He Historical method Is a research structure or research process used to gather evidence of past events and their subsequent formulation of ideas or theories about history.
It comprises several rules or methodological techniques to analyze relevant data of a historical theme, allowing the researcher to synthesize the information to construct a coherent account of the events that occurred in the episode being studied.
He Study of history Is much more complex than just memorizing names, dates and places. It requires, to some extent, a semi-scientific approach throughout the course to ensure the highest possible reliability of the historical account.
It needs to formulate a hypothesis based on the evidence of the event to be studied, and it should serve as a testing ground to make final conclusions as objective as possible. The critical thinking of the researcher plays a fundamental role in this particular.
Oldest first Historians Like Herodotus, established an initial basis for the methods used by modern historical scholars, but the community began to develop a systematic methodology based on accepted conventions and techniques dating from the late eighteenth century onwards.
Stages of the historical method
1- Heuristics
East method It deals with the identification of relevant material to be used as a source of information. Historical evidence can exist in a variety of forms; The two most important and validated are primary and secondary sources.
Primary sources may be original legal documents, artifacts, records, or any other information that has been created at the time of the study. In other words, it is firsthand information.
If a war is being studied, primary sources would include letters written by soldiers to their families, personal journals, military documents, eyewitness texts, photographs, uniforms, equipment, corpses, among others; And existing, audio or video recorded live.
Secondary sources involve analyzes of primary sources generally prepared by people qualified as historians, sociologists, or scientists. Books, magazines or research papers are common examples of secondary sources.
In many cases oral tradition is taken into account as a source (primary or secondary depending on the type of study). They are the stories transmitted verbally from one generation to another and are considered as important source to study ethnic groups that have not developed some kind of written documentation.
2- Criticism
It consists of the evaluative process of the sources that will be used to answer the question of the study. It involves determining its authenticity, integrity, credibility and context; From political speeches to birth certificates.
At this stage all questions are asked and all necessary techniques are applied to discard unnecessary or unreliable evidence:
Who wrote it, said or produced?, When and where?, Why?, How was the evidence originally made?, What does it say about the topic?, ¿ Does it reflect any particular perspective?, Is it reliable?, Do you have credentials or references?, among others.
Sources as documents must go through an exhaustive process of contextualization: the social circumstances of their elaboration, political reasons, objective audience, antecedents, inclinations, etc.
Other types of sources such as artifacts, objects and forensic evidence are often evaluated under the aegis of other disciplines such as anthropology, archeology, art, economics, sociology, medicine, or hard sciences.
3- Synthesis and Exposure
It is the formal approach made by the researcher according to the data resulting from step 1 and step 2. That is, after analyzing all the information, we proceed to throw the conclusions of the study that respond to the initial question.
The collection of sources and their subsequent evaluation can be checked, if desired, using semi-scientific systematic methods (with certain adaptations). But the conclusions and narratives of history derived from the study will always be subject to the subjectivity of the researcher.
It is important to emphasize that this element in which the scientific community tends to reject history, classifying it as insubstantial. In this particular, historians do not seek to work toward an absolute proposition about what has definitely happened in the past.
His approach rather tries to present its conclusions under the arguments that best explain the historical fact; That is to say, supported by the greater amount of evidence and the smaller number of assumptions.
What should historical research respond to?
Every study of a historical fact usually begins with a question. The questions about"How?"Or"Why?"Happened past events, or some other type of analytical or reflective question, are the most appropriate to direct the process to understand the story.
Descriptive questions such as"Who?","What?","Where?"And"When?"Serve to establish the historical context, but do not offer deep historical conclusions. The key lies in the researcher's ability to use both types of questions and thus lead to a better historical study.
Take the following example: Women were the main targets of the witch-hunt in Europe. Descriptive questions on the subject might be"Where did the witch hunt occur?","When did it start and end?"Or"How many people were accused of witchcraft (men and women)?"
The analytical questions for the study might be"Why was the witchcraft phenomenon targeted to the female population? Or"How does this phenomenon illustrate gender identity for the beginnings of modern Europe?"
In conclusion, it is necessary to know the stakeholders, places, dates and events to build the social context, and thus to be able to understand the circumstances and reasons that triggered this historical fact.
Historians are said to create the past in the form of coherent narratives through the process of answering the questions that are asked.
Steps to follow to conduct historical research
Based on the studies of Busha, Charles and Stephen P. Carter (1980)
1- The recognition of a historical problem or the identification of a need for a particular historical knowledge.
2- The collection of the greatest possible amount of relevant information about the problem or topic.
3- If necessary, the formulation of a hypothesis that tentatively explains the relationship between historical factors.
4- The rigorous organization of all the evidence and the verification of authenticity and veracity of the sources.
5- The selection and analysis of the most relevant evidence and the elaboration of the conclusions.
5- Record the conclusions in a meaningful narrative.
References
- University of Texas at Austin. The Historical Approach to Research. School of Information. Retrieved from ischool.utexas.edu.
- Tim O'Neill (2015). What is the most common"historical method"used by historians today? Quora. Recovered from quora.com.
- Nate Sullivan. Historical Methodology: Evidence and Interpretation. Study.com. Retrieved from study.com.
- Lunds Universitet. Art History and Visual Culture: Source criticism. Lund University Libraries. Libguides.lub.lu.se.
- Fuat Firat (1987). Historiography, Scientific Method, and Exceptional Historical Events. Association for Consumer Research. Appalachian State University. Advances in Consumer Research - Volume 14. -. Retrieved from acrwebsite.org.
- ADSU Library & Information Access. Evaluating Information. Retrieved from library.sdsu.edu.
- University of Oxford. Historical Methods. Faculty of History. Retrieved from history.ox.ac.uk.
- Tracey Pepper (2014). Historical Research Presentation. Online video. Retrieved from youtube.com.