Historiography: Definition and Methods of Research

Since I'm constantly posting about my pathetic emotional problems, let's do something new this time.  More interesting.  Or, perhaps DULL. So, I'll share some of the things that I'm currently studying on: minor subject apart from IT. So, here's my recent work.

Introduction

            Basically, according to the Wikipedia’s entry, from Furay and Salevouris (1988), historiography is the study of the way history has been and is written-the history of historical writing.  When we study “historiography”, we do not study the events of the past directly, but the changing interpretations of those events in the works of individual historians.”  From Britannica Library Archives, historiography is defined as the writing of history, especially the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical examination. The term historiography also refers to the theory and history of historical writing.  Therefore, it could be concluded that historiography means the study of how historical facts are gathered and classifies according to their integrity and existence, to ensure that they’re truthful and reliable to be categorized as a fact, not fiction.  In this article, I will discuss about the 3 out of 4 main points of historiography, mainly narrative, usage of evidence, and interpretation of the historiography facts itself.

Historiography’s Components and Field of Study

1.      Narrative

Narrative generally means to give commands to systematically organize a content according to its level and order of importance.  From historiography terms of definition, narrative means the way historians systemically organize common facts gathered from various sources to become one primary reference.  These facts could be from the process of research, verbal information, or simply through interviews with the people relevant to that field of research.  Technically, the facts collected will be organized chronologically according to that particular  moment’s occurrence.  The information will only focus on a single coherent story, means the logical side of the historical facts itself.  Narrative style tends to be more descriptive rather than analytical, which will elaborate on the happenings and how it goes on further.  Furthermore, narrative point of view centers on the investigation on people, and not abstract circumstances.

This study mainly emphasizes on what really exist in real-time environment besides the sources that caused it to happen.  As the elaboration above suggests, narrative field of historiography only deals with the particular and specific details regarding the whole matter, rather than the collective and statistical elements surrounding it.  This means that whatever details entail the phenomenon is carefully deciphered and sorted out before something is processed as a historical fact. Particulars such as time of occurrence, people or entity involved, locations of involvement, causes of happenings, and such are carefully taken into consideration.

 

Collective and statistical data such as types of matter involved, weight and mass of that entity, and current condition of that particular phenomenon is sorted out as it is considered too compacted and will affect the whole credibility of the facts.  They’re still considered as equivalent to the common facts gathered, but only become useful when certain information is required in detail.  Therefore, they still co-exist to strengthen existing data whenever required.

2.     Use Of Evidence

Evidence is another important aspect in historiography.  Evidence carries the responsibility to convey the proper information with full credibility to the people themselves.  Evidence needs to have a few characteristics before it could be classified as a good one that couldn’t be falsified.

According to “A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography”, page 192, here are some of the vital traits a particular evidence must possesses:

1.      The evidence must further uphold the beliefs of the individuals themselves, not by deteriorating it.  The evidence could increase our degree of beliefs and would not retract our claims towards that particular fact.

2.      The evidence we possess to justify a claim may be only for that particular subject, mainly particular aspect of that event.

3.      Whatever historiography claims about what happened in the past turns out to be better confirmed when we are able to check them against many different, independent, and varied source of evidence as possible (consilience).

Easy said, evidence is a material used to persuade the readers to accept the claims of the historical facts to be properly evaluated by the society.  Evidence used may change according to disciplines involved in that particular field of historiography, which could involve relevant materials to prove the information’s detail, such as quotations from a poem, literary critic, foot notes, and others. 

Sometimes, there are some explicit or implicit inquiries that historians offer to be written down in their research notes for the purpose of arousing interest or just as a monologue element: they ask for something and answer it in the end during their chronologically-organized research papers.  Evidence comes in handy as it purposely justifies whatever inquiries done in the research.  The writer (in this case, historian themselves) must use convincing reasoning to aid users into believing the facts that had been delivered so that the material will possess strong credibility: in turn obtaining the integrity from the readers themselves.

3.      Interpretation of Historiography Facts

Interpretation derived from the Encarta World Dictionary generally means an explanation or establishment of the meaning or significance of something.  From the historiography point of view, interpretation of historiography facts is defined as the rate of how the information or facts obtained from the intensive researches and various valid sources are deciphered (translated into languages easy to comprehend) to be constructed into a proper historical facts with an undeniable credibility.

Methods of interpretation vary between the historians themselves, as long as the source is reliable, suits the purpose, and could flow with the current environment.  Basically, there are a few popular methods of interpretation, such as:

                                            I.            Placing the source in its historical context

By categorizing proper facts gathered into organized groups, these could ease the future assortment of the facts themselves, for example 3 methods of travel by China, Arab, and Indian travelers to South East Asia into South Asian context and Prehistoric Age into their respective zone of inhabitation.

                                         II.            Classify the source

As aforementioned above, classification of this source makes the reorganization of historical facts easy, as when they are chronologically aligned, it decreases the chances of the fact being denied or rejected by the society.  This process involves a lot of careful deliberation and consideration.  Basically, they could be separated into a few different steps as stated below:

·         Kind of work

Steps involved in ensuring that the historical study could be deliberately carry out, such as on-field research, surveys, and on-site interview.

·         Purpose

The reasoning behind the implementation of that method of study, why and how it is being carried out.

·         Important conventions and traditions governing this kind of source

Evaluation stage where some precautionary steps are being done to smoothen the process, such as by abiding the laws, gaining permissions, and obtaining grant for thesis research.

                                       III.            Understand the source

It is important for the historians themselves to understand the incoming source of information, whether it is valid or vice versa.  Incomplete comprehension of the source may lead to misinterpretation of the facts itself, which leads to loss of credibility and trust.

                                      IV.            Evaluate the source as a source of historical information

In this context, the historians themselves must be unbiased in determining the validity of that particular fact to be nominated as a source of information. From a neutral point of view, they must make proper judgment of whether the information or facts should be dismissed or vice versa.

Conclusion

As it concludes, historiography could be defined as what historians write about what happened in the past.  The historiography mainly revolves around methods on how the information obtained from the research done is interpreted according to its importance and relevance to that particular subject.  Emphasis is given on how strong the fact could stand without the loss of credibility and belief in its truth.  Historiography also involves the various research qualities in order for a historian to properly decipher the historical fact to truly possesses high level of integrity and elements of detail.  In historiography, a historian shouldn’t have a biased attitude in order to judge an opinion, but rather from a neutral side of view in order for the materials to be accepted by the entire society.

That's about it. I'll publish more of it in the near future. (if I'm not overtaken by my emotion, ha ha.)