Historical Research - Science topic

domestic violence in south-Africa historical research

I'd recommend Riverside.fm for transcription. Its quite more accurate than other tools I've used.

Secondary sources should provide a trail of footnotes to primary sources that informative the narrative.

Primary sources need a little more work. You need to ask

(1) what, or how do they relate to the event they claim to report

(2) who created the source

(3) what was its purpose/aim

(4) how do they compare to other sources

(5) What are the witting and unwitting assumptions in the account and how do they tie in with the period and culture they claim to report?

hope this helps as a starter

It's very important

Les deseo buena suerte y éxito, tengo un artículo titulado "Aspectos de las relaciones de Argelia con ciertos países europeos y los Estados Unidos de América a través del Diario francés (Le Journal de l'Empire) entre 1805-1814", y registrado en árabe ? ¿Lo aceptas?

'Internal' and 'external' criticism are rather dated terms to refer to a theoretical division of source criticism. The terms enjoyed a brief vogue in handbooks beginning in the early twentieth century and persisting until the 1960s, where they were used as synonyms for the older terms 'higher' and 'lower' criticism. They persist as vestiges in other fields (such as the social sciences) which draw in part on historical studies for their method.

The idea of source criticism, that the historian should establish how and why an extant source (usually conceived of as a text) has survived and what that source means by careful examination of both its form (what the physical document looks like, sometimes known as 'diplomatics') and by careful reading (to establish the reliability of its account being a main aim), became a major concern for historians in the nineteenth century. It was perceived as perhaps the most important technical skill that distinguished the professional academic from the pre-modern historian.

Today source criticism is still recognised as a central and important part of historical practice but as a much smaller part of the process of historical interpretation, and is not easily divisible into parts (because the range of sources is much larger and techniques for an archaeological site, a coin, and a document, are very different). But in the early twentieth century this was seen as a useful division by some practitioners.

'External' or 'lower' criticism is the more clearly defined. It refers to the physical examination of a manuscript, primarily to establish its authenticity but also to ensure an accurate reading (for example, where a word is unclear). By contrast 'internal' or 'higher' is often rather vaguely defined in handbooks. It pertains to the reading of that text, perhaps conceived as recovering the intended meaning, or detecting bias, or establishing reliability (the last of which presumes not only a text but a text which is descriptive, such as a pre-modern history, in character).

I would not use these terms today, other than as a hook for a lesson on historiography. If you want to teach source criticism there is no reason for such a subdivision, it needlessly replicates a logocentric and positivist nineteenth century conception of historical practice.

Attached is an unpublished research paper that I wrote during my master's coursework for History honors.

No - it is possible for an educational study to simply collect data and then see what you find. However, this approach complicates choosing what data to collect, how to collect it and can be so wide ranging you are swamped with data, which may end up being irrelevant. During my Education degree we were asked to collect data about a scheme of work we were teaching in teams, over four weeks, then use that data to create a dissertation.

Having a hypothesis centres your questions, helps keep the project focused and allows others to understand what you are discovering. Whether your educational research looks at quantitative or qualitative data having a hypothesis to focus your efforts is time efficient. However, it means that you may well ignore something useful because the focus caused you to ignore it.

سؤال مهم جاداً ..ويمكن اختزال الجواب عليه بالقول:

((أن النتاج الحضاري الذي تركته الفتوحات الإسلامية في شبه الجزيرة الإيربية هو الذي يحدد قيمة تلك الفتوحات

Academic, scientific, professional History is nowadays the set of social sciences studying the past. The epistemological changes in History are not coming from methods but systematic enlargement of sources, objects, and problems. We don't research History anymore, only relying on past public and private written documents, but we recall oral sources, iconographies, ethnographies, and several other materials. We are much more concerned about gender, minorities, marginal groups, workers, peasants, and all the social groups silenced by traditional historiography. We have been making a significant effort to fight ethnocentric, eurocentric, and all the diverse centric, essentialist and nationalist ideological perspectives of History. Nowadays, there is also a growing scientific investment towards global subjects, transcultural domains, and connective History. Since historiography was primarily dominated by national History, it is still the main framework of most Ph.D. theses, and global, connective, or transcultural studies are rare.

Foundations of scientific methods are experimental research with proper data and techniques.

There is no method in science, there are several for each discipline, principles are principles and tools are tools, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy hasn't entry for methodology, instead of this it is “scientific method” to draw documents in a particular direction, where you pull it there conveniently; there should be distinguished between scientific practice and scientific standards, principles, tools or ways to do it (methodology), certainly digital tools as impelling behavior in the way (method) that we are expected to behave; arguing against a “naturalistic” theory of empirical methods we depend on practice and experiments in order to be able to the assumption of knowledge and its “cognitive” standards leading to a more effective achievements, so to reach the reconsideration of the methodological rules to which scientist subscribe…

Nowadays, history (or historiography) is the set of social sciences studying the past. Therefore, historiography uses the methods of social sciences along with several techniques to fix, rebuild and transcribe historical sources, from written documents to oral testimonies, from heritage to archaeological vestiges, from iconography to literature and countless other remains from past civilizations and societies. It is key to differentiate history (historiography) from memory and even historical memory since these are very diverse cultural processes. In fact, memory realms as the names of our streets, squares, public statues, or national holidays are normally related to processes of nation-building and national commemoration, while historiography is the scientific conceptualization of the past, civilizational, social, economic, politic or cultural past. In consequence, historiography doesn't stress any moral, cultural, religious, or national values, but otherwise rebuilds and explains past processes. Historiography is not a moral "discipline" but a human and social science that, as anthropology, sociology, and others, describes and explains through conceptualization that is validate or invalidate throughout inter-subjective critical review and debate.

The main problem and challenge is anachronism: using our contemporary values to research the past.

Hello Francisco,

I must agree with the answer up above that D&G refuse to consider subjectivity as a static whole, it is in constant production and becoming. You can look at What is ecosophy? by Guattari, the first chapter of Anti-Oedipus, section 11 of Gary Genosko's Guattari Reader, Ian Buchanan's introduction to his A Guide to Anti-Oedipus and Brian Massumi's extensive commentary to get a better grasp of their conception of subjectivity. But it is never clear-cut.

I would argue that explanation in history is much more complicated. Basically, your argument is somehow similar to the rational choice approach in political science, while causal explanation in history must take into account contingency as well as path dependence. Usually, causal explanations in history are more complicated than previously thought. Explaining the behaviour of voters is generally less complicated than explaining events in a distant past.

In general terms, it is necessary to gather the scientific literature on the topic to be explored, placing emphasis on the terms occupational therapy and contemporary history of the Philippines, then an analysis of that literature should be made to establish limits and scope of your own research.

From this analysis you can determine the sources (field work, documentary research, interviews, etc.) and design your research project.

The main scietific methods for conducting a historical review research: Historical Research Methods include-- carry out field work for data, draw up a proposal, then the reaerch itself and in writing do interpretation/explanation, ensure objectivity, source criticism and referencing.

This is not really a question for an historian to answer. You need to look at the standard enological literature for an answer to that question. Nothing very specialised but rather the manuals used for teaching Oenology 101 if you see what I mean. Other problem being how did your Dutch create the SO2 they "put in their wine"? The Roman practice was to burn sulphur strips in a container and then let the wine splash into the container so that it mixed with the sulphur fumes. When I was a wine producer I tried this technique which called for melting sulphur and putting a piece of cloth in it so it got impregnated. then it was set alight and suspended in the cask producing an acrid smoke. The practice was called "stoppinare" in Italian and was used more to prevent wooden barrels from acetifying when there was no wine in them but of course pouring wine in caused a certain amount of SO2 to combine with the same. In actual fact this method was an imprecise and difficult way to dose the results that seems to have been known thanks to empirical observation and can also be observed in medieval Italian wine treatises.

I think such kind of work relates to a field study as identifying people avoiding doing their responsibility is somehow fuzzy. On what criteria can you pass a judgement on whether X is avoiding her/his responsibility or not? I could not get the point of doing an "historical" research, why historical?  

Dear Maria,

in mysterious ways I came back to this question today and I would like to ask you for some reading recommendations on Spanish government-in-exile. I have failed to find out much about its whereabouts during the Second World War and after. Feel free to recommend literature in Spanish if you do not know contributions in other major languages. Thanks!

About Spain during the first half of the XVIIIth century, you can find a select bibliography in this book.

Best r. 

Hola Rafael:

Quizás en:

Pérez-Mallaína, P. E. (1992). Los hombres del Océano: vida cotidiana de los tripulantes de las flotas de Indias, siglo XVI. Diputación de Sevilla.

encuentres algo. Este mismo autor tiene algunos trabajos relacionados. Quizá te interese contactar con él:

Salud y mucha suerte.

Roberto

Some primary sources may be found on Calisphere (photos): http://calisphere.cdlib.org/item/4fb28b83090fe6eb91d938928fd62368/

Although there are no online items, the San Francisco Public Library has a substantial collection on the event:

Good luck in your research!

Yes ;that would help to transform our eduction systems

Hi, I recommend a look at 原爆文献大事典 (2004). It meticulously lists works in Japanese related to the atomic bombs, from 1945 to 2002.

Dear Jeffrey, 

I have been through all the materials you told me about within the last two weeks. It has been most helpful! Too bad there are no scholarly papers as such to use for my PhD. However, I found two references that you may find interesting: 

Irmline Veit-Brause, "The European Dimensions of the Austrian Novara Expedition," in Johann Pall Arnason, Natalie J. Doyle, editors, Domains and Divisions of European History (Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2010)

Veit-Brause, Irmline 2006, Sciences and commerce : the Novara Expedition to the Australasian Pacific 1857-1859, in Georg-Forster-Studien XI, Berlin Verlag A. Spitz, Berlin, Germany, pp. 373-406.

I cannot gain access to the last one, though. 

I will let you know whether I find out more!

Thanks a million again!

Sara 

Too recent for my area of expertise.

Well, first of all Rocky IV is a pretty dumb movie. I hope you got in for free. I'm a senior with my final semester coming up. I'm also a senior, 64 years old, a boomer. Those were Pres. Reagan's years in office, served two terms and got the bums rush out of office because of the Iran-Contra Affair. He was guilty but a very slippery politician. At that moment in history, America was bluffing the Soviets with very legal diplomatic B.S.

It was called Stars Wars,. It was driving the Russians into bankruptcy, along with their war with Afganistan. America backed the Afganis, costing the Russians too much in lives and rubles. Reagan's Star Wars put-on, a fake pile of lies making the US's abilities with technical weaponry seem almost magical, because it wasn't true. America drove in the final nails in Communist Russia's coffin. Their economic policies broke up the power of the communists. Reagan met with Michail Gorbachev for four summits. He finally signed a treaty marking the backing up, and slowing down of the worlds nuclear weapons. Reagan sold Americans a policy of economic spending and something called Reaganomics, more B'S. In his last meeting with the Russians, in Iceland I believe, The Russian diplomats thought Ronnie Reagan had gone nuts. The Russians came to do some real changing of nuclear  weaponry. Appearently he just kept on spitting out the old Rhetorical message over and over again.

No, Rocky IV didn't scare me at all. 

When I was five years old in 1955 , sitting all alone in front of our new black and white TV, the announcer, Walter Cronkite had me running around in circles when he showed the newest in A-bombs. The Hydrogen bomb. That still fucks me up. Don't reprint that. I was also in the Vietnam war. I'm a history major, could have graduated 3 semesters ago, but fell in love with English. Want to write a few things down before I leave. That's a lie, I'm not leaving. Changing shapes when the Singularity arrives. War is my specialty. You can thank Ronnie for bringing back major penalties for marijuana. People liked him, I didn't . I don't think he ever had an original thought. Sorry for going off on you. Sterling O'Hickey  

Hi Hrvoje,

in my profile i have differents papers of this topic.

Shortly, we publish a new paper focused on the methodology of historical floods from a point of view interdisciplinary (ie historical, hydraulic, hydrological and Meteorological).

Jordi

I just finished a review of a book that explores the marginalization of young men in a city in the country of Georgia. Martin Demant Frederiksen delves into both the temporal and spacial/architectural experiences of this group. Here is the citation for the book: Young Men, Time, and Boredom in the Republic of Georgia. Frederiksen, Martin Demant. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 2013. x+200 pp., ISBN: 978-1439909188.

Frederiksen cites another work on the experience of space in an urban setting: Tim Edensor's book, "Industrial Ruins: Space, Aesthetics and Materiality"

I don't know if it can be useful, but in original classical tradition mermaids were creatures half woman and half bird, only later associated with snakes and then fish, then in some way similar to the figure of Quetazlcoatl. In addition, although I do not know associations between the Virgin of Guadalupe and the mermaids, those relating the Virgin of Copacabana are well known (http://cdigital.uv.mx/bitstream/123456789/1877/1/199076P125.pdf).

Another element to consider is that already in Europe the figure of the Virgin condense a set of pre-existing elements of the female deities (Isis, but also others) and that coming to America it found new meanings not always associated with those that have evolved in Europe, where the mermaids, in the Middle Ages, had become a symbol of lust, but also, especially among northern seaside communities, has been used to illustrate the two natures of Christ.

Another interesting thing is that ancient Aztecs believed that water was the domain of a goddess called Chalchiuhtlicue. Today they represent her as a woman with long hair and a fish tail like a mermaid.

I do agree with both my forerunners. Technically it is even easier as to quote a lot of other web-based contents as it presents information in linear form, so that you can quote it exactly by running time minute/second (and of course all relevant information on the website you got it from). As to the reliability of the contents packaged within the podcasts in question, this should be judged the same way as every other source - if used as a primary source, does it apply to your research questions, is it indicative of broader trends, does it capture unique attributes of what you want to get into, etc.; if used as secondary source, check the persons involved, where, how and why it got published, any interested parties, and so on. There is no basic problem arising from the 'digitality' of the format. Would you ask the same question about, say, a BBC radio feature? Just because it's on the net it's not out of science. This seems to be a kind of categorical anxiety of many who shy away from web-based content (no offense meant!), that there is some mysterious essential difference between 'the web' and 'the real world' which invalidates the contents of each one for serious use in the other. This is just not the case. The world wide web is just another part of our real world, nothing more, nothing less; it is here, it won't go away, we have to find ways to deal with it as well as with the other parts of the real world we are longer used to, for example, as in the present case, radio.

I am unsure as to what you mean by directions of digital history? Are you referring to the ways in which historians use technology to display/publish history? The history of computing is a distinct field like the history of technology. - computing history would be a sub-topic under the history of technology. Whereas digital history is the task of using today's technology to publish history in any topic. My school has a digital history M.A. Program where we not only learned about the ways in which to utilize technology to allow history to reach a broader audience but maintain its scholarliness (not really a word but could not think of another) but also the history of digital history. We discussed the newspaper, books, computers, the Internet, films, documentary, and of course historiography. It was a great program. Let me know if any of this helps or if you can clarify perhaps I can give you a more accurate answer.

Michelle white