Student Learning Outcomes

At the completion of this unit of instruction students will be able to:

1. Provide examples of differences in the ways in which historians and scientists approach research (see table)
2. Understand how historians use paradigms (their methodological approach to research)
3. Explain how historians use secondary sources to locate information (what is a secondary source?)
4. Describe differences between the two principle historical research designs (descriptive and analytic)
5. Understand the distinctions between external and internal criticism (authenticity and credibility)
6. Identify examples that illustrate the three rules to follow when applying the process of internal criticism (context, perspective, and omission )

   Historians and Scientists

   Historians	Scientists
   Study the past	Study the present
   Lack of certainty in conclusions	Conclusions have higher degree of certainty
   Writing often has storytelling format	Distinct format (purpose, methods, results, conclusions)
   Often study social phenomena	Usually study natural phenomena

    

   Despite some differences historians still try to have a "sciencelike" approach and work to disprove findings. They approach their topics in a logical and systematic manner.

   Historians have different views about social phenomena than scientists do about natural phenomena. Historians assume that humans make and give meaning to social phenomena. Historians are therefore less able to develop predictive theories than scientists who mostly deal with natural phenomena. Historians do however try to generalize (similar to scientists) based on their interpretations of the data they collect. These generalizations draw on social science theories and can be examined using data taken from other periods or places.

   Paradigms

   When historians study a problem they use paradigms (also known as perspectives, traditions or approaches). A paradigm encompasses the historian's beliefs that have developed as a result of previous reading, research, experiences, etc. It takes a long time to develop an approach that is coherent and identifiable.

   Possible Topics for Historical Research

   Any topic that has occurred in your field of interest could be studied. Possible topics might include: the development of the Health Education Department at CWU; changes in the way aerobics are taught; the evolution of female participation in sport; the marketing of university athletics; drug use over the past decade; changes in tourism; impact of the tobacco industry on health legislation, and many more. The Journal of Sport History is one of the primary sources for sport related investigation.

   Using Secondary Sources to Locate Information

   When beginning to look for information on any topic we usually turn to secondary sources. Secondary sources are reports - books, articles, videos, etc. - about an event of interest. Primary sources of information - firsthand accounts of the event - can often be identified as a result of reviewing these secondary sources. This process is similar to any literature review. If you know exactly what you are seeking it is advisable to use keywords in indexes and databases. Otherwise you just begin scanning the literature in hope of locating information of interest (not very efficient but at least a starting point). Based on this review you can become knowledgeable about general topics, find some specific related information, and identify additional resources to review. For the historical researcher this review helps in the development of specific questions to guide research.

   Developing Good Questions

   As in all research, the historical researcher attempts to develop a problem by asking good questions. These must be grounded in the research and answerable. As illustrated in the examples in the text, good questions can be developed by delimiting general topics or by having a specific topic in mind and attempting to frame specific questions. Seems to me to be comparable to the concepts of deductive and inductive reasoning that we discussed earlier.

   Historical Research Design

   While scientists typically use one of three categories of design, description, correlation, or experimentation, historical researchers tend to focus on description (what happened?) and analysis (why did it happen?).

   Descriptive Research

   Descriptive history constructs a map of the past and is often a first approach to a topic about which little is known. It involves locating events in time and place.

   Analytic Research

   Whereas descriptive research establishes background information about events it does not attempt to explain how or why events occurred. In my dissertation I attempted to explain reasons for the Soviet Union's success in sports. I concluded that the creation and support of an extensive youth sport program provided the foundation of a talented reserve of athletes that enabled the nation to maintain a highly competitive sports program. In essence, I think I adopted a way of thinking that might be considered to fall under the scope of analytic research.

   Whereas scientists in behavioral research might design cause and effect studies, historical researchers must examine relationships between variables and try to determine causes. This process is complicated because there is rarely a single cause and you can never be certain that you have omitted consideration of any important variable.

   Working with Historical Evidence

   Historical evidence can be found in varying formats - literature, photos, artifacts, oral tales, songs, etc. The historian can be likened to a detective who searches for clues using whatever sources are available. As noted earlier, primary sources are firsthand sources of evidence rather than the reports of others. Once located all sources of evidence must be evaluated for their validity.

   All sources of information need to be subjected to evaluation through processes known as external and internal criticism. External criticism refers to the authenticity of the information. Is the document real or a fake? Internal criticism refers to whether the information is credible. Is it consistent and accurate? When I interview Soviet coaches I quickly learned that many were willing to respond to my questions whether or not they were really knowledgeable about the topic. Yes, they were real coaches, but the information they were providing was not valid.

   Historians follow three rules when applying the process of internal criticism:

   1. Rule of context - does the information fit with what was said before and after? (Compare to my experience noted above).
   2. Rule of perspective - did the source have a bias? Do the sources of information have an affiliation with a particular organization? For example, one might be skeptical of a document on the health aspects of smoking published by the tobacco industry.
   3. Rule of omission - was any information either intentionally or unintentionally omitted? I wonder how extensive the reporting was of Jesse Owens four gold medals in the German newspapers at the Nazi sponsored Berlin Olympics?

Historical researchers must ask themselves, "What is this evidence, evidence of?" We must always consider the material and the source because there is often a very narrow interpretation. For example, if you were to read the CWU Strategic Plan you would learn a lot about what is supposed to be occurring across campus. But is it really happening? A Strategic Plan might not accurately convey what departments and faculty are actually doing. I discovered when conducting research on sports in the former Soviet Union that what was written often did not accurately reflect what was occurring in practice. A question then that I should have asked myself when reading the official documents was, "What does this tell me and what doesn't this tell me?"

A final consideration when working with historical evidence is that of context. Context refers to the whole environment in which the evidence existed and was reported. Would it for example be appropriate to accept as accurate the opinion of an individual who had just been fired from a health organization you are investigating? While all evidence will have some degree of personal bias, when people have an obvious reason to be biased you must consider the evidence they present with caution.

Making Sense of the Evidence

The final question facing the historical researcher is similar to the question facing all researchers - "What does it mean?" Evidence must be laid out in a logical order and subjected to intense review. Remember from earlier in the course that truth exists only to the extent that it can be disproved. Your presentation of information must withstand rigorous scrutiny. For this reason it would be especially wise to share your ideas with reviewers regularly and attempt to address questions well in advance of any formal presentation.

(Revised 2/3/99)