Historiography

[Talar]

Hey guys, so I am brain farting really hard right now. Could someone explain to me what exactly is a historiography paper? I feel like it is really obvious, and it's just not clicking for me. Maybe it's stress, who knows. But I feel like I should know this definitely before I start my research for this paper. Thanks guys in advance.

[Jay R]

But I feel like I should know this definitely before I start my research for this paper.

This is a contradiction in terms. Research is finding out what you need to know.

So step one is to read a very basic description of historiography. Wikipedia is a fine place to start, but don't include it as a source in your list of citations, because wikipedia isn't a source; it's a convenient place for people to put things that they found in sources.

So use this for your starting definition, but then look at the sources cited near the bottom of the page.

Good luck!

[Dienekes]

Ahh, historiography, the a history of the historians writings. Or the boring but easy essays of a history major.

For example, I recently wrote a historiographical essay on the early kings of England. So I wrote about what the theories about the origins of kings were, who wrote those theories, what were the biases of those theories and their writers, when did these theories gain a following, what evidence did they use to support their theories, when they were disproved (if they ever were, some just kind of grow unpopular as a shiny new method of looking at things comes up). Those sort of things.

[Aedilred]

Yeah, historiography is kind of like meta-history. Where history is the analysis and interpretation of sources (and subsequent reporting of conclusions) historiography is about how you do all of that.

It's a long time since I've read any historiography stuff, but from what I recall, the classic source and a good starting-point for getting an understanding of historiography is What is History? by E.H. Carr. There's also The Practice of History by Geoffrey Elton, and there was a more recent book fifteen years or so ago including contributions from big-name contemporary historians like Richard Evans and Felipe Fernandez-Armesto called What Is History Now? trying to "update" Carr's work. There's also The Historian's Craft by Marc Bloch, which is obviously very dated in some ways but is still fairly thought-provoking. All of those are worth reading.

I gather that, among more recent books, Ian Mortimer's Medieval Conspiracies is largely a historiographical work and I tend to find Mortimer cogent but accessible - although I haven't read it and don't know if it's any good.

If you can stand it, you could try reading Hegel's more history-minded stuff, too... although it's not a good place to start.

[Miriel]

Basically, what Dienekes said.

Oh, and one other tip: Check who your authors cite. It's often important to know where they get their ideas from (or where they didn't). Sometimes, they don't cite something important they should have read -- it sounds like a major scholarship failure, but it happens a lot, and it's good to know. Also, sometimes, people get great new ideas from other disciplines or from famous theorists (Foucault is still fairly en vogue). And sometimes, they misrepresent those ideas, even those of fellow historians.

You can usually just read something recent on the topic, as it'll almost certainly have some kind of historiographical content in the introduction. It doesn't dispense you from doing your stuff, but it gives you a good idea what to look for and what articles/books to read.

If it's a standalone paper with a historiography section, it's generally good form to say, politely, that all previous research is bad -- errrrr, "insufficient" --, so as to justify why you're doing whatever it is that you're doing.

[Talar]

Thank you guys, I have to write a historiography paper as the main assignment of a class (counts for 60% of my grade) so i felt it was sort of important for me to understand what type of paper it is.

My current topic is the British Invasion (the rolling stones and the beatles and such) so for the paper I should write about the different aspects of their influence and how people view it/have written about it?

[Jay R]

If I were grading it, you should focus on how we know about it, where our information is coming from, and what the consequences of that are. My wife (who has had historiography classes) just said that if she were grading it, it should be about how different historians over time have interpreted the British Invasion over time as a historical event.

And that shows the problem of asking us for advice. Neither of us is grading it. Ask the professor, and focus on the aspects of historiography that have come up in the reading and the lectures.

Oh, yes. Stay caught up on the reading, and apply it to the paper, if you want it to be get a good grade in the class.

[Kurgan]

My current topic is the British Invasion (the rolling stones and the beatles and such) so for the paper I should write about the different aspects of their influence and how people view it/have written about it?

It took me longer than it should have to realize you meant music. I was thinking "the British Invasion...of what?" Britain has fought in too many different countries and continents to be that general.

My wife (who has had historiography classes) just said that if she were grading it, it should be about how different historians over time have interpreted the British Invasion over time as a historical event.

Double check with your professor, but usually when you are talking about a historiography paper, this is what you are talking about.

In general: historiography is the study of how history is studied and interpreted. So you'd be looking at different theories proposed by people about said event, when they were proposing these theories, any counter theories that came up, and so on and so forth. Also, just because a theory is out of favor does not always mean it is debunked, sometimes historical thought on an event goes full circle.

As someone else already commented: when you find a good book or two, check the sources they used, then check the sources that those sources used, and so on and so forth. Pretty soon, you'll end up with a huge mass of sources with several different ideas coming across.

[Talar]

Thank you guys for the help. I was brain farting a bit hard about it all. And I plan on talking with the professor and such since the one paper is such a big component of the class (sort of the only component come to think of it).

And yeah Kurgan I've gotten that a few times already, probably has to do with connotations for different groups of people and such. British Invasion is pretty general to be fair.

[Zrak]

Ahh, historiography, the a history of the historians writings. Or the boring but easy essays of a history major.

Historiography is boring and easy? I guess nobody told Hayden White.