. Therefore these letters on this tombstone stand for Votum Solvit Libens Merito.

This is a syllogism in probabilistic form, making use of a generalization formed by induction from numerous

examples (as the first premise).

Argument from analogy

The structure of the argument is as follows:

1. One thing (object, event, or state of affairs) has properties p1 . . . pn and pn + 1.

2. Another thing has properties p1 . . . pn.

3. So the latter has property pn + 1.

McCullagh says that an argument from analogy, if sound, is either a "covert statistical syllogism" or better expressed

as an argument to the best explanation. It is a statistical syllogism when it is "established by a sufficient number and

variety of instances of the generalization"; otherwise, the argument may be invalid because properties 1 through n

are unrelated to property n + 1, unless property n + 1 is the best explanation of properties 1 through n. Analogy,

therefore, is uncontroversial only when used to suggest hypotheses, not as a conclusive argument.

Historical comparative research From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_comparative_research

Historical comparative research is the study of past events and questions using methods in sociology and other

social scientific research to inform the possible outcomes and answers to current events and questions. Beginning in

the late 1950’s, the discipline of history became more linked with sociology. Eventually historical sociology was

accepted as a more concrete perspective during the 1970’s. Historical investigations are based on the remnants of the

past called historical material, which include official documents, diaries and much more as is discussed below.

Comparative sociology on the other hand, specifically looks at sociology across regions or nations. Historical

comparative sociology differs from historical sociology by focusing only on three main issues. These issues are

causal relationships, processes over time, and comparisons. It does not allow interpretive approaches, which

historical sociology may favor in certain occasions.

Major researchers

Leading historical-comparative sociologist in America during the mid-1960's into the 1980s, predominantly

Barrington Moore, Jr., Charles Tilly and Theda Skocpol based their "theoretical insights" on Karl Marx, Weber and

even Alexis de Tocqueville over Durkheim. Durkheim's work has important contributions to historical-comparative

research despite being looked over and dismissed, historically, in relation to this field. Scholars suggests that

Durkheims work on civil society, analyses of the family, schooling, professional bodies and the public sphere aid

historical-comparative sociology and his work overall "sheds light" on some of the recurring issues in this field.

Max Weber defined the early development of historical comparative research with his broad ranging comparisons of

religious and economic systems around the world. For example, one of his most famous works The Religion of

China: Confucianism and Taoism examines the cultural differences between China and that of Western Europe.

Other examples of his work and comparisons of religions including Hinduism, and Ancient Judaism. He

propositioned that Protestantism has "The Spirit of Capitalism". More recent major figures include Barrington

Moore whose work on the origins of different types of states inspired, notably by Theda Skocpol major book on

states and social revolutions. That research inspired some of the major substantive and methodological debates in

historical research during recent decades. More recently, researchers including; Theda Skocpol, Summers, Kiser and

Hechter have argued about the theoretical basis of explanation in historical comparative research.

Methods

There are four major methods that researchers use to collect historical data. These are archival data, secondary

sources, running records, and recollections. The archival data, or primary sources, are typically the resources that

researchers rely most heavily on. Archival data includes official documents and other items that would be found in

archives, museums, etc. Secondary sources are the works of other historians who have written history. Running

records are “documentaries maintained by private or non profit organizations.” Finally recollections include sources

such as autobiographies, memoirs or diaries.

There are four stages, as discusses by Schutt, to systematic qualitative comparative historical studies; (1)

Development of the premise of the investigation, identifying events/concepts, etc that may explain the phenomena;

(2) Choose the case(s) (location- nation, region) to examine (3) Using what Theda Skocpol has termed as

"interpretive historical sociology" and examine the similarities and the differences; (4) finally based on the

information gathered propose a casual explanation for the phenomena.

The key issues in methods for historical comparative research stem from the incomplete nature of historical data, the

complexity and scale of the social systems, and the nature of the questions asked. Historical data is a difficult set of

data to work with due to multiple factors. This data set can be very biased, such as diaries, memoirs, letters, which

are all influenced not only by the person writing them, that persons world view but can also, logically, be linked to

that individuals socioeconomic status. In this way the data can be corrupt/skewed. Historical data regardless or

whether it may or may not be biased (diaries vs. official documents) is also vulnerable to time. Time can destroy

fragile paper, fade ink until it is illegible, wars, environmental disasters can all destroy data and special interest

groups can destroy mass amounts of data to serve a specific purpose at the time they lived, etc. Hence, data is

naturally incomplete and can lead social scientists to many barriers in their research. Often historical comparative

research is a broad and wide reaching topic such as how democracy evolved in three specific regions. Tracking how

democracy developed is a daunting task for one country or region let alone three. Here the scale of the social system,

which is attempting to be studied, is overwhelming but also the complexity is extreme. Within each case there are

multiple different social systems that can effect the development of a society and its political system. The factors

must be separated and analyzed so that causality can be attained. It is causality that brings us to yet another key issue

in methods for historical comparative research, the nature of the questions which are asked are attempting to propose

causal relationships between a set of variables. Determining causality alone is a difficult task; coupled with the

incomplete nature of historical data and the complexity and scale of the social systems being used to examine

causality the task becomes even more challenging.

Identifying features

The three identifying issues of historical comparative research are causal relationships, processes over time, and

comparisons.[6] As mentioned above causal relationships are difficult to support although we make causal

assumptions daily. Schutt discusses the five criteria, which must be met in order to have a causal relationship. Of the

five the first three are the most important: association, time order and non-spuriousness. Association simply means

that between two variables; the change in one variable is related to the change in another variable. Time order refers

to the fact that the cause (the independent variable) must be shown to have occurred first and the effect (the

dependent variable) to have occurred second. Nonspuriousness says that the association between two variables is not

because of a third variable. The final two criteria are; identifying a causal mechanism- how the

connection/association among variables is thought to have occurred- and the context in which this association

occurs. The deterministic causal approach requires that in every study, the independent and dependent variable have

an association, and within that study every case (nation, region) the independent variable has an effect on the

dependent variable.

John Stuart Mill devised five methods by which people are able to systematically analyze their observations and

make more accurate assumptions about causality. Mill's Methods discusses; direct method of agreement, method of

difference, joint method of agreement and difference, method of residues and method of concomitant variations.

Some issues with this aspect of historical comparative research are that the Mill's methods are typically the most

useful when the causal relationship is already suspected and can therefore be a tool for eliminating other

explanations.[7]. Mill's methods simply cannot provide proof that the variation in one variable was caused by the

variation of another variable.

Something about each of these three. How do we tell when we have sufficient evidence to impute a causal

relationship? How best can we model processes unfolding over time? On what basis can we identify appropriate

comparisons?

Difficulties

There are several difficulties that historical comparative research faces. James Mahoney, one of the current leading

figures in historical comparative research, identifies several of these in his book "Comparative Historical Analysis in

the Social Sciences." Mahoney highlights key issues such as how micro level studies can be incorporated into the

macro level field of historical comparative research, issues ripe for historical comparative research that continue to

remain overlooked, such as law, and the issue of whether historical comparative research should be approached as a

science or approached as a history. This is one of the more prevalent debates today, often debated between Theda

Skocpol, who sides with the historical approach, and Kiser and Hechter, who are proponents of the scientific view

that should search for general causal principles. Both Kiser and Hechter employ models within Rational Choice

Theory for their general causal principles. Historical researchers that oppose them (Skocpol, Summers, others) argue

that Kiser and Hechter do not suggest many other plausible general theories, and thus it seems as though their

advocacy for general theories is actually advocacy for their preferred general theory. They also raise other criticisms

of using RCT in historical comparative research.

Role of general theory

In recent decades historical comparative researchers have debated the proper role of general theory. Two of the main

players in this debate have been Edgar Kiser and Michael Hechter. They have argued that it is important to use a

general theory in order to be able to test the results of the research that has been conducted. They do not argue that

one specific theory is better than the other just that a theory needs to be used. Their chosen theory is rational choice.

One of the main problems is that everyone has a different concept of what a theory is and what makes something a

theory. Some of their opponents feel that any theory can be tested and they are arguing that some can not be. Kiser

and Hecter do aknowledge that this is a growing field and that their perspective may change in the future.

Resources for Understanding Historical Research Martha C. Howell and Walter Prevenier. 2001. From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods.

Cornell University Press.

Anthony Brundage. 2002. Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing. Harlan Davidson.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, Fordham University Press: New York (1946). ISBN 0-8371-

7132-6.

Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, Alfred A. Knopf: New York (1950).

ISBN 0-394-30215-X.

Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods, Cornell

University Press: Ithaca (2001). ISBN 0-8014-8560-6.

C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, Cambridge University Press: New York (1984). ISBN 0-

521-31830-0.

R. J. Shafer, A Guide to Historical Method, The Dorsey Press: Illinois (1974). ISBN 0-534-10825-3.

From http://www.questia.com/library/history/historiography/historical-method.jsp?CRID=historical-

method&OFFID=se2q&KEY=historical%20research%20method

John H. Arnold. History: A Very Short Introduction.

Allan Nevins. The Gateway to History.

R. Darcy, Richard C. Rohrs. A Guide to Quantitative History.

Konrad H. Jarausch, Kenneth A. Hardy. Quantitative Methods for Historians: A Guide to Research, Data, and

Statistics.

Allen Johnson. The Historian and Historical Evidence.

Alexander V. Riasanovsky, Barnes Riznik. Generalizations in Historical Writing.

James D. Startt, Wm. David Sloan, Jennings Bryant. Historical Methods in Mass Communication.

Graeme Snooks. The Laws of History.

Eva M. McMahan, Kim Lacy Rogers. Interactive Oral History Interviewing.

Roger Adelson. Speaking of History: Conversations with Historians.

Bernard J. Holm, James Thompson. A History of Historical Writing: From the Earliest Times to the End of the

Seventeenth Century.

Bernard J. Holm, James Thompson. A History of Historical Writing: The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.

 

From http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/historical.htm

Busha, Charles and Stephen P. Harter. Research Methods in Librarianship: techniques and Interpretations.

Academic Press: New York, NY, 1980.

Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln (editors). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Sage Publications: London,

1998.

Leming, Michael R. “Research And Sampling Designs: Techniques For Evaluating Hypotheses”.

http://www.stolaf.edu/people/leming/soc371res/research.html,

http://www.stolaf.edu/people/leming/soc371res/research.html. “Research and Sampling Designs: Techniques for

Evaluating Hypotheses” Michael R. Leming

http://www.msstate.edu/listarchives/afrigeneas/199708/msg00048.html

Subject: Special issue of Prologue, on African American Historical Research

http://www2.wku.edu/library/dlps/histindx.htm. A list of library sources (at western Kentucky University) for

beginning historical research. http://www2.wku.edu/library/dlps/histindx.htm. NARA homepage

http://www.cortland.edu/www/history/research.html. Historical Research on the Internet. An extensive list of

historical resources in all formats.

http://www.nyu.edu/library/bobst/research/hum/hist-us/libs.htm. United States History Libraries and Archives

http://www.spertus.edu/library-history/. The Library History Roundtable