Episteme

The Greek word episteme is often translated as knowledge or science. The idea of the episteme is not new. It was previously elaborated by Giambattista Vico in the eighteenth century. He argued that we can have any degree of certainty only about that which we have ourselves created. Knowledge and history emerge from our own social constructions. In this instance, Michel Foucault in his work, The Order of Things uses the term episteme to designate how a culture acquires and organises knowledge in a given historical period.

Foucault maintains that knowledge is generated through the sense of difference. Foucault organised the knowledge into four historical epistemes that existed from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries: Renaissance, Classical, Modern/Anthropological, and Postmodern. Foucault assumes that the four epistemes appeared in parallel.

The first episteme, from the Middle Ages to the late sixteenth century (the Renaissance), characterises knowledge according to the dominant cultural or linguistic narratives. 

In the second episteme, from the seventeenth century to the eighteenth (the Classical), knowledge was generated according to the linguistic practice of the representation of differentness. 

The third episteme (the Modern or Anthropological), from the end of the eighteenth century through to the early twentieth, and was preoccupied with Man (‘I’, the ‘self’) as the subject and object of reality. This preoccupation is, for Foucault, best understood through the invention of the knowing subject and the discipline of history. 

The fourth eisteme, the postmodern period, is represented by multiple realities and differences.  Foucault remarks man as the product of his lived social experience, and also the constitutor of knowledge.

Epistemology

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It is a theory and philosophy of knowledge. Epistemology asks questions such as “what is knowledge?” and “how do we know something?” “What is the basis for true knowledge?” Thus, epistemology primarily deals with:

      (i)               the nature, theory, and foundations of knowledge,

(ii)             its various conditions,

(iii)           its limits and possibilities

 The term ‘Epistemology' comes from the Greek, episte-me-, meaning knowledge or science, and logos, meaning reason. Traditionally, knowledge is defined as justified true belief.  In Greek philosophy, episteme refers to knowledge as well as to the idea of ‘approaching something, knowing one’s way round it’.

Western epistemology began with Plato’s dialogue with Socrates. His important contribution to the epistemological idea was that he made a distinction between knowledge and correct opinion or true belief. Contemporary epistemologists consider Descartes as the father of modern epistemology. Critical thinkers like John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant also contributed to the development of the philosophy of epistemology.

There are two different versions of the origins of knowledge. One of them believes that knowledge is innate—i.e., present in the mind, in some sense, from birth. The other version holds that knowledge is acquired through experience. This debate led to the development of two branches of philosophical epistemology: (1) Empiricism and (2) Rationalism.

1.  Empiricism

Empiricism believes that all knowledge comes through experience. True knowledge is primarily founded on input from our senses – experiences. John Locke, considered the human mind as a tabula rasa, a “blank slate”, at the time we enter the world. At birth we know nothing; it is only through experience that the mind captures knowledge or information. There are two levels of experience: (a) Sensation – learn through sensory organs and (b) Reflection – learn through the reflection of mind from experience. Classical empiricism was dominated by the ideas of John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. Classical empiricism is characterised by a rejection of innate, inborn knowledge or concepts.

2.  Rationalism

Rationalism believes that not all knowledge comes from experience. Some knowledge is innate or inborn. Plato a radical rationalist believed all knowledge comes from innate. Rationalism emphasises reason – the logical human mind is the source of new knowledge. According to rationalists, the ultimate source of human knowledge is the reason. Rationalist philosopher Descartes famously declared “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito ergo sum). The view is that everything that exists is on the human mind.

Historical Epistemology

Historical epistemology is concerned with the construction of historical knowledge. In history, knowledge is ultimately discovered through the highly complex process of the analysis of facts or evidence. Through this process, the historians distinguish knowledge from unjustified belief. But it cannot offer an error-free representation of the past. The reasons for this are:

      (1)   Historians have no direct contact with the past.

(2)   Historical explanation depends on the interpretation of the evidence that must be selected (subjectivity).

Thus historical knowledge is constructed with the best explanations. Empiricism (evidence of experience) and logic (reason) together helps the historian to achieve this. Frameworks of knowledge are constantly changing; nothing stays the same. Thus historical knowledge will change from time to time according to the dominant knowledge structures.

Emplotment

Emplotment is a method for historical narration posted in the works of Hayden White, an American postmodern historian. In his work Metahistory, Hayden White argued that history is a literary artefact and defined history as ‘verbal fictions’. Philosophers of history Louis Mink and William B. Gallie have also held the view of history as a narrative.

White maintains that, in historical explanation, historian emplotes the strategies used in literature, along with facts and ideologies. When historian place events in a particular order (‘this happened, then that, because . . .’) he is emplotting their sequence. In this process, the historian uses our culture’s main forms of emplotment – romance, tragedy, comedy and satire.

1. A romantic emplotment, gives prominence to the power of the historical agent or hero as ultimately superior to circumstances.
2. Satire emplotment is the opposite in that the agent or hero is a subject of their context, destined to a history of difficulty and rejection.
3. In tragedy emplotments the hero struggles to beat the difficulties and fails, eventually being dissatisfied by fate or their own personality defects. The end result is usually death.
4. In a comedic emplotment there is progress and hope of at least a temporary victory over circumstance through settlement.

White argued that historical situations are not fundamentally tragic, satirical, comic or romantic. The historian transforms a tragedy into a comic situation to shift his point of view or change the scope of his perceptions. The type of emplotment that the historian chooses is determined by the power of the hero of the plot over her/ his or its environment. In historical narration, historians try to explain the facts by giving them a priority. Establishing that priority is part of the emplotment process and it usually demands ideological, social and cultural decisions. In the majority of cases, events can be emplotted in a number of different ways in order to give different meanings.

Historicism

Historicism is an approach and theory which emphasise the importance of historical knowledge. The theory of historicism believes that the only true understanding of a person, society, historical period, etc. comes about through the knowledge of its history. Historicists consider that human beings are products of history. The events are influenced by historical conditions, rather than by people. Hegel considered that all human societies and their activities are defined by their history. Benedetto Croce defined Historicism as ‘the affirmation that life and reality are history alone’.

Historicism in its present theoretical form was shaped through the writings of Giambattista Vico and Johann Gottfried Herder in the 18^th century. The most significant theorists and historians commonly associated with historicism are Leopold von Ranke, Wilhelm Dilthey, J.G. Droysen, Friedrich Meinecke, Croce, and R.G. Collingwood. The important aspects of the theory of historicism are discussed below:

Historical Knowledge is Time and Place Specific

Historicism in its primary meaning refers to the Historical act of observing historical periods on their own terms rather than any imposed by the historian. Historicist believes that all knowledge, including ‘historical knowledge’, is time and place-specific. It was recognised that the past was different from the present. Historicism insisted to judge the past on its own terms. It insists that historians should aim to understand the events actions and thoughts of people in their own historical moments. Historical understanding is thus entirely derived from within that place, time, and context.

Historical Period has its own standard

Every historical period had its own standards through which it determined what was trustworthy knowledge and acceptable truth. Historicism rejects enlightenment ideas about the unchangeable human nature. Thus, human experiences should not be judged on the basis of universal principles. In understanding the past in its own terms, historians have to realise that each historical period possessed its own standards by which we can judge the past. So every person, event, and process is historically unique. In reconstructing the past in its own terms, the historian has to control, his/her contemporary perspectives.

History was determined by general laws

Historicism believes that history was determined by laws. There are general, evident, and determining patterns in the process of historical change. Historical phenomena are defined by their specific context and thereby be explained by the factors that gave rise to them. To understand a society, one must understand its history and the forces that shaped it. Thus, historicism proposes a theory of history holding that the course of events is determined by unchangeable laws or patterns.

The basic question in historicism is how accurately we can represent the -past- as history through our words and concepts. It holds that all historical knowledge is relative to the standpoint of the historian.

New Historicism

New Historicism is a literary theory that proposes that literature should be studied and interpreted within the context of history. This approach considers a literary work as a product of the time, place, and historical circumstances of its composition. New Historicists aim to understand literary work through its historical context. It also aims to investigate intellectual history and cultural history through literature. New Historicism attempted to reintroduce the concept of history into literary studies. The theory of New Historicism is shaped by the literary criticism of Stephen Greenblatt and influenced by the philosophy of Michel Foucault. This is literature’s turn toward interpreting the literary text in its historical context. 

Philosophies of History

Philosophy is current in everyday life. It has the meaning illustrated by Tolstoy’s remark that ‘everyone must have a philosophy of life’ that is some general presuppositions, which they should always be ready to scrutinize. Philosophies about history are seeking to clarify its operational presuppositions because a coherent thought can emerge only out of some presupposition or constellation of presuppositions as R.G. Collingwood puts it.

The concept of Philosophies of History emerged with the French rationalist philosopher Voltaire. It assumed prominence when philosophers lay their seeds in the fields of history. Historians before the 19^th century were generally indifferent to the idea of ‘Philosophy of History’. The German historian Leopold Von Ranke believed that ‘divine providence would take care of the meaning of the history if the historian took care of the facts’. The Swiss historian, Burckhardt observed that ‘we are not initiated into the purposes of the eternal wisdom’. G.M. Trevelyan wrote that ‘there was no philosophy in history. Philosophy must be brought to history; it can not be extracted from it’. On the whole, the 19^th century as E.H. Carr wrote in ‘What is History’, was ‘the age of innocence and historians walked in the garden of Eden, without a scarp of philosophy to cover them, naked and unashamed before the God of history’.

The philosophy of history is a philosophical view of human destiny. As Allan Nevins wrote in ‘The Gateway to History’, ‘a philosophy of history springs from a writer's whole view of human destiny and thus embodies his philosophy of life; an interpretation of historical material is merely a writer's explanation of the significance of a series of events, an epoch or a movement. The one usually bears a close relation to the thought of the age; the other is usually more personal in origin’.

All major philosophies of history, except two (the Greeco-Roman and the Medieval Church Historiography), have sprung up in the past three centuries, a fact that speaks volumes of the close cooperation between rationalism and modern history. Ancient Greek and Roman writers knew but only one philosophy – the philosophy of fate. The ancient Indians too believed in a similar philosophy – the philosophy of Karma.

I.    The Cyclical View – the first widespread interpretation in western culture was the dominant philosophy from Herodotus to the time of Christ. All human events occur in cycles. Names, dates, and persons may change, but philosophically what happened before will happen again. This applies to nation-states and to epochs and gave birth to the adage that ‘history repeats itself’. This theory was the first known philosophy and ruled out the possibility of development and change.

II.  The Providential Theory – existed in the Old Testament era widely accepted during the church-oriented middle ages. History was the guidance of divine will. Divine will be directing the destinies of mankind according to the cosmic order. Events, actions, and happenings were explained in terms of an intervening divine providence. The man had no control over his environment. Christian historians, following the lead given by Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340) and St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) coupled the Hebrew idea that divinity directed the historical process, with the Greek notion, that man could arrive at an understanding of this process through the use of his intellect. This philosophy of history held sway for more than thirteen centuries. It was championed by St. Augustine in his famous book ‘The City of God’. According to him, history is a constant conflict between the City of God and City of Man. He contrasted the secular state (evil and transitory) with the kingdom of God (serene and eternal). He notes that these two cities are inextricably interwoven and it is this interaction that actively produces history. The City of Man and the City of God will not be separated until ‘the last judgment’. The task of historical study is ‘to trace the steps by which one is slowly replaced by or transformed into the other’. These views constituted the Christian historical approach and held sway over the Middle Ages and shaped the course of Christian historical thought.

III. Another philosophy that gives great importance to individuals as decisive players in history is the ‘Great Man Theory’ of Thomas Carlyle (1881). According to the proponents of this theory, all major developments of human history are accounted for by the ‘Great Man’ who exerts almost superhuman control over the fate of their generations. Thomas Carlyle says that ‘history is nothing but the biography of great men’, and that it is a record of human accomplishment, particularly of great souls. Human progress is regarded as being primarily due to the work of geniuses who appear in the world from time to time. In the words of Carl G. Gustavson, ‘they have been able to master the circumstances of their times and re-mould them according to their own ideas’. What history requires according to Carlyle is geniuses and not masses.

After Renaissance, in the age of enlightenment, rationalists like Voltaire (1694-1778) loosened the grip of the old supernaturals and religious beliefs over history. Influenced by humanism, they demonstrated that men really made their own world. They as Allan Nevins pointed out firmly believed that the historians, casting aside the murky lanterns of the religious chronicles should reconstruct the past under the brilliant light of reason. The new scientific attitude towards history was strikingly exhibited by Voltaire. His brilliant expositions helped to open the way for other rationalistic philosophies. To Voltaire, the philosophy of history stood for critical and independent thinking in which the historian exercised his mind.

IV. The progress view of history which is the outcome of the renaissance and a new set of values it generated stated that the human race was continuously progressing. This theory of history formulated by Gottfried Leibnitz (1726) held that the human race was continually getting better and better, it became more civilized with the passage of each new generation.

V.  After Voltaire, the same phrase, ‘philosophy of history’ was used by several historians including, George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). They, however, meant entirely different things by the same phrase. For Hegel, the whole of human history is a process through which mankind is making spiritual and moral progress. History has a plot and the philosopher’s task is to discover it. Hegel’s determinism entailed the unification of opposites – spirit and nature, universal and particular, ideal and real. The combination of these two would result in a synthesis. He stood both for idealism and realism at once. Hegel developed his ‘dialectical system’ in which logic, nature, and mind figured prominently. It begins by laying down a positive thesis that is at once negatived by an anti-thesis, then further thought produces the synthesis. To Hegel, man has consciousness which produces rational will. This rational will is at the root of human institutions and human history. To Hegel, the philosophy of history proposes a new kind of history, it is not a philosophical reflection on history, but history itself raised to a higher power and higher plane where it becomes philosophical as distinct from merely empirical. As Collingwood puts it, it is a new kind of ‘history not merely ascertained as so much fact but understood by apprehending the reasons why the facts happened as they did. This philosophical history will exhibit progress from primitive times to the civilization of today.

VI. In the 19^th century, another group of historians called the Positivists emerged. They believed in the positivist philosophy of Auguste Comte (1798-1857). Scholars like Herbert Spencer, Karl Marx, and others belonged to this school. By philosophy of history, the positivist meant (a) Ascertaining facts (b) Framing laws. The historian was to ascertain facts through sensuous perception and then framing laws through generalization. Under this influence, a new kind of historiography arose called positivist historiography. ‘The historical process’ as R.G. Collingwood (1889-1943) says ‘for the positivists, was in kind identical with the natural process, and that was why the methods of natural sciences were applicable to the interpretation of history’. Social and historical phenomena were also subject to certain ascertainable laws and open to treatment as in the case of natural sciences.

VII. The Italian Benedetto Croce (1866-1952) was a protagonist of another current of history – Relativism, along with the German, Dilthey. They argued that history is present knowledge, which must and does spring from current interests. To them, history is ‘contemporary thoughts about the past’. They also held the view that there is no one truth about the past but innumerable truths as many as there are perspectives. Their belief was ‘we see different pasts at different times, and what we see depends on our present situation.

VIII. Philosophy of history has grown over the ages assuming more abstract and sophisticated forms. Karl Marx put forward a comprehensive philosophy of history based on economic determinism. Marxism was a philosophy of history impregnated with an elaborate economic theory. History has governed by laws that the human mind can recognize or determine. Objective historical necessity was at the roots of causation. Economic developments are the basis of social changes. Ideas, institutions, laws, politics and even religion and art are greatly affected by economic factors. Ideas influence history, but they are not independent agents, only intermediary links. All historical progress is a product of a conflict between the old and new, leading to higher social formations. There would always be a clash of interests among the social groups, which Marx calls ‘Class Struggle’. Class struggle is a great motivating power of history. Progress will always be the result of a victory of the new class over its oppressors. The struggle will go on until the last vestiges of the old order disappear. ‘Dictatorship of the proletariat’ would result from this repression. Karl Marx defined ‘value’ as labour crystallized. Labour power is the only power that can produce a ‘value’ greater than its own. The product of ‘surplus labour’ is ‘surplus value’. The originality of Marx lies in his efforts to synthesize the entire legacy of social knowledge since Aristotle. To Marx, history was the development of man’s efforts to master the forces of nature and hence of production. History is progress. Man’s ability to produce continually increases.

IX. Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) was a philosopher historian of Germany. Spengler compared the modern western civilizations with the ancient Greeco-Roman civilizations and endeavoured to discern the outlines of a life cycle through which he believed all civilizations must pass. Spengler substituted the historical idea of progress with the cyclical concept of natural sciences. Spengler’s reputation rests entirely on his work ‘The Decline of the West’. Spengler dismissed as an illusion, the idea of progress in history. His cyclical theory of human development and his skepticism about man’s ethical potentialities made him reject the idea of progress. Spengler compared human culture to the life cycles of human beings.

X. Arnold Toynbee’s (1889-1975) work, ‘A Study of History’ has been acclaimed as the greatest single-handed historical achievement since Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’. In his monumental work, he has examined the genesis, growth and decay of all the civilizations of mankind. He studies the genesis, growth and decay of 26 related and unrelated civilizations. Geographical factors alone do not determine the birth of cultures. Two factors are indispensable, one is the dynamic leadership of a creative minority and the second is a set of circumstances that are neither too favourable nor too unfavourable, but just right in proportion. This is followed by a mechanism called ‘Challenge and Response’. The birth of a civilization is the product of the interplay of challenges and responses. Challenge poses an issue and a response offers the solution. Civilizations grow due to the progressive and cumulative inward self-direction or self-articulation of the civilization. The secret of progress was what Toynbee calls ‘Etherialization’, which means spiritual purification. Decay is caused by (a) failure of creative power in the leadership (b) withdrawal on the part of the society and (c) consequent loss of social unity. The declining phase consists of (1) a breakdown of the civilization (2) disintegration and (3) Dissolution.

XI. Herbert Spencer held that history was a movement from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from simple tribal systems to complex urban cultures. It has been labeled the evolution model. Spencer emphasized gradual and cumulative social change (evolution as opposed to revolution). It was essentially determined from within and described in terms of structural differentiation. Durkheim and Weber largely followed this trend in spite of serious differences.

Primary Sources - Archaeological Sources

Archaeological sources constitute the foremost primary sources for the reconstruction of the prehistoric and early historic periods. Archaeology is the scientific study of the material remains of past human life and activities. These include human artefacts from the very earliest simple stone tools to the man-made massive structures. Ancient ruins, remains, and monuments recovered as a result of excavation and exploration are archaeological sources of history. The archaeological remains are subjected to scientific examination like the radio-carbon method for deciphering its chronology and features. Archaeological Sources comprised of:

1.     Inscriptions or epigraphic sources

Epigraphy refers to the study of inscriptions. The earliest inscriptions can be found on rocks, metal, wood, clay tablets, or even wax. These may vary hugely in length from mere abbreviated words and administrative tablets to depicting entire official decrees. Generally, there are two broad categories of inscriptions – Royal or Official and Private or Individual. Generally, these inscriptions represent the king’s orders, policies and grants. Usually, inscriptions tend to be pretty durable because of the nature of the materials that were used. They were often intended to be publically visible, catching the eye like a big sign, their content shared with as many people as possible. The study of inscriptions provides valuable historical sources for the reconstruction of the past. It throws light on the language, script and its regional variations, political authority of a ruling class, social structures and economic conditions. Their script enables us to determine the approximate age of the inscription. However, fixing the authorship, chronology and purpose of inscriptions are the crucial tasks of a historian. The earliest epigraphs in India are those of Ashoka, the Mauryan Empire. To propagate his dhamma and policies, he issued 14 edicts. These were inscribed on rocks, e.g. Junagadh (Gujarat). Besides, he also put up several pillars in public places with inscriptions. The copper plate inscriptions were generally land grants made by the rulers. Such copper-plates give information on the socio-economic condition of that period.

2.     Monuments

The ancient monuments are the primary sources for the study of ancient art, architecture and sculpture. The study of monuments gives information regarding urban development, political and economic condition, religious life, cultural life and intellectual development. The ancient monuments can be categorised into two – secular and religious monuments. The secular monuments consist of palaces, forts and other public buildings. The Buddhist and Jain temples and Hindu temples form an important category in the religious monuments. For example, in India the Buddhist Stupas, Chaityas and Viharas provide the sources for the reconstruction of Buddhism.

 3.       Coins or numismatics sources

The study of coins will give valuable sources about the past like:

• The ruling class, the dynasties and the king, the extent of the kingdom
• Metallurgy 
• Chronology
• The economic relationship between the people
• Religious symbols or figures of deities on coins inform us about the religious outlook of issuing dynasties.
• Foreign contacts and trade relations

For example, the panch marked coins give valuable sources for the ancient history of India.

4.       Material Remains

Through excavation, archaeologists exposed the hidden history of many prehistoric settlements. The archaeological material they unearthed can be used as sources for the reconstruction of the history of that particular settlement. These materials help us to reconstruct the history of common people before the discovery of writing. Physical remains help historians to understand texture, weight, size, scale, and a host of other elements that may not be knowable from written or other types of sources. They help historians to understand popular conceptions of themselves, their society, and their beliefs. For societies that left no written records, their artefacts can help historians understand their place in the human past.

The important archaeological remains are:

• Structural remains
• Pottery
• Tools
• Beads
• Funeral remains/bones
• Floral remains
• Domestic materials
• Occupational materials

The study of these remains helps to understand the settlement and life pattern of an ancient group.

Bibliography

A bibliography is the last part of a research paper, and it reveals much about the research process. It indicates:

• the extent of the research,
• the kinds and types of sources that were used, and
• the different disciplines that helped to present the study

A proper bibliographic citation is necessary for good research work. It helps:

• to further reference to the interested readers
• to find sources on a particular topic
• provides a window to the research paper
• to make judgments on the research.

Having a complete bibliography is therefore essential to a finished piece of research.

Working Bibliography

The preparation of a working bibliography is the first step after the selection of a research topic. A working bibliography includes the sources that a researcher discovers in his initial inquiry into a topic. A working bibliography will be a longer bibliography than the final bibliography. The working bibliography will evolve and change as the researcher gather new sources and eliminate less useful sources. A working bibliography is a tool to locate and gather sources. A working bibliography should include complete information for each source. The working bibliography helps the researcher to understand the nature and diversities of sources related to his study. It also helps the researcher to collect the relevant data in an organised manner.

Types of Bibliography

There are three basic types of bibliographies.

1.   Standard Bibliography

It is the simplest form of bibliography, which is a listing of works used for the writing of the paper. It is arranged into subcategories beginning with a listing of primary sources, followed by secondary works. The bibliography should be divided into two sections— primary sources and secondary sources. Both primary and secondary sources can be arranged into subdivisions according to the nature of the sources. The primary sources category may be further subdivided into the following order: unpublished materials and published materials. Secondary sources are often subdivided into the categories of books, journal articles, and other published works. In each category and subcategory, sources are arranged alphabetically.

2.   Annotated Bibliography

The annotated bibliography is more useful to students of history. Its arrangement is the same as a standard bibliography, but each entry has an annotation or critical commentary. The annotation should be brief, usually not more than three lines of text. It indicates the author’s coverage of the subject, the historical interpretation, and the overall value of the work. A working annotated bibliography enables the researcher to ascertain which sources will be most useful to the various sections of the paper. Such a bibliography enables the reader to better understand the ways in which sources were useful and also grasp the limitations of some sources.

3.   Bibliographic Essay

The bibliographic essay provides commentary about sources in a narrative format. Rather than arranging sources in alphabetical order, the bibliographic essay is arranged by topic or subject in paragraph form. The author of the bibliographic essay decides how to organize the material. Some approaches include grouping sources around particular topics, themes, issues, personalities, or interpretations. A brief commentary about the sources is an essential component of the essay. The bibliographic essay must be readable, informative, and like the annotated bibliography, provide critical analysis of the sources. It is helpful to the author of the paper because he or she must have a good sense of the works in order to write about them in a clear narrative style. Constructing a bibliographic essay is a good exercise in learning history by writing. But the essay is also useful to the historian’s audience because of its topical or thematic organization.

Organisation or Arrangement of a Standard Bibliography

The basic arrangement of a simple bibliography is:

Primary Sources

- Unpublished Documents

- Published Documents

- Oral Sources

Secondary Sources

- Journal Articles

- Books

A simple bibliographic entry contains the following information:

• Author’s last name, followed by the first name
• The full title of the book is in italics
• Name of the Publisher
• Place of Publication
• Year of the Publication

Various citation manuals like MLA, APA, and Chicago propose different styles in the arrangement of bibliography.

Documenting Sources

Sources are very important for the construction of history. Documentation will allow the readers to verify the sources consulted for the study. Indeed, to write history is always to write about sources. Documentation allows the researcher to display his sources and it also helps to avoid plagiarism. This requires that the researcher pay particular attention to a number of details and make certain that they are presented carefully and consistently in the citations.

Authorship

The first principle to consider is authorship. Who created the work? Is there just one author, or are there several? Whether an editor or translator? Very few sources may have several individuals who contributed to the fundamental creation and presentation of the work. Most often these are editors and/or translators.

Titles

The second basic element for each citation is the title. What is the source called? In the case of articles in a journal or newspaper, there will be more than a single title. The complete title of a book should be in italics. Similarly, the title of a periodical—a scholarly journal, magazine, or newspaper—should be in italics. But use quotation marks for short poems or speeches that have titles, or in a collection of essays in book form.  A few types of sources—such as interviews, letters, and manuscripts—are merely described in regular type without quotation marks.

Location

Since a major purpose for the citation is that readers may find the same work, the third important element in the citation should be the location where you found the information. For books, this means place of publication and the publisher. For scholarly journals, this means the volume and sometimes the issue number and publisher. For websites, it means the URL and retrieved date. For manuscripts or documents in archives, you will need to indicate the name of the archives and the document number.

Date

The final element to consider is the date of the source. In the case of books, it is the year of publication; for journals, it is the year (and perhaps the month) of publication in addition to the volume number. Newspaper and magazine citations usually include only the date, not the volume and issue numbers. For Web sites, the date the particular source was created should be included.

Methods of Documentation in a Historical Work

There are three important methods to document a source in historical work. They are:

1.        Footnotes
2.        Bibliography
3.       Appendix

Apart from these, sometimes, the preface can also be used as a place to document the sources, consulted for the study.

Footnotes

The method of using footnotes gives the researcher an opportunity to display his sources and supporting documents. A historian should acknowledge not only the sources of his facts but also the sources of any new idea or opinion or conclusion borrowed from others. In the text, he should clearly distinguish between his own ideas or conclusions and those of others borrowed by him. Ideas and opinions are like the property of somebody, and whenever they are borrowed by the historian, the ethics of historical scholarship demands that such borrowings be acknowledged. Footnotes give the historian an immediate space to document his source.

Bibliography

A bibliography is the last part of a research paper. It gives the details about the sources – both primary and secondary – consulted for the present study. A bibliography helps to validate historical work by examining the types of sources consulted for the study. It also gives an idea of the extent of the research.

Appendix

The appendix helps the researcher to display the relevant original source materials used for the study. This full-text documentation of sources allows the researcher to give supplementary material that is not an essential part of the main body of the text. It includes the material which cannot be logically included in the main body of the text. The appendix usually includes supporting evidence, preferably a copy of primary documents like orders, letters, technical figures, maps, questionnaires, photographs, etc.

Criteria for the selection of a Research Problem - Things to Consider

Research is an activity undertaken to bring out new knowledge. Generally, there are three purposes for conducting research:

§  Adding new data

§  New interpretation of known data

§  Subordination of data to a principle (framing theories)

The primary and most important step in the research is to select a research topic. The research problem undertaken for the study must be carefully selected. Every researcher must find out his own research problems and it cannot be borrowed. A problem must spring from the researcher’s mind. A research guide can at the most only help a researcher to choose a subject.

Questions of Where, Who, When and What

Louis Gottschalk, in his work Understanding History, proposes that a beginner in the field of historical research can easily discover a subject that interests him by asking four sets of questions:

(   1)   Where? – The first set of questions is geographical. This means the researcher should select a particular geographical area for his research.

(   2)   Who? – The second set of questions is biographical. This denotes the researcher should select a particular group of people for his study.

(   3)   When? – The third set of questions is chronological. This indicates the researcher should select a particular period for his research.

(   4)   What? – The fourth set of questions is functional or occupational. This stand for the researcher should select a particular area of human interest, such as economics, culture, politics, and so on.

Ask Multiple Questions

The selection of the problem of research is to be linked with several questions such as:

§     What is the purpose of the study?

§     How much is already known?

§     Is additional information is necessary?

§    Can the required data be collected?

§     Can a hypothesis be formulated?

§     Is time/money adequate for the research?

Interaction with the Experts and Free Discussions

The selection of a research problem is the first step toward research hence the interaction with the experts is necessary. The interaction will give a better vision of the feasibility of the study and the availability of sources. It also will help the researcher to formulate his research questions and hypotheses.  

Internal or Personal and External Criteria

Generally, the selection of a research problem includes both external criteria and personal criteria.  External criteria cover matters such as novelty and importance of the theme, availability of data and method, and institutional or administrative cooperation. Personal criteria involve factors like interest, training, cost and time, etc.

1. Novelty and avoidance of unnecessary duplication

The subject which is overdone should not be normally chosen, for it will be a difficult task to throw any new light in such a case.

2. Significance

The subject selected for research should be familiar and have relevance. The significance for the field involved, timelines and practical value in terms of application and implementation of the results.

3. Too narrow or too vague problems should be avoided

The researcher should focus on a particular issue at the very same time it should be not too narrow or too vague.

4. Availability of data and method

The data under consideration must meet certain standards of accuracy, objectivity and verifiability.

5. Interest and intellectual curiosity

One of the personal motives for choosing a research topic is personal curiosity, accompanied by genuine interest and personal satisfaction and enjoyment.

6. Special equipment and working conditions

The researcher must ask himself whether he is well equipped in terms of his background to carry out the research? Whether he need any special equipment or training?

7. Costs and returns

The candidate must consider carefully his own financial resources in the light of such facilities and assistance as can be provided by the institution.

8. Time factor

The researcher must be aware of the cost factor of the proposed research work. The researcher should be conscious of his budget and economic situation.

Conclusion

The selection of a problem must be preceded by a preliminary study. If the subject for research is selected properly it will be easy for the researcher to conduct his work. The subject or the problem selected must involve the researcher and must have an uppermost place in his mind so that he may undertake all pains needed for the study.