CHAPTER 1: HISTORY AND HISTORICAL RESEARCH

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned' to repeat it." — George Santayana

Chapter Outline:

1. Defining History
a) Some Comments about History
b) Why Study History?
c) History Differentiated
2. Defining Historical Research
a) The Purposes of Historical Research
b) Characteristics of Historical Research
c) Advantages and Disadvantages of Historical Research
d) Steps in Historical Research
3. Theories of History

1. DEFINING HISTORY

What is history? How is it different from other disciplines or other forms of writing? How is it the same? Take a look at the
following definitions of history. Which ones do you agree with? Underline the best definition of history.

History is...

a recitation of unrelated facts that do not contribute to a larger story.

an agreed upon set of facts or a forever-fixed story that is never subjected to changes and updates.

a simple acceptance of what is written about a historical topic, event, or person. a simple historical chronology of
famous dates, incidents, and people.

a strict reliance solely on the past with no examination of how the past has influenced the present or how it may
influence the future.

about one absolute truth, one particular perspective, or one set of facts and figures.

a chronological storytelling in its finest form; it sequentially weaves together many related historical and
contemporary events and ideas that are linked to a larger story.

Go for the last one: History is a chronological storytelling in its finest form; it sequentially weaves together many
related historical and contemporary events and ideas that are linked to a larger story.

Here are some other definitions of the nature of history:

History is interpretive; it invites students to debate multiple perspectives, offer their opinions and educated
interpretations, and challenge existing beliefs.

History is revisionist in scope; it is an on-going conversation and a constant process of reexamining the past and
deconstructing myths based upon new discoveries, evidence, and perspectives.

History is a constant process of questioning; it requires questioning the texts, examining them with a critical eye,
and asking new questions.

History is integrative of many disciplines; it especially incorporates geography, literature, art, sociology, economics,
and political science.

History is inclusive; it ensures that the experiences of all classes, regions, and ethno-racial groups, as well as both
genders, are included.

History incorporates historiography; it includes many different interpretations of historical events written by many
different historians.

History is relevant; it uses past experiences to explain what is important in our lives today.
Defining History by Robert Milton Underwood, Ir.

It seems that a definition of history should include all things that have ever happened. That definition would include
all physical events and occurrences. It would also seem that the definition of history would be synonymous with a definition
of the past —the sum total of all things that have ever happened. But Williams (4) points out that the past is not history.
Things may have happened in the past that were not observed or recorded. History is, therefore, only a subset of the past. As
a discipline; history is a study of the past, but it will only reveal a portion of the past, and should be done so as objectively as
possible.

There have been many different approaches to the study of history. Idealism is the belief that history can be
described in terms of ideas ~what people thought and the intent behind their actions. The idealists of the mid— to late-1800s
cared not only about events, but on what those events meant. Attaching meaning is not easy, and entails problems associated
with interpretation it those interpretations are biased or incomplete. The problem with this viewpoint is that we can't always
know what was intended. Idealism can be limiting in accurately portraying events as they really happened.

Historicism is another approach by which to describe history. Its premise is that "the autonomy of the past must be
respected” (Tosh 6). Each age has its own Values, and events should be described within the context of those values. One of
the problems with historicism is that its approach is tantamount to legitimization of events by respecting the values of the
time. That approach inhibits our ability to fully learn from mistakes of the past. Williams (24) stated that some of [it] has
nurtured totalitarianism. When meaning takes on a life of its own and affects Viewpoints that lead to ideologies that lead to
atrocious actions, then you have what humanity experienced with Nazi Germany.

Relativism is the belief that there is no absolute truth and that all views of history are valid. The metaphor of a cut
diamond with many facets, each of which represents a unique view of the whole, is what relativism is like: each individual
sees the world individually, and each View is valid. Relativism shows its inherent weakness when a viewpoint attempts to
deny history, especially in the face of overwhelming proof. A view that the Holocaust never happened is not a View that
should be accepted as relevant, nor should that view be worthy of respect.

Despite the approach taken, historians have many issues to deal with. One issue that historians must face is that of
social memory. Tosh describes social memory as being "based on consensus" (4). But beliefs based on consensus can lead to
error. Just because a majority believes in something doesn’t make it valid. Perhaps the greatest problem for historians is in
the accurate reporting of history. This includes problems with perception and interpretation. One action or event may be
interpreted differently by different groups, and by different individuals within a group.

Consider the following simple example of a controversial call by a referee during an important football game. If the
initial ruling is against the home team, you can be sure that the majority of supportive fans in the stands will be audibly
upset. On the other hand, the fans of the visiting team will find gratification in the call, even if they are watching the game
on television from across the country. When later describing the incident, fans will likely describe it "their way,” depending
on their allegiance. Besides fans of each team, add to the mix the referee who made the initial call, and the other line judges
who may have also seen it from nearby. The positions of these individuals and their respective fields of vision may influence
the interpretation of the incident and affect its resolution.

Add one more dimension to this example of a controversial call — that of the replay officials — and you have what
might be the closest thing we have to a perfect world in recounting history. The replay officials often spend many minutes
rewinding the recorded sequence in question and viewing it several times, and from different camera angles. Their two
choices for a decision are to either overturn the original call, or to allow that initial call to stand. But the second choice
actually comprises two very different alternatives. First of all, visual evidence may clearly support the initial call. But there
might not actually be enough evidence one way or the other, and the default position in this situation is to allow the initial
call to remain unchanged. The point of this illustration for historians is that the evidence should be able to hold up to
scrutiny.

It is obviously impossible to have a replay for most historical events. Thus, those events are left open to
interpretation. While professionals within the field of history are demanding of proof just like the sciences are, they cannot
be as rigorous in that demand since proof is not always available. Supposition does not equal evidence, and evidence is not
equivalent to proof. Since actual historical events can’t be replicated in a controlled scientific environment (with the
exception of scientific experiments themselves), history is not a pure science. With regard to rigor, the most that can be said
about the discipline of history is that it is part science and part art. But those in history should do their absolute best to
acquire as much proof as is reasonably possible, and make written observations that are as objective as possible.

Primary sources should be used whenever available. A primary source is an original item such as an image,
document, map, artifact or recording that provides evidence about the past. A secondary source is a means through which a
primary source is presented. For example, an article describing an original document is a secondary source as it is written to
present or include information about the primary source. Sometimes, an item can be either a primary source or a secondary
source, depending on how it is used.

Some sources are better than others. Genetics testing, when applicable, is an excellent method of obtaining proof of
identity. It was the method used to prove that Thomas Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemings had children together. The
Internet, in contrast, is not reliable as a source. Anyone can post almost anything on the Internet, and with no system in place
for peer review, it is prone to error.

Thomas Hobbes wrote in 1651, "The register of knowledge of fact is called history” (Williams 11). Hobbes'
sentence can be broken down into revealing component parts. The “register” refers to the need of history to be recorded in
some lasting medium (e. g., print, film, audio). The "knowledge of” phrase of Hobbes’ statement refers to the importance of
us needing to know about something. If we don’t know about it, then it won’t get reported or recorded. The term "fact" is
important in that we need truth, not suppositions.

Another issue facing historians is understanding causation. Complex events may have multiple causes. To
understand causation, it is important to understand the difference between what is necessary and what is sufficient. When
certain necessary factors are in place, additional factors are sufficient to cause the event to occur. Consider the following
example regarding the invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2002. It was necessary for Iraq, under Saddam Hussein’s
megalomaniacal dictatorship, to have had weapons of mass destruction in the past that were actually used on thousands of
Iraqi citizens. It was sufficient for the USA to believe that he still had those weapons for the invasion to have been deemed
necessary.

Another example illustrating causation is from the sports world. For a cyclist to be able to win the 23—day Tour de
France, it is necessary that the individual have not only a high V02 max1 but also a high lactate threshold2. But having high
readings for these two measurements will not ensure a Victory. Many other top—level cyclists will also have high readings.
But the individual who wins will have had a combination of sufficient factors that made the victory imminent: extremely
hard training regimens, superior strategic and tactical skills, and a strong support team.

Another important issue that historians must consider is in how they present history to us. A sound and cogent
argument must be presented. Speculations must be kept to a minimum. Historians should not manipulate evidence for
revisionist purposes. Not having enough evidence does not mean it is okay to fill in the gaps of time. Conjecture and opinion
should be left to journalists and editorialists, not historians.

An analytical approach is needed to accurately present historical events. For an argument to be valid, it should be
based on sound evidence. Logic should be employed to present a case such that evidence supports the premises and the
conclusions that are made. A sound historical presentation should have a verifiable bibliography, and a prudent researcher
will verify sources before presenting history in one medium or another.

The important contribution of the positivists of the nineteenth century was that they valued the critical examination
of evidence, and they sought to classify and organize as a scientist would. They thought that history could be as rigid a
discipline as the various scientific fields. Cliometrics is quantitatively expressing history through statistics and mathematics.
A Cliometric approach is very useful to the historian. For example, it is of interest to the historian to know how many people
died during a certain battle of the Civil War. Also, it is useful to know how many were wounded. If, for example, a smaller
percentage of Union soldiers were killed in a subsequent battle, then it might help historians learn how the Union field
commanders might have modified their tactics to minimize casualties.

Historians must ask many questions during their research. Asking what, who, where, when, how and why help ferret
out the facts. Consider the following hypothetical example of basic questions associated with a car bomb explosion: What?
A bomb exploded in a car. Where? It happened in the parking lot next to an open market in Baghdad. Who? An Iraqi father
and two of his children inside the car were killed. When? The bomb exploded on October 15, 2005, at approximately 3:35
pm. How? The bomb was set off by I use of a timer device.

Each one of the five answers above needs further refinement. For example, to obtain greater detail for the who
question, it must be asked if there were there any other passengers in the car who survived. Also, it should be ascertained if
any bystanders were killed or injured.

Perhaps the most difficult question to answer in this example is the sixth question of why? The first five questions
relate to verifiable facts. The why question must go into the exploration of potentially nebulous areas of the study of
motivation such as ideology, religious fanaticism, and v political viewpoints. Interpretation must be thoughtfully performed
to get true understanding.

Manipulation and censorship can be problematic for fully revealing history in that the full truth either can’t or won’t
be revealed. A government may censor information in an attempt to keep that information out of the hands of its enemies.
Similarly, data may be manipulated for reasons that the manipulators feel is relevant to their special interests. Censorship
and manipulation are problems for the historian, but may be deemed necessary at times for the protection of national (and
global) security.

Presentation is an important consideration for historians. A list of facts in a book, for example, might be accurate
and scientifically relevant, but would be boring to read. Historians thereby connect sequences of events with descriptive
sentences in the form of a narrative. A narrative should be written so that the context of each event is clearly understood.
Revision and alteration of a subject over time should only be done to improve accuracy as new evidence is acquired.

Besides print media, film is another method of presenting history. From the standpoint of reaching and informing a
large number of people, film may be a very good medium. Far more individuals will watch a one-hour documentary on the
causes of the Civil War than will read a book on the same subject. From the standpoint of accuracy and completeness,
however, film is limiting. Decisions must be made regarding which of the many events over the Civil War’s four years’ are
to be included in a film that will last only a couple of hours. It has to be visually interesting to viewers. A documentary is
decidedly superior over drama in terms of historical accuracy. Since the Civil War was not filmed, photos, maps and other
artifacts must suffice for visual images.

History is brought together by historians of many different specialties and interests. A history of the world would
include many different types of histories on singular topics. There is the history of women in America prior to suffrage.
There is the history of European emigration. There is the history of banking. These examples, and countless others, all go in
to describe our history. There are histories within a history. There are countless specialties within just the study of the Civil
War. For example, some historians may specialize in the military strategies of the Union and Confederate armies. Others
may focus on living conditions during the war. Still others might focus on the psychological effects of a country divided.

Historian Hayden White stated that the only valid reasons for choosing one interpretation of history "over another
are moral or aesthetic ones” (Williams 29). Slavery was accepted in its time. But we have the ability to use today’s moral
filter through which to see the past. With honest depictions based on the higher sense of morality that we now have, we can
make more honest assessments of events of the past. Similarly, aesthetic preferences might mean that one producer’s version
of a documentary is chosen over another one on the same topic to air on television due to its superior production quality and
visual appeal.

Sigfried Kracauer3 wrote that a historian "is both passive and active, a recorder and a creator” (Williams 41). The
historian researches, studies and collects data, and records it. But the manner in which it is recorded and subsequently
presented to the public is where the essence of creation comes in. The historian discovers information, and then constructs
the method or medium through which to present it. Issues and events of the past come together in the present in the mind of
the historian to form the discipline of history. The present is needed to acquire information, verify sources, piece the
narrative together chronologically, and present it in such a way that the past is accurately depicted and comes alive as
history. (Underwood, 2008)

-------

1 V02 max is a measurement indicating maximal capacity for oxygen consumption by the body during maximal exertion.

2 Lactate threshold is the point where lactate (lactic acid) begins to accumulate in the bloodstream. The higher this
measurement, the greater the muscular pain one can endure during exercise.

3 Sigfried Kracauer (1889-1966) was a journalist, sociologist, and film critic.

a. Some Comments about History

"History is not just a "Those who cannot remember

catalogue of events put in the the past, are condemned to
right order like a railway repeat it."
timetable." — George Santayana
— A.J.P. Taylor

"To be ignorant of what

"History is written by the occurred before you were
winners." born is to remain always a
—Napoleon Bonaparte child."
— Marcus Tullius Cicero
 "The most effective way to
"If you don't know history, destroy people is to deny and
then you don't know anything. obliterate their own
You are a leaf that doesn't understanding of their
know it is part of a tree." history."
—Michael Crichton —George Orwell

"The history of all hitherto

"Study the past if you would
existing society is the history
define the future."
of class struggles."
—Confucius
—Karl Marx

"History is a wheel, for the "Let us study things that are

nature of man is no more. It is necessary to
fundamentally unchanging. understand them, if only to
What has happened before avoid them."
will perforce happen again." —Victor Hugo
—George R.R. Martin

“He who cannot draw on "History is a guide to

three thousand navigation in perilous times.
years is living from hand to History is who we are and
mouth." why we are the way we are."
—Johann Wolfgang von —David McCullough
Goethe

"A generation which ignores "The lack of a sense of history

history has no past — and no is the damnation of the
future." modern world."
—Robert A. Heinlein —Robert Penn Warren

"If we are to make progress,

we must not repeat history but "A people without the
make new history. We must knowledge of their past
add to inheritance left by our history, origin and culture is
ancestors." like a tree without roots."
—Mahatma Gandhi —Marcus Garvey

"We are not makers of "History will be kind to me

history. We are made by for I intend to write it."
history." —Winston S. Churchill
—Martin Luther King, Jr.

b. Why Study History?

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." — George Orwell, 1984

History—both knowledge of the past and the practice of researching and making sense of what happened in the
past—is crucially important to the welfare of individuals, communities, and the future of our nation. According to
processhistory.org, the study of history is essential for the following reasons:

To Ourselves

Identity - "History nurtures personal identity in an intercultural world. History enables people to discover their own
place in the stories of their families, communities, and nation.”

Critical Skills - "History teaches critical let century skills and independent thinking. The practice of history teaches
research, judgment of the accuracy and reliability of sources, validation of facts, awareness of multiple perspectives and
biases, analysis of conflicting evidence, sequencing to discern causes, synthesis to present a coherent interpretation, clear
and persuasive written and oral communication, and other skills.” (Process History, 2015)
To Our Communities

Vital Places to Live and Work — “History lays the groundwork for strong, resilient 1 communities. No place
really becomes a community until it is wrapped in human memory: family stories, tribal traditions, civic commemorations.”

Economic Development — “History is a catalyst for economic growth. People are drawn to communities that have
preserved a strong sense of historical identity and 1 character.” (Process History, 2015)

To Our Future

Engaged Citizens - "History helps people craft better solutions. At the heart of democracy is the practice of
individuals coming together to express views and take action."

Leadership - "History inspires local and global leaders. History provides leaders with inspiration and role models
for meeting the complex challenges that face our communities, nation, and the world.” '

Legacy — "History, saved and preserved, is the foundation for future generations. History is crucial to preserving
democracy for the future by explaining our shared past.” (Process History, 2015)

c. History Differentiated

1. History vs. Past

The past is not the same as history. The past involves everything that ever happened since» the dawn of time—
every thought and action of manor woman on earth, every leaf that fell in the tree, and every chemical change in this
universe and others.

History, by contrast, is a process of interpreting evidence or records from the past in a thoughtful and informed
way. History is the narrative that gives meaning, sense, and explanation to the past in the present.

2. History vs. Prehistory

History and prehistory show differences between them in their nature and substance. The main difference between
history and prehistory is the existence of records. History is the record of significant events that happened in the past
whereas prehistory is the period of human activity prior to the invention of writing systems.

3. History vs. The Other Disciplines

No discipline is an island In the past hundred years or so, the ways that we study, write, and teach history have
changed dramatically, often because of influence from other disciplines. Where does history stand today in its relationship
with its close relatives in the social science and humanities? Do other disciplines use historical methodology? Does this
alone make them historians?

4. History, Historicity, and Historiography

In a nutshell, history is a narrative account used to examine and analyze past events.

Historicity is the authentication of characters in history, as opposed to legend or myth.

Historiography is the writing of history, and the understanding of how the interpretations of historians change over
time. But what is the difference among history, historicity, and historiography? Are they compatible enterprises? And if
compatible, how dependent are they among each other?

5. History vs. Herstory

The word “history” (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation") is
etymologically unrelated to the possessive pronoun his. Traditionally, history has been defined as "the study of the past as it,
is described in written documents.” Feminists argued that it has been men ("his,” "story") who usually have been the ones to
record the written past.

Herstory, by contrast, is history written from a feminist perspective, emphasizing the role of women, or told from a
woman’s point of view. It is a neologism coined as a pun with the word "history," as part of a feminist critique of
conventional historiography, which in their opinion is traditionally written as "his story,” ie., from the masculine point of
view. What about women? Should an event in the past that was written down be called "herstory?" (“History," 2018;
"Herstor'y,” 2018)
 2. DEFINING HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Historical research “comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other
evidence, including the evidence of archaeology, to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past.”
(“Historical method - Wikipedia,” 2017)

The historical approach "is employed by researchers who are interested in reporting events and/0r conditions that
occurred in the past. An attempt is made to establish facts in order to arrive at conclusions concerning past events or predict
future events." (Key, 1997)

Examples of Historical Research

1. From Chalkboard to Whiteboard: A Historical Study of Teaching Instruction

2. A study of the effects of the historical decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court on Philippine prisons
3. A study of the evolution of print journalism in the Philippines through a study of collections of newspapers
(BCPS, 2010)

a. The Purposes of Historical Research

The main purpose of Historical Research is to describe and examine events of the past to understand the present
and anticipate potential future effects.

The purpose of historical research is to reach insights or conclusions about past persons or occurrences. Historical
research entails more than simply compiling and presenting factual information; it also requires interpretation of the
information. ("Historical Research Methods,” n.d.)

Educational researchers conduct historical studies for a variety of reasons, but perhaps the most frequently cited is
to help people learn from past failures and successes.

When well—designed and carefully executed, historical research can lead to the confirmation or rejection of
relational hypotheses. (Fraenkel & Wallen, n.di)

Typically, histories focus on particular individuals, social issues and links between the old and the new Some
historical researches are aimed at reinterpreting prior historical works by revising existing understandings and replacing
them with new, often politically charged ones. (“Historical Research Methods,” n.d.)

Histories are powerful because they both create and reinforce collective identities.

Without a history it is difficult to know who one is, where one comes from or where one is headed. It is difficult to belong or
have direction. History is like a collective memory, which historians produce about the past (Marwick, 2001). Having a
history is important because what happened in the past profoundly affects all aspects of our lives and will affect what
happens in the future. (Bryant et al., 2013, p. 4)

b. Characteristics of Historical Research

1. The unique characteristic of historical research is that it focuses exclusively on the past. (Fraenkel & Wallen, n.d.)
2. Historical research is not a mere accumulation of facts and data or even a portrayal of past events. It is a flowing,
vibrant report of past events which involves an analysis and explanation of these occurrences with the objective of
recapturing the nuances, personalities and ideas that influenced these events.
3. Conducting historical research involves the process of collecting and reading the research material collected and
writing the manuscript from the data collected. The researcher often goes back—and-forth between collecting,
reading, and writing. ie. the process of data collection and analysis are done simultaneously are not two distinct
phases of research.
4. It deals with discovery of data that already exists and does not involve creation of data using structured tools.
5. It is analytical in that it uses logical induction.
6. It has a variety of foci such as issues, events, movements and concepts.
7. It records and evaluates the accomplishments of individuals, agencies or institutions. (University of Calicut, n.d.)

c. Advantages and Disadvantages of Historical Research

Advantages

1. The main advantage of historical research is that is permits the investigation of topics that could be studied in no
other way. It is the only research method that can study evidence from the past. (Fraenkel & Wallen, n.d.)
2. The historical method is well suited for trend analysis.
3. The research is not physically involved in the situation under study.
 4. No danger of experimenter—subject interaction.
5. Documents are located by the researcher, data is gathered, and conclusions are drawn out of sight.

Disadvantages

1. A disadvantage is that controlling for many of the threats to internal validity is not possible in historical research.
Many of the threats to internal validity are likely to exist in historical studies. (Fraenkel & Wallen, n.d.)
2. 2. The researcher cannot control for threats to internal validity
3. Limitations are imposed due to the content analysis
4. Researchers cannot ensure representation of the sample.
5. There is bias in interpreting historical sources.
6. Interpreting sources is very time consuming.
7. Availability of sources of historical materials may be problematic
8. There is lack of control over external variables

d. Steps in Historical Research

There are four essential steps involved in doing a historical study. These include:

1. Identifying a topic/subject and defining the problem or hypothesis to be investigated;

2. Searching for sources of data and other relevant source materials;
3. Summarizing and evaluating the sources the researcher is able to locate;
4. Analyzing, synthesizing and interpreting the evidence obtained and then drawing conclusions about the problem or
hypothesis.

Since most historical studies are largely qualitative in nature, the search for sources of data, evaluating, analyzing,
synthesizing and summarizing information and interpreting the findings may not always be discreet, separate, sequential
steps i.e. the sequence of steps in historical research is flexible. (Fraenkel & Wallen, n.d; University of Calicut, n.d.)

3. THEORIES OF HISTORY

Even among historians, philosophers, thinkers and social scientists, there are different views on how history
develops or progresses. Here are some of these Views:

a. Cyclical View of History

A cyclical View of history stems from the histories of the Greeks. The Greeks thought that events recurred on a regular
basis.

Herodutus (484-424 BCE) work Histories, is the story of men and states as recurring cycles.

Thucydides (460-404 BC) envisioned time as recurring in a cyclical fashion, a process which men were unable to
control.

Petrach (1304-1374) revived the cyclical concept of history in the fourteenth century. He differed slightly from the
Greeks in suggesting the basis of history was the actions of people rather than the whims of the gods.

Machiavelli (1469-1527) also saw history as being cyclical and suggested that history could be seen as a casebook
of political strategy.

Arnold Toynbee (1884-1975) and Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), based their work on the premise that history is
cyclical: civilizations rise and fall, each new one rising to a greater level.

b. Linear View of History

The linear view of history implies the acceptance or subscription to linear time. It views that history is progressive, moving
forward and not having a cyclical return.

Augustine (350-430 BCE) saw history as being the unfolding of the plan of God, a process that would end in the
Final Judgement.

Voltaire (1694-1788) saw history as being linear/but in a more secular way. He envisioned four great ages of man
culminating in the scientific enlightenment of Newton.
 Marxist historians also subscribe to a linear view of history, in the sense that they see history as a series of class
struggles that inevitably ends in a workers’ revolution.

H.G. Wells (1866-1946) described history as a race between education and disaster, either as world cataclysm or a
world state.

c. The Great God View of History

The most primitive attempts to explain the origin and development of the world and man are the creation myths to
be found among preliterate peoples. We are best acquainted with the one in Genesis which ascribes the making of heaven
and earth with all its features and creatures to a Lord God who worked on a six-day schedule. These fanciful stories do not
have any scientific validity.

Just as the royal despots dominated the city states and their empires, so the will, passions, plans and needs of the
gods were the ultimate causes of events. The king is the agent who maintains the world in being by means of an annual
contest with the powers of chaos. This theological theory was elaborated by the Sumerians, Babylonians and Egyptians
before it came down to the Greeks and Romans. It was expounded in the Israelite scriptures whence it was taken over and
reshaped by the Christian and Mohammedan religions and their states. (Novack, n.d.)

d. Great Man View of History

The "Great Man” theory suggests that dominant personalities determine the course of history. Rulers, warriors,
statesmen, are the decisive forces in history and history is the record of the deeds of great people.

The Great Man view has had numerous incarnations according to the values attached at different times by different people to
the various domains of social activity. In antiquity, these ranged from the divine monarch, the tyrant, the lawgiver (Solon),
the military conqueror (Alexander), the dictator (Caesar), the hero-emancipator (David), and the religious leader (Christ,
Buddha, Mohammed). All these were put in the place of the Almighty as the prime mover and shaper of human history (N
ovack, n.d.)

Thomas Carlyle’s (1795-1881) "everyman" view of history is one which sees history as being a record of the
collective experience of the ordinary person. "Universal history, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is
at bottom the history of the great men who have worked here.”

Sir Walter Scott’s (1771-1832) novels showed how people lived through significant events and he advanced the
idea that history was the story of ordinary people’s lives.

William EB. Du Bois (1868—1963) in his histories, Black Reconstruction in America, Crisis, and The Souls of
Black Folk, rejected the idea of history as the record of Western European events and advanced a View of history as the
record of the lives of subject peoples.

e. The Best People View of History

This view believes that some elite, the Best Race, the favored nation, the ruling class alone make history.

The Old Testament assumed that the Israelites were God’s chosen people.

The Greeks regarded themselves as the acme of culture, better in all respects than the barbarians. Plato and
Aristotle looked upon the slave-holding aristocracy as naturally superior to the lower orders. (Novack, n.d.).

Hitler thought that the Arian race was the best among races.

f. Ideas or the Great Mind View of History

This view of history is one in which the driving force in history is people's ideas. The conditions that create history
are created or changed by ideas.

The Greek Anaxagoras said: "Reason (Nous) governs the world.”

Aristotle held that the prime mover of the universe and the ultimate animator of everything within it was God, who
was defined as pure mind engaged in thinking about itself.

G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) view history as the continual refinement of intellectual understanding. The progress of mankind
consisted in the working out and consummation of an idea. He wrote: "Spirit, or Mind, is the only motive principle of
history.” The underlying goal of the World Spirit and the outcome of its laborious development was the realization of the
idea of freedom.
Some 18th century rationalists believed that "opinion governs mankind.” They looked toward an enlightened monarch to
introduce the necessary progressive reconstruction of the state and society.

g. The Human Nature View of History

This view believes that history, in the last analysis, has been determined by the qualities of human nature, good or
bad. Human nature, like nature itself, was regarded as rigid and unchanging from one generation to another. The historian’s
task was to demonstrate what these invariant traits of the human constitution and character were, how the course of history
exemplified them, and how the social structure was molded or had to be remodeled in accordance with them. (Novack, n.d.)

Thucydides, believed that "human nature and human behavior were — essentially fixed qualities, the same in one
century as another.”

David Hume asserts that “Mankind are so much the same, in all times and places, that history informs us of nothing
new or strange in this particular. Its chief use is only to discover the constant and universal principles of human nature.”

EB. Tylor wrote in 1889: "Human institutions, like stratified rocks, succeed each other in series substantially
uniform over the globe, independent of what seems the comparatively superficial differences of race and language, but
shaped by similar human nature.”

h. Economic View of History

The economic view sees economic factors as the most important determinant of history. The production and
exchange of goods and services is the bases of all social structures and processes. The economic factor is the foundation for
the superstructure of culture and government.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) is the foremost proponent of this view. He disagreed with Hegel by saying that it was not
ideas that created material conditions, but rather the reverse.

i. Gender History

Gender history looks at the past from the perspective of gender. It considers in what ways historical events and
periodization impact women differently from men.

Joan Kelly questioned whether the notion of a Renaissance was relevant to women in a seminal article in 1977,
"Did Women have a Renaissance?”

Gender historians are interested in how gender difference has been perceived and configured at different times and
places, usually with the assumption that such differences are socially constructed.

In the 80s, with the rise of the feminist movement, the focus shifted to uncovering women oppression and
discrimination. Nowadays, gender history is more about charting female agency and recognizing female achievements in
several fields that were usually dominated by men (Wikipedia, 2018)

j. Post-modern View of History

The Postmodern view of history differs dramatically from that of all other worldviews. While a Christian worldview
sees history as the grand unfolding of God's divine plan to redeem a fallen humanity, the radical Postmodernist on the other
hand sees no ultimate purpose in history.

Postmodernists view history as "what we make of it.” They believe that historical facts are inaccessible, leaving the
historian to his or her imagination and ideological bent to reconstruct what happened in the past. They use the term
historicism to describe the view that all questions must be settled within the cultural and social context in which they are
raised.

Both Jacques Lacan (1901-1981) and Michel Foucault (1926-1984) argue that each historical period has its own
knowledge system and individuals are unavoidably entangled within these systems. Answers to life’s questions cannot be
found by appealing to some external truth, but only to the norms and forms within each culture that phrase the question.

Most Postmodernists doubt that an accurate telling of the past is possible because they blur the difference between
fact and fiction—some even claim that all historical accounts are fiction. Foucault is one of the originators of this
Postmodern approach to history, which offers a profound challenge to the norm. (All About Worldview, n.d.)
k. Other Views of History

There are a number of other theories that attempt to explain history. Some historians suggest that history is the
result of geographic factors, and others suggest that wars determine history. Still others suggest that religion, race, or
climate determines the course of history.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) saw history as having no beginning or end, just chaos that could only be
understood by the powers of the mind.

Michel Foucault (1926-1984) posited that the victors of a social struggle use their political dominance to suppress a
defeated adversary’s version of historical events in favor of their own propaganda, which may go so far as historical
revisionism, as in the cases of Nazism and Stalinism. (“Philosophy of History — By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of
Philosophy," n.d.)

Quiz: History Terms

Directions: Match each of the following terms with the correct definition.

1. a person who studies the events of the past

2. a type of qualitative research which involves examining past events to draw conclusions and make predictions about
the future
3. an object made by humans, especially one of historical interest
4. any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience
5. events that occurred before the existence of written records in a given culture or society
6. history considered or presented from a feminist viewpoint or with special attention to the experience of women
7. information about the past gathered from interviews with people
8. information in raw or unorganized form (such as alphabets, numbers, or symbols) that refer to, or represent,
conditions, ideas, or objects
9. something that proves a belief; something that indicates what happened
10. the act of producing a work that attempts to depict an accurate representation of the real past
11. the belief that history was determined by laws, and the belief that understanding people and cultures requires an
understanding of their historical events
12. the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not
absolute
13. the order in which things happen; the arrangement of event in time order
14. the study of the methods of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body
of historical work on a particular subject
15. the study of what happened in the past; a record of-past events

CHAPTER 2: SOURCES OF HISTORY

“To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child” — Marcus Tullius Cicero

Chapter Outline:

1. Distinction of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources

1. Primary Sources
2. Secondary Sources
3. Tertiary Sources
2. External and Internal Criticism
a. External Criticism
b. Internal Criticism
c. General Principles for Determining Reliability
 Most historical source materials can be grouped into four basic categories: documents, numerical records, oral
statements, and relics.

1. Documents are written or printed materials that have been produced in one form or another sometime in the past.
2. Numerical records include any type of numerical data in printed or handwritten form.
3. Oral statements include any form of statement made orally by someone.
4. Relics are any objects whose physical or visual characteristics can provide some information about the past.
(Fraenkel & Wallen, n.d.)

The main emphasis in historical research is on interpretation of documents, diaries and the like. Historical data are
categorized into primary or secondary sources.

A primary source is one prepared by an individual who was a participant in, or a direct witness to, the event that is
being described. Primary sources include first-hand information, such as eyewitness reposts and original documents.

A secondary source is a document prepared by an individual who was not a direct witness to an event, but who
obtained his or her description of the event from someone else. Secondary sources include secondhand information, such as
a description of an event by someone other than an eyewitness, or a textbook author’s explanation of an event or theory.

Primary sources may be harder to find but are generally more accurate and preferred by historical researchers. A major
problem with much historical research is excessive reliance on secondary sources. (Fraenkel & Wallen, n.d.; “Historical
Research Methods,” n.d.)

1. DISTINCTION OF PRIMARY, SECONDARY, AND TERTIARY SOURCES

Historians-encounter a large variety of sources during the course of their studies. Sources can be labeled primary,
secondary, or tertiary, depending on their distance from the information they share.

1. Primary Sources

Primary sources give firsthand, original, and unfiltered information. Examples are eyewitness accounts, personal
journals, interviews, surveys, experiments, historical documents, and artifacts. These sources have a close, direct connection
to their subjects.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Primary Sources

Primary sources directly address your topic and often provide information that is unavailable elsewhere. For
example, the questions you compose for an interview or a survey will likely target your unique interest in the topic.
Similarly, to test a particular hypothesis, you can design your own experiment.

On the other hand, some primary sources, such as eyewitness accounts, may be too close to the subject, lacking a
critical distance. Others, such as interviews, surveys, and experiments, are time consuming to prepare, administer, and
analyze.

2. Secondary Sources

Secondary sources are one step removed from the topic. While they can be just as valuable as primary sources, you
must remember that secondary information is filtered through someone else’s perspective and may be biased.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Secondary Sources

Secondary sources provide a variety of expert perspectives and insights. Also, peer review usually ensures the
quality of sources such as scholarly articles. Finally, researching secondary sources is more efficient than planning,
conducting, and analyzing certain primary sources.

In contrast, because secondary sources are not necessarily focused on your specific topic, you may have to dig to
find applicable information. Information may be colored by the writer’s own bias or faulty approach.

3. Tertiary Sources

Tertiary sources provide third-hand information by reporting ideas and details from secondary sources. This does
not mean that tertiary sources have no value, merely that they include the potential for an additional layer of bias.
 Advantages and Disadvantages of Tertiary Sources

Tertiary sources offer a quick, easy introduction to your topic. They may point to high-quality primary and
secondary sources.

Conversely, because of their distance, tertiary sources may oversimplify or otherwise distort a topic. By rehashing
secondary sources, they may miss new insights into a topic.

Differences between Primary Sources vs. Secondary Sources

Sources of information are often categorized as primary or secondary depending upon their originality. What are the
differences between primary sources and secondary. sources? Let’s look at some of their dissirnilarities:

Primary Sources Secondary Sources

 created at the time of an event, or very soon after
 created by someone who saw or heard an event
themselves
 often one—of-a-kind, or rare
 letters, diaries, photos and newspapers (can all be
primary sources)
 created after event; sometimes a long time after
something happened
 often uses primary sources as examples
 expresses an opinion or an argument about a past
event
 history text books, historical movies and
biographies (can all be secondary sources)

a. Types of Primary Sources

People use original, first—hand accounts as building blocks to create stories from the past. These accounts are
called primary sources, because they are the first evidence of something happening, or being thought or said. Some
examples of primary source formats include:

1. Autobiographies and memoirs

An autobiography is an account of a person’s life written by that person. Autobiographical works can take many
forms, from the intimate writings made during life that were not necessarily intended for publication (including letters,
diaries, journals, memoirs, and reminiscences) to a formal book—length autobiography. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, n.d.) '

An example of an autobiography is “Mga Tala ng aking Buhay” written by Gregoria de Jesus about herself, her
husband Andres Bonifacio, the Katipunan and the Philippine Revolution.

The translation was done by Leandro H. Fernandez, a University of the Philippines History Profesor, and published
in the June 1930 issue of the Philippine Magazine, Volume XXVII, No 1. The original copy of the document was furnished
to Hernandez by Jose P. Santos.

Find a translation of the original document at this site: https:/ /kahimyang.com/kauswagan/articles/1203/ mga-tala-
ng-aking-buhay-autobiography-of-gregoria-de-jesus-wife-of-andres-bonifacio.

A memoir is a history or record composed from personal observation and experience. Closely related to, and often
confused with, autobiography, a memoir usually differs chiefly in the degree of emphasis placed on external events; whereas
writers of autobiography are concerned primarily with themselves as subject matter, writers of memoir are usually persons
who have played roles in, or have been close observers of historical events and whose main purpose is to describe or
interpret the events. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, n.d.)

An example of a memoir is "La Revolucion Filipina,” a compact analysis and commentary on the Philippine
Revolution by Apolinario Mabini. Find a copy of the original document at this site: http://malacanang.gov.ph/8143-the-
philippine- revolution-by-apolinario-mabini/

2. Diaries, Personal Letters, and Correspondence

A diary, a form of autobiographical writing, is a regularly kept record of the diarist’s activities and reflections.
Written primarily for the writer’s use alone, the diary has a frankness that is unlike writing done for publication.
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, n.d.)

An example is the diary of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Find a copy of the original document at this site:
https:// philippinediaryproject.wordpress.com/category/diary-of-ferdinand-e-marcos/
Personal Letter

A personal letter is a type of letter (or informal composition) that usually concerns personal matters (rather than
professional concerns) and is sent from one individual to another. (Nordquist, 2013)

An example of a personal letter is that of Marcelo H. del Pilar to his niece, Josefa Gatmaitán. It was translated from
Spanish into English by del Pilar’s granddaughter, Atty. Benita Marasigan vda. de Santos. Find a copy of the original
document at this site: https://filipinoscribbles.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/ marcelo-h-del-pilars-letter-to-his-niece-josefa-
gatmaitan/

Correspondence

A correspondence is a body of letters or communications. If you’ve ever had a pen pal or an email buddy, you’ve
written plenty of correspondence. (Vocabulary, n.d.)

Some examples of correspondence are those body of letters between Jose Rizal and Ferdinand Blumentritt. Find a
copy of the original document at this site: https://www.univie.ac.at/ksa/apsis/aufi/rizal/rbcorr.htrn

3. Interviews, Surveys, and Fieldwork

An interview is a conversation where questions are asked and answers are given. In common parlance, the word
"interview" refers to a one-on-one conversation with one person acting in the role of the interviewer and the other in the role
of the interviewee. The interviewer asks questions, the interviewee responds, with participants taking turns talking.
Interviews usually involve a transfer of information from interviewee to interviewer, which is usually the primary purpose of
the interview, although information transfers can happen in both directions simultaneously. (Wikipedia, 2018)

An example is the interview between Walter Dempster, Jr. and Ronald D. Klein. Walter Dempster, Jr. is the last
person alive who can bear witness to the Japanese rape atrocities against comfort gays. This interview took place on August
10, 2002. Find a copy of the transcript of the interview at this site: http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue13/
k1ein_interview.html

Survey

A survey is a list of questions aimed at extracting specific data from a particular group of people. Surveys may be
conducted by phone, mail, via the internet, and sometimes face-to—face on busy street corners or in malls. Survey research
is often used to assess thoughts, opinions, and feelings. Surveys can be specific and limited, or they can have more global,
widespread goals. (Wikipedia, 2018)

Field research or Fieldwork

A field research or fieldwork is the collection of information outside a laboratory, library or workplace setting. Field
research involves a range of well-defined, although variable, methods: informal interviews, direct observation, participation
in the life of the group, collective discussions, analyzes of personal documents produced within the group, self—analysis,
results from activities undertaken off- or on-line, and life-histories. (Wikipedia, 2018)

4. Photographs and posters

Photographs and posters are often considered as primary sources, because photographs and posters can illustrate
past events as they happened and people as they were at a particular time.

Examples are those images captured by various photographers during the 1986 EDSA. Find copies of the original
photographs at this site: https:/ /www.google.com.ph/search?q=images+captured+by+various+photographers+
during+the+1986+EDSA.&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&saFX&ved=0ahUKijCotDy2LTaAhUEwLwKbe_DPkQ7AkIM
w&biw=1366&bih=662

5. Works of art and literature

In fine art, a work of art, an artwork, or a work is a creation, such as a song, book, print, sculpture or a painting, that
has been made in order to be a' thing of beauty in itself or a symbolic statement of meaning, rather than having a practical
function. Art can take the form of:

Paintings: a form of visual art where paint or ink is used on a canvas or, more often in the past, wooden panels or
plaster walls, to depict an artist’s rendering of a scene or even of an abstract, non-representational image.

Drawing: a form of visual art in which a person uses various drawing instruments to mark paper or another two-
dimensional medium. Instruments include graphite pencils, pen and ink, inked brushes, wax colored pencils, crayons,
charcoal, chalk, pastels, various kinds of erasers, markers, Styluses, various metals (such as silverpoint) and electronic
drawing.

Literature: a body of written works. The name has traditionally been applied to those imaginative works of poetry
and prose distinguished by the intentions of their authors and the perceived aesthetic excellence of their execution. Literature
may be classified according to a variety of systems, including language, national origin, historical period, genre, and subject
matter.

6. Speeches and oral histories

A speech is a form of communication in spoken language, made by a speaker before an audience for a given
purpose. (Dictionary, n.d.)

An example is Rizal’s brindis or toast speech delivered at a banquet in the Restaurant Inglés, Madrid, on the
evening of June 25, 1884 in honor of Juan Luna, winner of the gold medal for his painting, "El Spoliarium,” and Felix
Resurreccion Hidalgo, winner of a silver medal, for his painting "Virgenes Cristianas Expuestas al Populacho" at a
Exposicion Nacional de Bellas Artes de Madrid. Find a copy of the original document at this site:
http://ourhappyschool.com/philippine-studies/jose-rizals-brindis-speech-toast-honoring-juan-luna-and-felix-resurreccion-
hidalg

Other types of primary sources include books, magazine and newspaper articles and ads published at the time of the
event and artifacts of all kinds, such as tools, coins, clothing, furniture, etc.

b. Types of Secondary Sources

Secondary sources were created by someone who did not experience first-hand or participate in the events or
conditions you’re researching. Some types of secondary sources include: bibliographies, nonfiction texts such as
biographical works, periodicals, newspapers, magazines, journals, history books, works of criticism and interpretation,
commentaries and treatises, textbooks, Video documentaries, and multimedia reports.

1. Bibliographies

An annotated bibliography is an organized list of sources, each of which is followed by a brief note or "annotation."
These annotations do one or more of the following: describe the content and focus of the book or article, suggest the
source’s usefulness to your research, evaluate its method, conclusions, or reliability, and record your reactions to the source.
(University of Wisconsin System, 2018)

An example is Dr. Jose Rizal’s annotations to Antonio de Morga’s Succesos de las Islas Filipinas. Find a copy of
the original document at this site: http://penelopevflores.blogspot.com/ 2011 / 02/ dr-jose-rizals-annotation-of-antonio.html

2. Biographical works

A biography is a description of a real person’s life, including factual details as well as stories from the person's life.
The word biography comes from the Greek words bios, meaning “life” and -graphia, meaning “writing.” Biographies
usually include information about the subject’s personality and motivations, and other kinds of intimate details excluded in a
general overview or profile of a person’s life. (Literary Devices, 2016)

An example of a biography is that of Andres Bonifacio, the "Father of the Philippine Revolution” and the President
of the Tagalog Republic.

3. Periodicals

Periodicals are newspapers, magazines, and scholarly journals—all of which are published "periodically." Some
periodicals are in print, some are electronic, and some use both formats (often with added information or a multimedia
element in the electronic version.)

A. Newspaper

A newspaper is a periodical publication containing written information about current events. Newspapers can cover
wide variety of fields such as politics, business, sport and art and often include materials such as opinion columns, weather
forecasts, reviews of local services, obituaries, birth notices, crosswords, editorial cartoons, comic strips, and advice
columns. (Wikipedia, 2018)
B. Magazine and Journal

Unlike daily newspaper, magazines and journals may be published weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually, or at some
other interval. Print editions use better paper and more color than newspapers do. The main difference between magazines
and journals is their audience. Journals are written by scholars for scholars; magazines are produced by professional writers
and editors for a general readership.

An example of a journal is "Natural Law and Anticolonial Revolt: Apolinario Mabini’s La Revolucion Filipina
and Isabelo de los Reyes’ La Sensacional Memoria by Ramon Guillermo. Find a copy of the original document at this
site: http:/ /www.plarideljournal.org/ article / natural-law—anticolonial-revolt—apolinario-Inabinis—la—revolucion—
filipina—isabelo—de-los-reyes—la—sensacional-memoria/

4. Literature reviews and review articles (e.g., movie reviews, book reviews)

A literature review is an evaluative report of information found in the literature related to your selected area of
study. The review should describe, summarize, evaluate, and clarify this literature. It should give a theoretical base for the
research and help you (the author) determine the nature of your research. (Central Queensland University, 2018)

A review article summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic. A review article surveys and summarizes
previously published studies, rather than reporting new facts or analysis. Review articles are also called survey articles or, in
news publishing, overview articles. Academic publications that specialize in review articles are known as review journals.
(Wikipedia, 2018)

Film Review

The film review is a popular way for critics to assess a film's overall quality and determine whether or not they
think the film is worth recommending. Film reviews differ from scholarly film articles in that they encompass personal and
idiosyncratic reactions to and evaluations of a film, as well as objective analyzes of the film’s formal techniques and
thematic content. (Duke Thompson Writing Program, n.d.)

An example is the review by Richard Kuipers on "Heneral Luna: The Philppines’ foreign-language Oscar hopeful is
a rousing historical epic set during the Philippine-American War”. Find a copy of the original document at this site: http: / /
varietycom/ 2015 / film / reviews / heneral-luna-review-l 201649617 /

Book Review

A book review is a form of literary criticism in which a book is analyzed based on content, style, and merit. A book
review may be a primary source, opinion piece, summary review or scholarly review. Books can be reviewed for printed
periodicals, magazines, and newspapers, as school work, or for book web sites on the Internet. A book review’s length may
vary from a single paragraph to a substantial essay. Such a review may evaluate the book on the basis of personal taste.
Reviewers may use the occasion of a book review for an extended essay that can be closely or loosely related to the subject
of the book, or to promulgate their own ideas on the topic of a fiction or non-fiction work. (Wikipedia, 2018)

An example is the review of Alfred P. James of University of Pittsburgh on the book "Understanding History - A
Primer of Historical Method (1950) by Louis Gottschalk, New York, Alfred A. Knopf.

Other types of secondary sources include history books and other popular or scholarly books, works of criticism and
interpretation, commentaries and treatises, textbooks, video documentaries, and multimedia reports.

c. Types of Tertiary Sources

1. General references such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, almanacs, and atlases

2. Crowd sources Wikipedia, YouTube, message boards, and social media sites like Twitter and Facebook
3. Search sites

d. Repositories of Primary Sources

There is no single repository of primary sources. Primary sources are usually located in archives, libraries,
museums, historical societies, and special collections.

A library is a collection of sources of information and similar resources, made accessible to a defined community
for reference or borrowing. It provides physical or digital access to material, and may be a physical building or room, or a
virtual space, or both. A library's collection can include books, periodicals, newspapers, manuscripts, films, maps, prints,
documents, microforrn, CDs, cassettes, videotapes, DVDs, Blu-ray Discs, e-books, audiobooks, databases, and other
formats. Libraries range in size from a few shelves of books to several million items. (Wikipedia, 2018)
 An archive is an accumulation of historical records or the physical place they are located. Archives contain primary
source documents that have accumulated over the course of an individual or organization’s lifetime and are kept to show the
function of that person or organization. Professional archivists and historians generally understand archives to be records
that have been naturally and necessarily generated as a product of regular legal, commercial, administrative, or social
activities. They have been metaphorically defined as "the secretions of an organism” and are distinguished from documents
that have been consciously written or created to communicate a particular message to posterity. (Wikipedia, 2018)

A museum is an institution that cares for (conserves) a collection of artifacts and other objects of artistic, cultural,
historical, or scientific importance. Many public museums make these items available for public Viewing through exhibits
that may be permanent or temporary. (Wikipedia, 2018)

A historical society (sometimes also preservation society) is an organization dedicated to preserving, collecting,
researching, and interpreting historical information or items. Originally, these societies were created as a way to help future
generations understand their heritage. (Wikipedia, 2018)

In library science, special collections (Spec. Coll. or S.C.) are libraries or library units that house materials
requiring specialized security and user services. Materials housed in special collections can be in any format (including rare
books, manuscripts, photographs, archives, ephemera, and digital records), and are generally characterized by their
artifactual or monetary value, physical format, uniqueness or rarity, and/ or an institutional commitment to long-term
preservation and access. They can also include association with important figures or institutions in history, culture, politics,
sciences, or the arts. (Wikipedia, 2018)

e. Document Collection

Document collection is used in Historical Research and in other research designs in combination with other ways
of data collection. Here are some documents that can be used by the researcher as a source of data.

1. Found Documents: Produced by Organizations

1. Formal records: personnel, sales records, shareholder reports, minutes of the meeting
2. Informal communications: notes, memos, email
3. Public records: electoral registers, registers of births, marriages, and deaths
2. Found Documents: Produced by Individuals
1. Personal papers: diaries, logs, letters, phone texts, emails
2. Documents from everyday lives: shopping lists, bus 8: train tickets
3. Found Documents: Publications
1. Academic literature
2. Popular literature
3. Guides, manuals
4. Found Documents: Secondary data
1. Research data and field notes from previous studies
2. Publicly funded surveys
3. Internal organizational research
5. Found Documents: Multimedia
1. Photos, videos, Comic strips, signposts, models
2. Sound and music
3. Electronic sources — screenshots, websites, online communities’ archives
6. Researcher Generated Documents
1. Field notes
2. Photographs
3. Diagrams
4. Storyboards
5. Use case scenarios

2. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CRITICSM

“If you don’t know history, then you don't know anything. You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is part of a tree. ”
— Michael Crichton

Researches cannot accept historical data at face value, since many diaries memoirs, reposts and testimonies are
written to enhance the writer’ 3 position, stature, or importance.
 Because of this possibility, historical data has to be examined for its authenticity and truthfulness. Such examination
is done through criticism; by asking and researching to help determine truthfulness, bias, omissions and consistency in data.
("Historical Research Methods,” n.d.)

There are two kinds of criticism: External Criticism and Internal Criticism.

External criticism refers to the genuineness of the documents a researcher uses in a historical study. (Fraenkel &
Wallen, n.d.) It asks if the evidence under consideration is authentic. The researcher checks the genuineness or Validity of
the source. Is it what it appears or claims to be? Is it admissible as evidence?

Internal criticism refers to the accuracy of the contents of a document. Whereas external criticism has to do with the
authenticity of a document, internal criticism ins to do with what the document says. (Fraenkel & Wallen, n.d.) After the
source is authenticated, it asks if the source is accurate, was the writer or creator competent, honest, and unbiased? How long
after the event happened until it was reported? Does the witness agree with other witnesses?

a. External Criticism

External criticism refers to the genuineness of the documents a researcher uses in a historical study. (Fraenkel &
Wallen, n.d.)

Key (1997) enumerates a series of questions to establish the genuineness of a document or relic:

1. Does the language and writing style conform to the period in question and is it typical of other work done by the
author?
2. Is there evidence that the author exhibits ignorance of things or events that man of his training and time should have
known?
3. Did he report about things, events, or places that could not have been known during that period?
4. Has the original manuscript been altered "either intentionally or unintentionally by copying?
5. Is the document an original draft or a copy? If it is a copy, was it reproduced in the exact words of the original?
6. If manuscript is undated or the author unknown, are there any clues internally as to its origin? (Key, 1997)

Gilbert J Garraghan (1946) provides the following questions:

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?

2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?

b. Internal Criticism

Internal criticism refers to the accuracy of the contents of a document. Whereas external criticism has to do with
the authenticity of a document, internal criticism has to do with what the document says. (Fraenkel & Wallen, n.d.)

After the source is authenticated, it asks if the source is accurate, was the writer or creator competent, honest, and
unbiased? How long after the event happened until it was reported? Does the witness agree with other witnesses?

Key (1997) provides the following questions to check the content of a source of Information

1. What was meant by the author by each word and statement?

2. How much credibility can the author's statements be given? (Key, 1997)

Gilbert J Garraghan (1946) asks the question below for internal criticism

1. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

According to Louis Gottschalk, (1950) "for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should
be separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author.”

In other words, even if an author is trustworthy and reliable, still, each piece of evidence extracted must be weighed
individually.
c. General Principles for Determining Reliability

Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997), two Scandinavian historians, have formulated the following general
principles in determining reliability:

1. Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more
credible sources than narratives.
2. Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its
reliability.
3. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate
historical description of what actually happened.
4. An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further
remove, and so on.
5. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
6. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or
supplemented with opposite motivations.
7. If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the
message is increased.

d. Contradictory Sources

What if your sources are contradicting each other? What do you do?

The seven-step procedure for source criticism in history by Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898)
might be helpful:

1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless
it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in
its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
4. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most “authority” —that is
the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
5. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have
accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most
contemporaries.
6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
7. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems
to accord best with common sense.

e. Eyewitness Evidence

R. J. Shafer (1974) suggests a series of questions in order to evaluate eyewitness testimony:

1. Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed
today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?
2. How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical
location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the
language, have other expertise required (e. g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret
police?
3. How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?
a. Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for
reporting? Adequate recording instruments?
b. When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most
eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.
c. What was the author’s intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely
to require or suggest distortion to the author?
d. Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus
probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not
seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to
mislead?
4. Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?
5. Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.
 6. Are there inner contradictions in the document?

f. Indirect Witnesses

Gilbert J. Garraghan (1946) says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses,” people who were not
present on the scene but heard of the events from someone else.

Loius Gottschalk (1950) says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence when no primary texts are
available He writes, "In cases where he uses secondary witnesses...he asks:

(1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements?

(2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole?

(3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony?

Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the Whole or the gist of the
primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge.

In such cases the secondary source is the historian’s ’original’ source, in the sense of being the 'origin’ of his
knowledge. Insofar as this ‘original’ source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would
that of the primary testimony itself.”

Gottschalk (1950) adds, “Thus hearsay evidence would not be discarded by the historian, as it would be by a law
court merely because it is hearsay.”

g. Oral Tradition

Gilbert Garraghan (1946) maintains that oral tradition may be accepted if it satisfies either two “broad conditions"
or six "particular conditions” as follows:

1. Broad conditions stated.

1. The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series of witnesses, reaching from the immediate and
first reporter of the fact to the living mediate witness from whom we take it up, or to the one who was
the first to commit it to writing.
2. There should be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question.
2. Particular conditions formulated.
1. The tradition must report a public event of importance, such as would necessarily be known directly to
a great number of persons.
2. The tradition must have been generally believed, at least for a definite period of time.
3. During that definite period, it must have gone without protest, even from persons interested in denying
it.
4. The tradition must be one of relatively limited duration. Garraghan suggests a maximum limit of 150
years, at least in cultures that excel in oral remembrance.
5. The critical spirit must have been sufficiently developed while the tradition lasted, and the necessary
means of critical investigation must have been at hand.
6. Critical-minded persons who would surely have challenged the tradition—had they considered it
false—must have made no such challenge.

h. Synthesis: Historical Reasoning

Once individual pieces of information have been assessed in context, hypotheses can be formed and established by
historical reasoning.

Argument to the best explanation

C. Behan McCullagh (1984) lays down seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation:

1. The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing
present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement ’the hypothesis’, and the statements describing
observable data, ’observation statements’.)
2. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same
subject; that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation statements.
3. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same
subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.
 4. The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it
must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly
than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other.
5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must
include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.
6. It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject;
that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which
are believed to be false.
7. It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there
is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.

McCullagh sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number
and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true.” (McCullagh, 1984; Wikipedia,
2018)

i. Generalization in Historical Research

As in all research, researchers who conduct historical studies should exercise caution in generalizing from small or
non-representative samples. (Fraenkel & Wallen, n.d.)

Quiz on History and Historical Research

1. Which of the following is not a characteristic of historical research?

a) It can be used to test hypotheses about relationships or trends.

b) It facilitates prediction of the effects of policy.
c) It focuses primarily on past materials and events.
d) It relies on naturalistic observation for valid data collection.

2. Which of the following is best classified as a source other than a relic?

a) a legal record
b) a monument
c) a piece of furniture
d) an original painting

3. The process that a researcher uses to verify that the contents of a document are accurate is known as

a) external criticism.
b) external validity.
c) internal criticism.
d) internal validity.

4. Which of the following is most likely to be a secondary source?

a. a book about educational theory in the early 19005

b. a frontier family photograph
c. a soldier's letter home during the Korean War
d. minutes from a university faculty meeting held in 1892

5. If a researcher uses a tape of legend from a Tribal-elder as a source of data, he is using a data source known as a(n)

a. document.
b. oral statement.
c. relic.
d. secondary source.

6. Which of the following is not one of the four essential steps in historical research?

a. defining the problem

b. interpreting information
c. oral statement
d. searching for relevant source material
7. Which of the following is most likely to be a primary source?

a. a film about battlefield maneuvers in the Civil War

b. a miner’s letter home during the Gold Rush
c. a poem expressing a miner’s feelings
d. an article about educational theory in the early 1900s

8. Which of the following is not a disadvantage of historical research?

a. it permits the investigation of topics and questions that can be studied in no other way
b. measures used in other methods to control for threats to internal validity are not possible in a historical study
c. sampling of information may be biased
d. validity of information is very difficult to check

9. Which of the following is not an advantage of historical research?

a. can be used to test hypotheses

b. can provide a richness of information
c. permits the investigation of topics and questions that can be studied in no other way
d. the validity of information is questionable

10. Most historical source material can be grouped into which four basic categories?

a. museum pieces, documents, oral statements, and numerical records

b. relics, documents, oral statements, and numerical records
c. relics, letters from parents to children, oral statements, and numerical records
d. relics, oral statements, museum pieces, and numerical records

11. Census data is best described as which kind of historical source material?

a. Document
b. numerical record
c. oral statement
d. relic

12. An interview with a World War II combat veteran is best described as which kind of historical source material?

a. document
b. numerical record
c. oral statement
d. relic

13. A letter from Winston Churchill to Mrs. Roosevelt is best described as which kind of historical source material?

a. a document
b. a numerical record
c. a relic
d. an oral statement

14. Which of the following questions does not apply to internal criticism?

a. Could the described event have taken place?

b. Did the author have an axe to grind?
c. Where was the document written?
d. Would people behave as described?

15. A researcher is studying a speech given by a presidential candidate about education in the Philippines. She is comparing
what was said to other information. She is engaged in

a. a waste of time.
b. content analysis.
c. external criticism.
d. internal criticism.
True/False

1. A primary source is one prepared by an individual who was a participant in, or a direct witness to, the event that is
being described.
2. A secondary source is a document prepared by an individual who was not a direct witness to an event, but who
obtained his or her description of the event from someone else.
3. Content analysis is a primary method of data analysis in historical research.
4. External criticism refers to the genuineness of the documents a researcher uses in a historical study.
5. Internal criticism pertains to the accuracy or truthfulness of information in a document.
6. Most historical source material can be grouped into four basic categories: documents, numerical records, oral
statements, and relics.
7. The advantage of historical research is that it follows a clear sequence.
8. The only essential step involved in doing a historical study is defining the problem or hypothesis to be investigated.
9. The unique characteristic of historical research is that it focuses exclusively on the past.
10. When well designed and carefully executed, historical research can lead to the confirmation of relational
hypotheses.

Directions: Match each of the following terms with the correct definition.

1. refers to the genuineness of the documents a researcher uses in a historical study.

2. refers to the accuracy of the contents of a document.
3. an institution that cares for (conserves) a collection of artifacts and other objects of artistic, cultural, historical, or
scientific importance
4. a historical account or biography written from personal knowledge or special sources.
5. Self-written account of the life of oneself
6. an index or textual consolidation of primary and secondary sources
7. a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.
8. information about events recorded at the time of those events
9. a collection of important records about a place or an organization
10. a personal record of experiences kept on a regular basis