While my approach towards research varies by topic and assignment, the methodologies I have developed are largely intentional. If I do not know much about a subject, my first strategy is to use a search engine like Google to gain some basic contextual knowledge. While most of this information is not necessarily academic-quality, it allows me to develop keywords to search for in the next step of the process. After I feel that I have an adequate understanding of the scope of my research, I use this knowledge to search for information in the Library database as well as online resources like JSTOR, MUSE and Google Scholar. These searches allow me to understand what arguments have been made about the topic, as well as get a handle on any major disagreements or dialogues in the field. While I will cite the scholarly academic sources I find from these steps, I then also use the footnotes of these works to find primary source materials.

While the reading in the workbook was mostly review, the questions for critiquing primary sources were very usefully articulated. Often by the times I have found primary sources, I do not necessarily use external and internal criticisms necessary to determine its authenticity, bias and relevancy. As we do further research with primary sources in the archives, I will definitely use these questions to better my research habits.

I have found that I have a fairly organized approach to research papers, although I find if I am too structured in my research, I limit the direction of my paper. I usually like to begin a research topic by rereading the source materials or lecture notes that inspired the essay prompt. I grab a piece of scrap paper, and I write down as many ideas related to the subject as possible. I like to brainstorm prior to using internet search engines because I feel the internet can distract me and delay this portion of the writing process. After I have several different angles I would like to investigate, I begin to use online search engines. Google can be helpful in determining if the subject is widely written about, but I tend to use academic search engines more often, as I am more likely to trust those sources. I then collect my sources and really attempt to wrangle out a thesis. However,  my initial plan often changes once I actually find research. I usually like to go to office hours and discuss my paper with my professor, and I am often forced to rethink parts of my thesis and argument.

Reading the Methods and Skills textbook points out the importance of author bias and interpretation, and my biggest problem with research is I tend to rely on a lot of secondary sources. I usually use peer-reviewed sources, although I do need to look more closely into the primary sources. I have become used to accepting a majority of secondary sources at face value, although that is in large part due to the fact that a majority of research papers I have written have been scientific, not historical. I cannot recreate a scientist’s field data on salmon infected with sea lice, although I can read for myself a law passed during the eighteenth century that caused widespread outrage. My strategy for approaching research has been mostly successful, although I need to reframe my approach to match that of a skeptical historian.

After researching for various assignments over the past week and reading the material in the workbook, I have realized that my tactics have transitioned from un-systematic to more intentional. When approaching a new history paper topic in the past, I often used search engines such as Google and Yahoo to prepare myself for more in depth research. By initially using these search engines, I was able to gather simple facts and information on my paper topic, which allowed me to develop a more comprehensive understanding later on. This strategy then helped me to draw a conclusion based on my initial research. My research method was un-systematic because when researching, I would simply record anything that I found important to my topic. After reading the material in the workbook, I now realize that there are more effective ways to begin to research a new history paper topic.

After reading chapters 10-12 of The Methods and Skills of History, it became clear that my tactic for researching was ineffective because I learned that events in history are susceptible to interpretation and that historians utilize two types of sources. Sources are categorized between primary and secondary and they can both be problematic when being utilized in a research paper. I then learned about author bias, which can also directly affect the quality of my research and paper. This workbook reading encouraged me to create a more intentional strategy in approaching a new history research topic because the importance of a credible source was made clear. The material in the workbook reading changed my understanding of the problems involved in historical research because I was not aware that sources can seem credible while being affected by an author’s interpretation.

I have learned to not only use the closest search engine to approach a new history topic but to utilize the Dickinson College archives and library database. After doing the many workbook activities in The Methods and Skills of History, I have learned to draw connections between each piece of research that I come across related to my topic. Drawing connections encourages me to investigate any relating events to my topic while analyzing the many accounts of the event that have been recorded. I have learned to properly organize my research while thinking about topic sentences, a thesis statement, and a conclusion. Through learning how to draw connections and organize information, I believe that I will be more successful in approaching a new history research topic.

By Madeline Kauffman

My strategy for approaching a new history research paper topic is fairly systematic. I first begin to research on a broader scale, gaining a general sense of the topic as a whole and finding out more basic, but still important, background knowledge. To do this, I typically use a search engine such as Google. Once I have gathered enough of this kind of information, I am able to understand the larger picture and narrow my focus.

I then shift my attention to book reviews and article abstracts that are geared toward my given subject. This helps me identify what sources may be more relevant in comparison to others. Although this information can be found through simple search engines, I usually use either Google Scholar or Dickinson’s library database. Once I find sources that appear to be useful for my research, I look up the authors or creators to determine the credibility of the information. Though this is a rather time consuming process, it has proven to be incredibly effective in my past experiences.

The chapters that were assigned for this week were, overall, very helpful and informative. For the most part, the information that was in chapters 10 and 11 was mostly review. However, it was quite nice to have a reminder that one must read between the lines to get more information out of a source, and to remember not to jump to immediate conclusions. Chapter 12, on the other hand, was more enlightening. The focus on the different types of generalizations and biases helped me to better understand the complexity of analyzing sources, providing a sort of guide for what to look for when researching historical topics. Overall, I got a lot out of the reading.

Reflections by Caly McCarthy

I suppose I do have a general approach to history research papers, but it’s not particularly set in stone. When I have a general topic, I normally do some background reading to become better acquainted with key names, events, dates, etc. Yes, Google is usually a first stop. That being said, I try to limit myself to .orgs and .edus. I prefer to begin with Google because scholarly works tend to assume basic knowledge of the subject, and they seem to repeat the same limited introduction, which does not serve my purposes. From the context gained by my initial searches, I then begin to posit various questions that surround that topic. Such questions usually include causation and resulting effects of a particular decision/event/trend.

Once I settle upon a general idea (or limited number of guiding questions), I turn to online databases in search of scholarly articles. I play around with various search terms, and I also rely heavily upon footnotes from the works that have been most helpful to me. In order to keep up to date on current scholarly discussion, I also try (with limited success) to use the powers of Google Scholar, to identify where my sources have been cited. This is more or less the wandering path that I take until I need to identify a clear topic and begin organizing my evidence into a workable thesis.

The material on the difficulties of “doing history” from the workbook did not entirely catch me off guard, but it did emphasize certain concerns more than I would have. For example, what’s the final word on bias? Is it something bad that good historians try to expunge from their work, or is it an admission that all scholars focus on certain parts of evidence more (for a variety of reasons), which lead them to different conclusions? I feel like bias is the four-letter word of history, but if scholars admit that every contribution is a part of the whole and not the whole itself, I don’t think “objective” work seems possible or desirable.

Additionally, these chapters portrayed the difficulty (and necessity) of working with primary sources. What to do when accounts are in opposition? How to be sure that the document wasn’t falsified? I am not accustomed to putting together a story from primary sources alone, without the guiding hand of secondary works. I suppose I could have listed these difficulties in theory, but the exercises made clear to me the struggle of rectifying differing accounts.

Hello everyone,

Here are a series of relatively straightforward questions for this week: When you approach a new history research paper topic, do you have strategies and tactics for approaching it, or not?  Do you simply go to the closest search engine–probably Google–and simply move on un-systematically from there, or is your method more intentional?  Has the material in the workbook reading for this week changed your understanding of the problems involved in historical research, or simply reinforced notions you already had?