History: Science or Social Science

From ancient times onwards, there are two ways of understanding society and its interactions – science and humanities. Science is generally considered as completely genuine knowledge that can be tested and validated. On the other hand, the subjects under humanities are treated with perspectives on different aspects of human life. Thus, the pre-modern understanding of science and social sciences is that of two opposite binaries.

History as a Science

The Latin word ‘Scientia’ means organised knowledge. In this sense, history is also a science, it is an organised knowledge of the past. Every argument in support of the scientific status of history in the modern period begins with J.B. Bury’s inaugural lecture at Cambridge in 1903 on the ‘Science of History’. In this lecture, he insisted ‘history is a science, no less no more’. This argument gained wide acceptance among historians of the scientific age. John Seely asserted that “History was a science, and had nothing to do with literature”. Meanwhile, the argument ‘history as a science’ created widespread debates among historians about the disciplinary status of history. These debates mainly centred around three arguments: history as a science, history as an art, and history as a social science. There has been an argument that history can be a science. On the other hand, questions rose about whether history can be a science.

Scientific Status of History

Scientific attitudes in history go back to the time of Thucydides. He was perhaps one of the earliest historians who tried to separate history from poetics and from narratives. He began to follow the model of the development of the science of medicine, which was the field of science that was quite developed in Thucydides’ time. Hence he is regarded as the father of scientific history.

Auguste Comte, the founder of Positivism, believed that the inductive method used in the natural sciences needed to be applied to history as well as the humanities in general. He also claimed scientific status for the humanities. He thought that all societies operated through certain general laws that needed to be discovered.

The impact of science on historiography at the end of the eighteenth century was immense. It was the age of inventions, which influenced all the branches of knowledge. During this age of science, the argument that history can be scientific got momentum. Now, historians insisted that history must follow scientific models. Now scientific methods were systematically applied to the study of human affairs. The Newtonian tradition and the Darwinian Evolution, which brought history into science reinforced the practice of applying the principles of science to historical writing.

History could be considered a science in the following terms.

  ü  The term, ‘history’ itself refers to an inquiry to reveal the truth. Historical research aims at discovering the truths of the past. Science also focuses on finding out of truth. Further, history seeks to find out the truth by adopting a rational approach, it is a science.

  ü  Like science, history begins from the knowledge of our own ignorance and proceeds from the known to the unknown, from ignorance to knowledge, from indefinite to definite.

  ü  History seeks to find out answers to the different questions asked by historians. Similarly, the basis of scientific research is also to find out answers to various questions.

  ü  The method of historical research involves the methods of science. Analysis, classification, and interpretation of historical sources are inextricably linked with scientific methods.

  ü  History employs scientific methods of inquiry. It uses various methods of investigation such as observation, classification, and analysis of evidence.

  ü  The historical research activities like formulation of hypothesis, finding out cause and effects, and the method of generalisations are the methods of science. 

  ü  The inductive view of the historical method, i.e. collecting facts and interpreting them is an accepted method of science.

  ü  The interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaches in history link it with scientific inquiries.

R.G. Collingwood drew a sharp line between the world of nature, which was the object of scientific inquiry and the world of human past, which was the target of historical investigation and tried to establish that history was certainly more than a science, a science of some special kind.

History is not a Science

E.H. Carr differentiates history and all science by raising five major points:

1. History deals with the unique and particular and science with the general and universal,
2. History teaches no lessons,      
3. History is unable to predict,
4. History is necessarily subjective and
5. History involves issues of religion and morality.

Historians’ method of research was quite different from that of the scientist. The basic differences are:

  ü  Science is experimental and its results could be repeated or reproduced while history is not experimental and historical events could not be repeated. In history, it is quite impossible to undertake an experiment on a man or his activities or his ideas.

  ü  In history it is not possible to formulate generalizations or predict the future with certainly.

  ü  Science deals with physical or natural objects. But, history is concerned with the experiences of human beings. It cannot be reduced to any formula nor subjected to any universally applicable laws.

  ü  To arrive at objective conclusions is impossible for a historian, whereas natural scientists can arrive at objective conclusions.

  ü  Historians make moral judgments on the individuals participating in historical events which are not the characteristics of science. 

  ü  Scientist invents, but historian discovers. Hence the finished products of science and history are differently organized.

  ü  History differs from exact sciences in its stages of the beginning and conclusion.

  ü  In history, each event has a place and date and is unique in nature. But, scientific conclusions about things have no special habitation in space or time.

  ü  History deals with unorganized facts from which no valid conclusions could be drawn.

  ü  Values, opinions, perspectives, and ideologies hold a significant place in history. But they have no place in science.

History as Social Science

Social science can be defined as a study of men living in society. These studies generally use narrative and descriptive methods to portray the life of the people. It is humanistic and artistic in character and thereby different from science and its methods. The subject matter of history is the man and his environment. Thus reconstructing the past as history is inevitably linked with literary and artistic nature. In this sense, history qualifies itself to be a part of the social sciences.

History traditionally refers to the study and interpretation of the written record of past human activity, people, societies, and civilizations leading up to the present day. It is the continuous, systematic narrative and research of past events relating to the human species and the study of all events in time in relation to humanity. As the narrative account of the past, history is an art. As the narrator, the historian looks at the past from a certain point of view. A historian differs from a scientist when he communicates his results. The scientist simply reports whereas a historian conveys human experience. Historian uses their perspectives, imagination, and critical thinking in reconstructing the past.

Most historians of the modern period consider history a central social science. The key focus in history is the human experience. The foremost duty of the historian is to reconstruct the past through the analysis of the evidence. A historian has no direct experience of the phenomena which he tries to explain. This involves the interpretation of the facts, which necessitates the skills of a social scientist. Further, as the narrative account of the past, history is an art. In the fields of exposition and documentation, a historian is to be a careful artist. He has to use his imaginative vision, the talents of erudition and the expression of an artist.

Understanding of history as a social science took a paradigm shift in the later course of historical research. Modern historians devised the theories and concepts of other social sciences in the interpretation of historical themes. This further broadened historical understanding and research.

To conclude, history is a balanced blending of both science and social science. When history attempts to discover the truth it is a science and when it narrates the truth it is an art. Historians can adopt scientific attitudes which will make the interpretation objective. But, history is different from science with its subject matter and way of presentation. It is a halfway house between science and social science.

Cultural History

Raymond Williams in his book Primitive Culture argued that the “term ‘culture’ is one of the two or three most complicated terms in the English language”. It is complicated because of its verities of usages. Culture is one of the most important aspects of historical study. It emerged as an independent area of research only in modern times. It emerged after the Annales School of historiography, which promoted an interdisciplinary approach to historical studies. Cultural history places man at the centre of historical activity. Cultural history mainly focuses on:

• cultural formation of different societies
• High and low cultures
• folk and traditional cultural practices
• daily life practices
• modernity and the changes in cultural patterns
• studies on language, literature, art, architecture and other cultural productions
• studies on media and popular culture
• cultural identity, symbols and cultural hegemony

Cultural history considers culture as an important tool for social change. Cultural history began with the analysis of high culture, which is the practice of the dominant groups of society. Over the course of time analysis of low culture emerged as a reaction to the earlier studies. Cultural historians use theoretical and conceptual approaches to study cultural interventions. The popular theories used in the analysis of culture are:

• Theory of cultural hegemony by Gramsci
• Theory of Structuralism
• Theory of Deconstruction by Derrida
• Postmodern theories
• Theory of New Historicism

Cultural history further widened the interdisciplinary approach to history. The Annales School, Marxist historians, and postmodern thinkers contributed to the development of modern cultural history. Cultural history popularised the aspects of Gender studies, subaltern studies, oral history, local history, people’s history, and other counter-historical practices.

Introduction to Historical Method

"History' said Charles Seignobos "is not a science, it is a method". By that, he meant that the historical method may be applied to the subject matter of any discipline whatsoever as a means of ascertaining facts. The historical method is a scientific technique for selecting an area of study, gathering information related to the topic, collecting relevant data, analysing and critically evaluating the data and arriving at conclusions and generalizations or theories. The historical method is a tool of research and facilitates the framing of a hypothesis and testing the conclusions on the basis of the hypothesis.

Richerd F. Clarke defined the Historical Method as 'a system of procedures for the attainment of historical truth.' The discovery of truth and the procedure involved therein is generally called the historical method. It uses the research procedures commonly adopted by all Social Sciences and Philosophy in general. G.J. Renier wrote: 'Historical Method consists of the following stages - the selection of a topic, preparation of a bibliography, collection or research data relevant to the topic, criticism of the data, presentation of the data in a systematic manner and drawing of conclusions or generalizations. J. Garraghan viewed the historical method as a 'systematic body of principles and rules designed to assist in the effective gathering of source materials, appraising them critically and presenting a synopsis'. 

The historical method in modern times is said to scientifically consist of four parts: 

(1) Selection of a topic and preparation of a bibliography 

(2) Criticism of the data collected - external and internal

(3) Synthesis

(4) Exposition as generalized truth or theory 

It was the Greeks who first used the scientific modern methodology to some extent As R.G. Collingwood puts it: Greek historiography was rational, scientific and self-explanatory. Thucydides was the first scientific historiographer of Clio, the goddess of history.

In the modern age, it was Leopold Von Ranke who raised history to the level of science. It was he who gave history a definite methodology. He insisted on source criticism and reigned interpretation. Empirical data or corroborating evidence was o prime importance to him. Arthur Marwick, in his Nature of History, wrote that Ranke gave form and shape to a new and refined historical methodology by the use of critical techniques.

The scientific revolution and the positivists aided in making the historical method a scientific one for credibility, accuracy and objectivity. Theorization and conceptualization of history along with textual criticism reduced subjectivity to a great extent. Postmodern criticism and the linguistic turn of the historian's methodology have led to much introspection and rectification in exposition. With the changes in society and advancements in science, the historical method has been undergoing changes and incorporating statistical data and quantitative techniques for analysis. The historians, method continuously strives for perfection and accuracy in rebuilding the past.

Historian and His Facts

The relationship between the historian and his facts is sacred and inextricable. It involves reciprocity. The historian without his facts is rootless and futile and the facts without their historian are dead and meaningless.

In ancient times the question was not given serious thought and the relation between a historian and his facts was taken for granted. In the 19" century, facts got primary over the historian and interpretation. 'What I want, said Gradgrind in 'Hard Times', 'is facts ... facts alone are wanted in life'. The 19th-century historians as the whole agreed with Ranke, who remarked that the task of the historian was 'simply to show how it really was' ... 'history had nothing to do with the opinion and interpretation of the historian'. Three generations of German, British and French historians enthusiastically followed the words of Ranke. The positivists' claim for history as a science, supported this cult of Facts. 'First, ascertain the all-important facts, then draw your conclusions from them' argued the positivists.

The empirical school clearly separates the facts from the historian and his conclusions. It defines the Facts as 'comes from experience as distinct from conclusions'. This may be called the commonsensical view of history. "History consists of a corpus of ascertained facts. The facts are available to the historian in documents, inscriptions, and so on, like fish on the fishmongers' slab. The historian collects them, takes them home and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him". Lord Acton wanted them 'served plain'. It recalls the dictum of the great liberal journalist C.P. Scott " Facts are sacred, opinion is free'. 

This brings us to the question of what is a historical fact? According to the common-sense view, there are certain basic facts that are the same for all historians and form the backbone of history. The historian is entitled to rely on what has been called the 'auxiliary sciences' of history - archaeology, numismatics, epigraphy, chronology, etc. These so-called basic facts, commonly belong to the category of the raw materials of the historian rather than of history itself. 

It used to be said that the facts speak for themselves. This is untrue. The facts speak only when the historian calls on them; it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor and in what order or context. A fact is like a sack, it won't stand up till you have put something in it. First, a historian picks up an insignificant fact of the past and uses it in support of his interpretation in his work. This fact is like being proposed by the concerned historian for membership of the street club of historical Facts. It now awaits a sponsor. After some time this Fact may appear first in Footnotes, then in the text of articles and books, and become a well-established historical fact. Its status as a historical fact will turn into a question of interpretation. This element of interpretation enters into every fact of history. The Facts of the ancient and medieval periods have come down to us after a vast winnowing process. 

In the 19th century, it was From Germany that the first challenge of the doctrine of the primacy and autonomy of facts in history originates. From that, the torch passed on to Italy. 

(1) Croce declared that "all history is contemporary history" meaning that history consists essentially in seeing the past through the eyes of the present ... and the main work of the historian is not to record but to evaluate.  

(2) Collingwood declared that "all history is the history of thought and history is the enactment in the historian's mind. 

(3) Prof. Oakeshott, says 'history is the historian's experience. 

(4) E.H. Carr says that 'the facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean, and what the historian catches will depend partially on chance, but mainly depend on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use - these two factors being of course determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of fish he wants to catch. History means interpretation'.

Thus the earlier dictum 'giving sole primacy to the facts’ was challenged and primacy was given to the interpretation of the facts. Here are some points to be noted:    

(1) The facts of history never come to us 'pure' since they do not and cannot exist in a  pure form; they are always going through the mind of the recorder    

(2) The historian needs an imaginative understanding of the people's minds when he dealing the thought behind their acts. History cannot be written unless the historian can achieve some kind of contact with the mind of those when he is writing

(3) The historian can view the past only through the eyes of the present. The very words which he uses like democracy, empire, war, and revolution have current connotations from which he cannot divorce them. 

How then, in this modern period are we to define the obligation of a historian to his facts? E.H. Carr opines that 'the duty of the historian is to bring all known or knowable facts relevant to the theme on which he is engaged and to the interpretation proposed'.

The relation of man to his environment is the relation of the historian to his theme. The historian is neither the humble slave nor the tyrannical master of his facts. The relation between the historian and his facts is of equality, of giving and take. The historian is engaged in a continuous process of moulding his Facts to his interpretation. It is impossible to assign primacy to one over the other. The historian starts with a provisional selection of facts and a provisional interpretation. As he works, both the interpretation and the selection and ordering of facts undergo subtle and perhaps partly unconscious changes through the reciprocal action of one on the other. This reciprocal action also involves reciprocity between the present and the past, since the historian is the part of the present and the facts belong to the past. The historian and the facts of history are necessary to one another. The historian without his facts is rootless and futile; the facts without their historian are dead and meaningless. History becomes a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.

Characteristics of Christian Historiography

The important characteristics of Christian historiography are: 

1.    Universal History: Christian historiographers composed universal history. They portrayed the history of the universe from the genesis to the last judgement. It was the Biblical version of history.

2.  Chronological Organisation of History: Christian historiographers brought the chronological organisation of historical events. All the events were brought within a single chronological framework. The events were arranged in chronological sequence.

3.  Periodisation in History: Christian historiographers brought periodisation into history. They divided the historic period into two parts with Christ as the centre. The various events are dated backwards and forward from the birth of Christ. They also divided history into two – the period of light and the period of darkness and further subdivided it into several periods.

4.  Established a relationship between the Church and the State: Christian historiography brought the first effort to establish a relationship between the church and the state. Through his work City of God, St. Augustine represented the church and the state as the two intermingled cities. This shaped the attitude of the church towards the state and politics.

5.  The Providential Philosophy of History: Christian historiography attributed the historical development to the will of God. This idea of providence constituted the Christian historical approach and shaped the course of Christian historical thought.

6.  The idea of the Conflict of Two: Christian historiography brought out the idea that the conflict of two is the moving force behind the course of history. St. Augustine argued that the task of the historical study is to trace the step by step development of the conflict between the church and the state.  

Structuralism and Linguistic Turn in History

Structuralism is a theoretical and methodological approach to the study of all cultural products such as language, mythologies, literature, kinship relations, rituals, fashion, etc. The structuralists subjected these and similar social phenomena to a type of analysis that they called “structural analysis”. It originated and developed in France in the 1950s and 1960s. However, its foundations had already been laid long ago in the work done in linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), Prince Nicholas Troubetzkoy, and Roman Jakobson (1896-1982). The main theoreticians and practitioners of structuralism were Claude Lévi-Strauss and Roland Barthes. Aspects of structuralism were also influential in the work of Louis Althusser, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault.

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)

The basic insights that underlie the emergence of the structuralist movement were first formulated in the field of linguistics. It was done by Saussure, a French-speaking Swiss linguist. His Course in General Linguistics, posthumously published in 1916, laid the foundation for the idea of structuralism. In this work:

• Firstly, he denied the view of a natural connection between words and things and argued that it reduced language to a mere “name-giving system.”
• Secondly, he argued that language is a system of signs in relation: no sign has meaning in isolation; rather, its signification depends on its difference from other signs.
• Finally, Saussure made a distinction between two dimensions of language: langue, the system, and rules of language, from parole or speech.

Sign: Signifier/Signified

Language is a system of signs. For Saussure, a sign is essentially a complex entity constituted of two elements: “signifier” and “signified.”

·         The signifier is the sound image or its written equivalent.

·         The concept evoked by it is the signified.

At first, it is tempting to think of the sign as the word. However, the sound image or word by itself is not a sign. It becomes a sign only when it evokes a concept. Again, it is tempting to think of the signified as the object referred to by the word. However, the signified for Saussure is not the object, but the concept, or meaning. For instance, the word (sound image) “tree” is called a sign only because it carries the concept “tree”.

To illustrate this process, Saussure imagines language as a piece of paper: thought is the front and sound is the back; one cannot cut the front without also cutting the back. Likewise, says Saussure, in language, “one can neither divide sound from thought nor think from the sound.” Thus the linguistic sign should be construed as a two-sided psychological entity. The role of language is to “serve as a link between thought and sound”. Saussure points out; that the sign once established “always eludes the individual or social will.”

The two important characteristics of the signifier-signified relation are: First, the association between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. Second, the signifier is linear in its nature and thus represents a span that is measurable in a single dimension.

Arguments of the Structuralists

• The Structuralists argue that it is language and its structure that produce reality
• Language is responsible for thought and it determines man’s perceptions
• Meaning does not come from individuals but from the rules of language and the overall ‘system’ that controls individuals.
• Therefore, the individual is subordinated and dominated by “the structure.”
• It is the structure that produces meaning, not the individual.
• It is a specific language that is at the base of such domination over the individual.

Structuralism and History Writing

The logic of Saussure’s structuralism suggests that words are signs defined by their difference from other words and signs. Language is, therefore, constructed as a series of signs produced by the culturally determined signifier (word)–signified (concept) connection. The modernist historian, in practice, establishes a relatively stable connection between word and world (when the historian uses the word ‘nationalism’ he/ she has enough data to confidently evidence its existence to be secure in the belief that it means what he/she thinks it means). The modernist historian chooses to believe that this union allows for the writing of truthful narrative interpretations based on his/her depth of both contemporary cultural knowledge and historical context. However, from a structuralist perspective, language is about the structure of the arbitrary connections between signifiers and does not look beyond the language system at the historically determined signified – the empirical. Structuralists do not search for changes in language or word meanings as being constituted by an external change over time; instead, they seek out meaning in structural relationships. Because the meaning of the sign results from the arbitrary link between the signifier and the signified. Then the language is a poor conductor of historical truth (or any other kind of truth). The historian’s language is, therefore, unavoidably presentist and ideological.

Claude Lévi-Strauss

In his Introduction to a Science of Mythology, he arrived at some influential insights into the nature of myth. Drawing on Saussure’s ideas, he suggested that myth was a specific form and use of language. According to Lévi-Strauss, in addition to langue and parole, it uses a third referent that combines the properties of the first two. On the one hand, a myth refers to events having taken place long ago; but what gives the myth an enduring value is that the specific pattern described is timeless: it explains the present and past as well as the future. He considered that in modern societies myth has been largely replaced by politics: for example, the French Revolution is viewed as both a sequence of events in the past and as a timeless pattern detectable in contemporary French social structure. Hence the myth had a double structure, historical and ahistorical. He relegated history to the status of a myth.

Rolland Barthes

A renowned French linguist and thinker carried the arguments further. According to him, the claim of historians to write about the reality of the past is fake. The history written by them is not about the past but ‘an inscription on the past pretending to be a likeness of it, a parade of signifiers acts as a collection of facts’. According to Barthes, historians’ description of the past basically refers to several concepts about the past and not the reality of the past. Thus Barthes considers objectivity as ‘the product of what might be called the referential illusion’. This illusion lies in the historians’ belief that there is a past world to be discovered through meticulous research.

Structuralism initiated the Linguistic and Postmodern Turn in critical thinking. It considers language, instead of reality, as constitutive of social meaning and human consciousness. 

Objectivity in History and its Critique

Objectivity can be considered the founding principle of historical writing. It denotes the representation of the past without bias and prejudices. Peter Novick, in his book That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession, pointed out that ‘The objective historian’s role is that of a neutral, or disinterested, judge; it must never degenerate into that of an advocate or, even worse, propagandist. The historian’s conclusions are expected to display the standard judicial qualities of balance’. The objectivist tradition believed in both the reality of the past as well as in the possibility of its mirror representation. Objectivity is a balanced assessment of the evidence. This is professional work in collecting, identifying, weighing the evidence, and analyzing evidence.

Auguste Comte and the Scientific Method

Auguste Comte was a French positivist philosopher, who introduced the idea of positivism. He introduced scientific observations into the study of history and thereby popularised the concept of objectivity. He also claimed scientific status for the humanities. Comte arranged the sciences in order of their importance as Mathematics, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Sociology. In the 19^th century, a group of historians called the Positivists emerged. They believed in the positivist philosophy of Auguste Comte and argued that the duty of a historian is (a) Ascertaining facts and (b) Framing laws.

Contributions of Ranke

It was Ranke who laid the foundation of a genuinely ‘objective’ historiography. He clearly distinguished history from literature and philosophy. By doing so, he attempted to avoid overdose application of imagination and metaphysical speculation. For him, the historians’ job was to investigate the past on its own terms and to show the readers how it essentially was. It did not mean, however, that Ranke had blind faith in the records. He argued for the strict analysis of the sources to determine its authenticity. He wanted the historians to critically examine and verify all the sources before reposing their trust in them. But, once it was proved that the records were genuine and belonged to the age which the historian was studying, the historian may put complete faith in them. He called these records ‘primary sources’. He considered that these sources would provide the foundations for a true representation of the contemporary period. Thus the historians should trust the archival records more than the printed ones which might be biased. He, however, believed that it was possible to reconstruct the past and that objectivity was attainable.

Critique of Objectivity

W. H. Walsh points out that “Every history is written from a certain point of view and makes sense only from that point of view”. Thus history represents the subjective account of the past. While interpreting the sources, a historian may be guided by the following subjective conditions, which may reflect in his interpretation:

• Historian has no direct contact with the past. It is, therefore, difficult for them to be objective in the representation of the past.
• ‘All the facts of the past are constructed facts’, hence the facts itself are a subjective representation of the past.
• The lack of evidence sometimes necessitates the use of imagination to fill the gap between the facts.
• The very selection of the topic may be determined by the social position of a historian hence the research starts from a biased position.
• Nationality is a crucial element that influences a historian while writing about his nation and others.
• The personal likes and dislikes of the historian will reflect in his interpretations. His perspectives, emotions, ideologies, and existing social positions, all will influence his thoughts.
• Historians generally use theories to interpret their sources, which naturally place his work as one partial way of thinking, because there are several conflicting theories.
• Historians approach the past with their own philosophical ideas, like ethical, religious, metaphysical, rational, etc., which decisively affect their way of interpretation.

Is Total Objectivity Possible?

Historians have generally accepted that the historical research procedure is objective. Therefore, it is necessary to strike a balance between objectivity and subjectivity. Historians should try to overcome extreme subjectivity biases, prejudice, mental climate, and political and ideological connections.

At the same time, it has been argued that written history can never be objective, even if the personal bias of the historian can be overcome (which is doubtful). It is still inevitable that what is written must be relative to the tastes, customs, and prejudices of the creative moment. No two historians can agree on what really happened in one particular historical moment.

Some argue that impartial history is ideal and is a downright impossibility. No historian can narrate everything that happened in the past even within the field he chooses to study. Max Nordau in his book, the Interpretation of History argues that ‘objective truth is inaccessible to writers of history’. Therefore objectivity - subjectivity is an unresolved issue. To conclude, as Eileen Power points out that “Objectivity is an illusion… but it is a necessary and beneficial illusion.”

Citations: Footnotes/End Notes and Popular Abbreviations

Citation simply means to cite or mention a source. It is a method of documenting a source and it is an integral part of research practice and ethics. A researcher should authenticate his arguments by supporting reliable sources. This is the chief difference between a work of history and a work of fiction. The method of using footnote gives the researcher an opportunity to display his sources and supporting documents. It also helps the researcher to avoid plagiarism and uphold research ethics. 

The important objectives of citations are:

• to substantiate a statement made in the work
• to record or acknowledge the indebtedness to a source used
• to provide less important discussion or information without affecting the textual body
• to give cross-references to the matter appearing elsewhere in the work itself

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 were borrowed, the ethics of historical scholarship demands that such borrowings be acknowledged.

The narration in the textual body must not be interfered with by less important or irrelevant matters. These matters can be given in the footnotes. Sometimes the personal details of the historical person dealt with within the text are provided in the footnotes. But care must be taken to avoid very lengthy footnotes.

There are three popular methods for giving citations in the text - Footnote, End Note and in-text Citation. The difference between these types lies in the position in the text.

Footnotes

It is placed at the bottom of the page. If the footnotes are given at the bottom of each page, then it is easy to look for references. It provides the immediate cross-verification of an argument.

End Note

It is placed at the end of the chapters or at the end of the whole work chapter-wise.  If it is given at the end of the chapter or the end of the book, the reader needs to look for a reference at the end and come back to the test. Then reading will be interrupted.

In-text Citation

In this method, the sources were cited in the text itself. Here, the name of the author, year of the publication and page number were given within parenthesis at the end of the sentence. The reader has to look for the other details of the source in the bibliography.

Methods of Giving Footnote/End Note Numbers

The footnote/endnote numbers in the text should be given in superscripts or raised numerals. There are three methods of giving these reference numbers.

• give fresh numbers for each page and give the footnotes at the bottom of the page
• give consecutive numbers for each chapter and give the footnotes either at the bottom of each page or at the end of each chapter as an endnote in a continuous order
• give consecutive numbers for each chapter and give the footnotes at the end of the whole book in chapter wise

Content of a Footnote/End Note

Generally, the first reference to a source should contain all relevant details of that source. Thus the first footnote/endnote for a book may contain the following details:

1. The name of the author/editor as entered in the cover page of the book
2. Title of the work in italics
3. The name of the publisher
4. The place of publication
5. The page number is preceded by the letter “p.” (for one-page number) and “pp.” (for more than one page) in the lower case
6. Number of the page or pages

Popular Abbreviations

Only the first reference to a source is to be given in its complete form. The subsequent reference to the same source should be given in an abbreviated form. The commonly used abbreviations are given below:

Ibid – Abbreviation for the Latin ibidem meaning ‘in the same place’. It is used for a footnote if it comes immediately after the earlier footnote to the same source. If the page number is different, then it is also given.

op.cit. – Abbreviation for the Latin term opera citato meaning ‘the work cited’. It is used for a footnote cited previously (not just above) but with a different page number.

loc cit. – Abbreviation of the Latin term loco citato meaning ‘in the place cited’. It is used for a footnote cited previously (not just above) with the same page number.

Popular Style Manuals for giving citations

MLA - Modern Language Association

APA – American Psychological Association

Chicago Manual

Data Analysis

Research data can be seen as the fruit of researchers’ labor. If a study has been conducted in a scientifically rigorous manner, the data will hold the clues necessary to answer the researchers’ questions. To unlock these clues, researchers typically rely on a variety of statistical procedures. There are two types of data:

• Quantitative Data
• Qualitative Data

The data analysis is concerned mainly with the quantitative data. These statistical procedures allow researchers to describe groups of individuals and events, examine the relationships between them, measure differences between groups and conditions, and examine and generalize. Knowledge about data analysis can help a researcher interpret data for the purpose of providing meaningful insights into the problem being examined.

Aims Data Analysis

The analysis of data can have several aims.

• Describe: The first aim may be to describe a phenomenon in some or greater detail.
• Compare: This is aimed at comparing the different data types.
• Explanation: This means looking for explanations such as dif­ferences in data.
• Interpret: It means the interpretation of data in relation to the context.
• Generalisation: It means to arrive at generalizable statements by comparing various materials or various texts or several cases.

Content Analysis

Content analysis is a research technique for making replicable and valid conclusions from text to the contexts of their use. Content analysis has been used to analyse content, bias, meanings, and perspectives in text. Content Analysis is described as the scientific study of the content of the communication. It is the study of the content with reference to the meanings, contexts and intentions contained in messages. However, the method achieved greater popularity among social science scholars as well as a method of communication research.

The content analysis begins with a specific statement of the objectives or research questions to be studied. The researcher asks the question ‘what do I want to find out from this communication content’ and frames the objectives for the study.

Before approaching a text for content analysis, the researcher has to consider the following features of a text:

• There is nothing inherent in a text. The meanings of a text are always brought to it by someone.
• Texts do not have single meanings. A text can be read from multiple perspectives and thus meaning will also change.
• Texts have meanings relative to particular contexts or purposes. Thus contextual meaning has to be found.

Method of Content Analysis

Step I: Set objectives or research questions (What to find out from the text)

Step II: Understand the literal meaning of the text

Step III: Analyse and find out the context and perspective of the text

Step IV: Establish the real or hidden meaning of the text

Step V: Infer valid conclusions or generalisations from the meaning for interpretation

Source Analysis

History is the result of the presentation and interpretation of various sources. Thus source analysis is the first and foremost task of historians in the practice of history. Source analysis is the first step toward understanding a source. While approaching a source, a number of questions have to be asked to validate the credibility of the source. Generally, the following aspects must be considered to analyse a source.

Origin of the source

This is the first thing to be analysed. The origin of the source can be traced by validating its author, and the period of its creation. This is particularly important if the researcher is dealing with an original source (whether is original or a copy). This also helps to determine the type of source - primary and secondary. 

Motive or purpose behind the source

Every historical source is, in one way or another created with a motive or purpose. Thus the researcher has to analyse the real purpose behind the creation of the source. This will help to find out the element of bias in the source.

Content presented in the source

It is very important to analyse what content is presented in the source. It naturally leads to the types of materials used to present the theme. In the caste of a secondary source, the credibility of the content can be assessed through the citations and use of primary sources.

The context in which the source is produced

Firstly, place the document in its historical context. This enquires the background of the creation of the source. Where, why, and under what circumstances did the author write the document? How might the circumstances have influenced the content, style, or tone of the document?

Audience focused

Finding out the source's intended audience is an integral part of source analysis. Here, the researcher has to find out whether the source is meant for any target group. If it is a historian it is likely that the audience is the general public or an academic circle. If the source is a diary entry it is highly likely that the intended audience was either solely to the author or their family. Considering the audience is very important, as it will also reveal elements of bias that may be present in the source.

The perspective presented in the source

This considers whether a source is objective or subjective. Perspective is extremely important as it helps establish reliability. It is also helpful to understand different views on a particular historical event.

Reliability of the source

For a source to be considered reliable it must contain accurate historical information. This means that a source can be written in a completely subjective manner and still be considered reliable, as all facts are accurate.

The usefulness of the source

In order to concisely answer whether a source is ‘useful’, consider the three R’s:

• Is the source relevant to what is being asked?
• Has the source revealed an insight into the question?
• Is the source reliable in providing the information required to answer the question?

Secondary Sources

Secondary sources are interpretations of the past written by historians often based on primary sources.  A secondary source is one in which the eyewitness or the participant i.e. the person describing the event was not actually present but who obtained his/her descriptions or narrations from another person or source. This ‘another person’ may or may not be a primary source. They reflect filtered information that has been passed through one source to another. These are the sources that indirectly relate to a historical event. Historians take the raw data found in primary sources and transform it into written histories that attempt to explain how and why things happened as they did. Secondary sources, thus, do not have a direct physical relationship with the event being studied. A good historian uses them for general information, substantiation, description, alternative interpretations, and understanding of the topic. Secondary sources yield ideas and new questions in historical inquiries.

Secondary sources consist of:

• Books/Monographs
• Historical dictionaries and encyclopedias
• Reviews
• Scholarly articles,
• Essays, and
• Lectures

Secondary sources provide three basic understanding to the historians:

It provides background information about a topic. Reading secondary sources can convey a strong understanding of the present knowledge about a particular topic. Thus it provides a preview, which helps the historian to initiate his research.

It provides a sense of historical context. It gives an idea about the time period and the individual, theme, or event discussed.

It provides a historiographical context. Secondary sources reflect the theoretical and methodological approaches employed by different historians on a particular topic. It provides an idea about the questions posed by these historians, their interpretations of the sources, how they supported their arguments, etc.

Limitations of Secondary Sources

Relying predominantly upon secondary sources denotes faulty, weak historical research. It is possible that secondary sources contain errors due to the passing of information from one source to another. These errors could get multiplied when the information passes through many sources thereby resulting in the misinterpretation of history. Thus, wherever possible, the researcher should try to use primary sources of data. However, that does not reduce the value of secondary sources.

Since secondary data have already been obtained, it is highly desirable that proper scrutiny of such data is made before they are used by the investigator. In fact, the user has to be extra cautious while using secondary data. In this context, Prof. Bowley rightly points out that “secondary data should not be accepted at their face value.” Therefore, before using the secondary data the investigators should consider the reliability of the data.