Historical knowledge serves an individual and society the way memory does. An understanding of the past gives one perspective and insight into the world in which we live, and presents students with the almost limitless range of alternatives of how humans have organized their lives. It promotes an ability to analyze the context in which people make choices and an awareness of the range of consequences which might follow. In addition, historical study deepens a number of specific skills which are invaluable assets for graduates entering the labour market and taking on the duties of citizenship, such as the ability to engage in research, to evaluate evidence and to present conclusions in a reasoned and coherent way.
How to Read Primary Sources
Historians primarily base their interpretations of the past on primary sources; that is, sources produced in the time period under study. Primary sources can be extremely varied: from written documents of all sorts (letters, laws, court cases, newspapers, contracts, chronicles, account books, etc) to material sources (paintings, sculptures, artifacts, seals, textiles, among others) and even oral sources for those who conduct or have access to interviews.
The process of interpreting evidence from a primary source first requires an assessment of its basic components. First, who wrote or produced the source? Was it an individual or a group? If an individual, the historian must attempt to approximate this person’s position, status, occupation, religion, political leanings, ethnicity, gender, education, and so forth; in short any factors that might help to explain the author’s intent. The same applies to group-authored sources, with the added caveat, that the group’s composition as well as the cultural and political space it occupies in society can also yield clues to authorial intent.
Second, what specific type of source is this? This is especially relevant because certain types of documents or materials are produced based on specific rhetorical, linguistic, and stylistic formats. The source format, thus, can both alert the historian to the type of evidence that might be found there as well as the occlusions the source might create.
Third, when was the source written or produced? Depending on the research question at hand the time frame between the event under study and when a source about it was produced might make a difference in how we approach it. For example, war chronicles were often written many years after the fact. The same can be said of saints’ hagiographies. As memory fades and authors attempt to put the best spin on events, the veracity of such accounts might come into question. Furthermore, knowing when a source was produced allows the historian to examine the immediate political and socio-cultural context. What was happening when the document was written and how might this have affected the author?
Fourth, where was the source written or produced? This is closely related to the time frame, for again it points to the issue of context. The locale where the author penned a document and its political and socio-economic situation at the time can provide valuable clues to a historian attempting to unpack a specific source.
Fifth, why, or what was the purpose behind the source? All authors have an intent, an agenda that shapes the tone, content, and even the silences of a document. Unraveling the possible motives behind a source is crucial to assessing how the evidence therein contained must be treated. Can we rely on a specific document to gives us a factual account of an event? Does the narrative construction of a source provide clues to authorial intent and the mentality of the time? The process of trying to comprehend the purpose behind a source is not only important to improve our understanding of it, but often will lead a researcher into new questions, concerns, and opportunities that must be evaluated accordingly.
Having specified or, at least, approximated a source’s basic components, a historian then turns to its content and meaning. Crucial aspects at this point might include the basic narrative of the source, its intended – or even unintended and accidental—message to its audience, facts provided by the source, and even the unspoken assumptions contained in the document. The historian will also evaluate what the source can tell us about its author and the society in which it was produced. In short, what can we learn from the evidence found in this source? Consider that the answer to this question will be highly dependent on the type of research in which the historian is engaged. For example, a primary source such as a trial would lend itself to a variety of research interests: the legal process itself, patterns of criminality and/or punishment, implicit gendered constructions, even levels of literacy by examining how many of the accused could sign their names. This variability is what makes history so fascinating. Depending on the specific interests of a historian, and her or his ability to innovatively approach known or recently unearthed sources, the types of histories that can be written even on very specific time periods, regions, or topics are almost limitless.
How to Read Secondary Sources
The product of the process described above, once the historian has analyzed his or her primary sources, arrived to certain conclusions, written and published the findings is known as a secondary source. A secondary source, then, constitutes an interpretation of a past event, process, or structure based on an analysis of primary sources (except for textbooks which rely largely on secondary sources). Although the format and the quality of secondary sources varies greatly historians will usually focus on articles in academic journals and historical monographs published by academic or reputable commercial presses.
When reading secondary sources, attention must be paid to the following. First, what is the author’s thesis? That is, what is the author’s main idea that he or she is trying to defend? Often an author can have two or three main theses or points, with sub theses found throughout the secondary source supporting the main proposition(s). In good articles and monographs, the crucial theses the author puts forward should be clearly stated in the introduction.
Second, how successful is the author in defending the thesis? At this point a critical reading of the secondary becomes crucial. One need not be an expert in the specific field of the author. By simply assessing how the evidence supporting the thesis is presented an informed and logical reader can critically evaluate the secondary source. A variety of strategies may prove useful in this regard: what evidence does the author use to support the thesis? Is the logical connection between evidence and authorial conclusion sound? Are the author’s examples representative or exceptions? Does the author provide enough instances of evidentiary proof to support the thesis? Are other types of evidence overlooked? How does the author respond to differing interpretations from other historians? These questions help the reader to critically assess a secondary source, and ultimately determine its value.
Third, what does the secondary source contribute to historical knowledge? The answer to this question not only requires a careful assessment of the secondary source itself, but also a wider reading in other secondary sources that have touched on the same theme. In doing so, a historian will find the points of contention, departure, and debate between those who have investigated a certain topic. And as the historical profession changes, with new interests and interpretations put forward, these debates on specific themes and questions also shift. It is the task of any informed reader to situate a specific secondary source within the larger movements and shifts within the historical field. The more secondary sources one reads, the easier this process is.
Finally, remember that secondary sources are mere interpretations of the past. If, when analyzing a primary source, you deduce a new interpretation of an event or process that can be reasonably defended with the evidence at hand, do not fear to write or speak about it, even if no other secondary sources agree with your interpretation. If historians merely adhered to the canon year after year, it would be a barren field.
How to write an essay
Essay writing will be a crucial part of any student’s historical training. You may be asked to write on differing topics and themes in a wide range of formats. Because we can approach historical problems from many perspectives, the types of questions that will shape your essays will vary accordingly. Nonetheless, all historical essays share some basic structural factors: an introduction, a thesis statement, the body of the essay, a conclusion, and, outside of tests and exams, footnotes or endnotes.
Before starting to write the essay, it is best to have at minimum a rudimentary outline (even if it is just mental) to guide you. In it you should identify your thesis statement and the main points and evidence that will support it, organized logically by paragraph.
The introduction should usually be no longer than one paragraph and should attempt to guide the reader into the question at hand. You may think of an introduction as an inverted triangle, with the base at the top, narrowing down to the apex. Thus, the first few sentences of an introduction should start by focusing attention on the topic at hand, either through a general comment about its relevance, or a specific exemplum designed to draw the interest of the reader. These are only but two of the possible starting strategies that will ultimately depend on your own preferences and rhetorical skills. Regardless, the point is to draw the reader into the topic. After you have done this, narrow the introduction into the question or issue at hand to be discussed in the essay. And, immediately after that, provide the argument—also known as a thesis statement— you will be developing in the rest of the essay. The thesis statement should almost invariably be the last one or two sentences in your introduction.
The body of the essay will consist of as many paragraphs as there are main points supporting the thesis statement. You should think of each paragraph as a building block in the argument supporting your thesis. Since your ultimate purpose is to convince the reader, these building blocks should be logically sound, so that each of the main points expounded in the body of the essay clearly support your larger thesis. Note that in longer research papers, the main premises supporting an argument might be quite complex and could very easily require a few paragraphs with sub-points supporting the premise.
Every paragraph in the essay’s body should begin with a topic sentence stating the major premise the paragraph will discuss. Although it might seem counterintuitive to write with topic sentences, they provide a signpost to the reader and are crucial in ensuring that an essay does not meander. The rest of the paragraph will then expound the specific evidence supporting the premise. For evidence you may draw from well-known facts, secondary, and primary sources.
Note that if you come across evidence in your readings that appears to contradict your argument, you still need to pay attention to it. In fact, it is a sign of a strong essay if the writer discusses and refutes secondary material, interpretations, and even primary source material that pose views and opinions that might originally appear to contradict or weaken the author’s thesis. After acknowledging, and hopefully demonstrating the problematic nature of those opinions, an author is then free to more strongly develop her or his argument.
After demonstrating the validity of the thesis through various premises supported with primary and secondary evidence, the author will reach the conclusion of the essay. The conclusion should briefly recap the salient points made in the piece and provide the reader with a sense of the implications the study presents. The conclusion’s format is a mirror figure of that of the introduction, so that it presents an upright triangle, with the author starting with a narrow focus on the essay’s main arguments and then moving into a wider focus that may include historiographical and/or methodological implications.
Citations
The proper referencing of sources is an essential part of any scholarly work. The use of such technical apparatus has two major purposes:
- The bibliography provides readers with a quick index of the research used in the paper, while the footnotes are a step-by-step guide on how that research has been utilized. References also serve as a convenient way for the writer to acknowledge his/her debts to other scholars.
- Citations provide readers with the information necessary to pursue their own research. Although this may not seem particularly important in class papers at the first year level, when your only likely reader is your professor, it becomes increasingly important by the time senior year seminars are reached, by which time you will be researching large projects and communicating the results to classmates. At the highest, post graduate levels, the referencing of sources of evidence and ideas is the indispensable framework and foundation for further scholarly research. In other words, the citation of sources serves real, valid purposes; you might as well do it right from the beginning.
The necessity to cite sources is universal throughout the scholarly disciplines, but the style of citations used in History - both footnotes and bibliography - is rather different from that used in most other fields.
Bibliography
Bibliographies must consist of all works used: those from which you have quoted obviously must be included, but so too must other titles which you have consulted in preparation for the essay. The proper bibliographic style is given in the following examples (although titles may be underlined instead of italicized):
For a book:
McNeill, William. Plagues and Peoples New York: Anchor 1976.
For an article in a scholarly journal:
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. "The Myth of the English Reformation" Journal of British Studies. XXX:1 (Spring, 1991): 1-19.
For an article/chapter in a collection of essays:
Furet, Francois. "The French Revolution is Over" In The French Revolution and Intellectual History, edited by J.R. Censer. Chicago: The Dorsey Press 1989
For a website:
Miller, Geoffrey. "The Battle of Third Ypres (Passchendaele)" <http://raven.cc.ukans.edu/~kansite/ww_one/comment/ypres3.html> (November 1993)
Footnotes
Consecutively numbered footnotes (at the bottom of each page) or endnotes (at the end of the text and before the bibliography) must be used in essays. Brackets within the text, e.g. (Smith, 1990, p. 45) are NOT ACCEPTABLE.
For the first use of a work, complete author/title/publication place and date/page number(s) are furnished, e.g.:
3W. Bruce Lincoln, Passage through Armageddon: the Russians in War and Revolution 1914-1918 (New York, 1986), p. 338.
If the VERY NEXT reference is to the same work:
4Ibid., pp. 342-343.
If, however, the work is cited more than once, but with another title intervening, one uses a "short title" format for the second reference, and for subsequent references if they do not immediately follow (in which case Ibid. is used once more):
7Lincoln, Passage through Armageddon, p. 356.
Citations for articles in scholarly journals and for chapters in an edited work follow similar styles:
11Barbara Engel, "Peasant Morality and Pre-Marital Relations in Late 19th Century Russia", Journal of Social History XXIII: 4 (Summer, 1990), pp. 698-699.
"Short title" format:
15Engel, "Peasant Morality", p. 701.
For a chapter in a collection of essays:
17Perez Zagorin, "The Leveller Theorists: Lilburne, Overton and Walwyn", in W. Owens, ed., Seventeenth-Century Studies (New York, 1981), p. 169.
"Short title" format:
21Zagorin, "Leveller Theorists", pp. 172-173.
For a website:
26Geoffrey Miller, "The Battle of Third Ypres (Passchendaele)", <http://raven.cc.ukans.edu/~kansite/ww_one/comment/ypres3.html> (November 1993).
"Short title" format:
29Miller, "Battle of Third Ypres".
Many other stylistic norms exist - for works in translation, for original documents in print form, for newpapers, for CD-ROMs, etc. - but those noted above are the ones most likely to be used by students in their first undergraduate years. For any questions, please consult the Chicago Manual of Style. The library has the 15th ed. (2003) in the reference section. Z 253 .C48 2003
Term Paper Checklist
Use this checklist to ensure the format and style of your paper conforms to departmental standards:
Format
Separate title page that includes a title that alludes to the thesis of the paper. Name of student should also be included in the title page.
Do no repeat the information on the title page on the first page of the essay.
Pages should be numbered, and pagination should not include the title page.
Paper should be typed and double spaced, with 12 point font.
Margins should be set at 1" (left, right, top and bottom), and there should be no extra spaces between paragraphs.
Failure to conform to these format guidelines may result in grade penalties.
Clarity and Citations
Use the past tense when writing about past events.
The introduction should cover all the “journalistic questions”: who, what, where, when, why, how?
Do not confuse there/their; were/where; then/than; led/lead; its/it’s; whether/weather.
Attribute each quote in the text (Gerald of Wales noted that “blah, blah, blah” instead of simply “blah, blah, blah”), so that the reader can consider the source of the quotation.
Failure to cite sources (text, document extract, secondary materials, etc) may result in failure in the assignment.
Use footnotes to show where evidence and ideas originate. Every example has a footnote.
Do not plagiarize. Do not simply read a section of text and change a few words to make it your own. If a paraphrase does not include a citation, it is considered plagiarism.
Proofread the entire document for grammar, spelling, and appropriate word choices. Typos and spelling mistakes may result in grade penalties.
