How Non-Historians Research

[happyfilmluvguy]

According to Webster's Dictionary, a historian, is (1) an expert in history; authority on history, and (2) a writer of history; chronicler.

Historians whose occupation it is to research on subjects to further their own knowledge and contribute to all the facts they have learned ususally do A LOT of research, or so it would seem. My question is to simply ask how a NON-historian, one who only researches for their own benefit, well, researches. I myself haven't studied history as a major in school, I don't have a degree, nor contribute to the books and papers. I can say I only know so much about individual subjects in history, all for my own benefit.

One of my main interests is in public transportation history. After learning about Southern California's long past of the Pacific Electric "Big Red" Cars, I've done a fair share of research for my own benefit and I've learned a lot. I don't spend as much time reading books as I actually go out and follow old maps (working on it) and find traces of where these beloved pieces of Los Angeles clang through. I went to San Pedro, a harbor city on the coast, where a mile and a half route and 2 trolleys were lifted up from their graves and are in full running order. I just wanted to experience what it was like to ride one of these things.

So my question is how far does the "non-historian" go when researching on a subject? What type of subjects do you research on? Do you eventually contribute to the history books with new information that you have found? Do you buy memorabilia from this subject to collect and study? Have you talked to the people who lived it, try to understand what their experience was like?

So many questions but I'll leave it up to you.

 

[Brad Bowers]

Good question. The simple answer is, research topics you like, and take it as far as you want. Non-historians have the same access (usually) to materials that historians do. To publish or not is your choice, but I'd like to think that collected research by non-historians would get passed along to the public in one form or another.

I spent most of my life as a railroad history buff, and only after I started researching an obscure shortline railroad did I decide to go to school for history. I obtained a BA and MA in History, and decided last minute not to go on for my PhD. The seven years I spent researching that shortline turned into my master's thesis, so you never know where your research will take you. I don't make a living off of history, but I keep my hand in there, researching and writing, with the thought of getting published. My latest project is a history of John Cavanagh, Cavanagh Hats, and, of course, the Cavanagh Edge.

Historians differentiate between two types of research materials: Primary sources, and secondary sources. Primary sources are those things which were written contemporary to the period you are researching. For instance, a public timetable for the Red Cars would be a primary source. Same with newspaper accounts of the period, magazine articles, public records, corporate records, diaries, journals, and so on.

Secondary sources are works that are published after the period you are researching. These include history books, or articles published within the last few decades in magazines and newspapers. Books are a great place to start your research, not only to give you the basic history and show you what has already been written on the subject, but their bibliographies provide a good starting place to see where primary sources can be found.

You have to be very creative and wide-ranging in your thinking when it comes to finding primary sources, as you never know where you might find something. Libraries, museums, and historical societies are good places to start, as their collections might contain wonderful gems. State and local records at courthouses and the like are very valuable as well. It's time consuming, but scanning through old newspapers is another good place to start. Oral histories are great from people who actually lived through that time, though oral historians have specialized training to get the most out of their interviews. If there is somebody you'd like to interview, see if the local library can hook you up with an oral historian to record them.

Contrary to popular belief, historians do not just gather facts and present them. The big difference between historians and non-historians is that historians are trained to contextualize the facts and interpret them to make an argument. Yes, that's right, historians are not objective journalists of the past; they are, in fact, biased. One historian can take the facts and interpret them one way, and another can take the same facts and come up with something completely different. As much as they would like to think they are above it, historians are a product of their own time, which is why you see so much of the so-called "revisionist" history these days. This is one reason a history is a good stepping stone to law school.

Bottom line, as I said before, research what you like, and take it as far as you want. At the very least, you'll educate yourself, and at the most, you'll educate everyone else!

Brad

 

[TM]

happyfilmluvguy,

Since you are in Los Angeles, do you have a L. A. Public Library card? If so you have internet access to one of the most fantastic research resources: the Los Angeles Times from the 1880's to just about the present. A key word search yields numerous articles. Then you click on the article title and you get a PDF of the actual article.

Tony

 

[LizzieMaine]

You don't need academic credentials to be a bona fide historian -- but you do need discipline and persistence, as well as the ability to read critically and sufficient knowledge of your subject to distinguish between reliable and unreliable source materials. It takes many years and a lot of work to build up that level of expertise, whether you've got a degree or not, especially if you're interested in writing for publication.

Brad is dead-on in his comments above on how to dig up quality sources -- all I'd add is that one has to be very careful with oral histories. Very often people speaking for the record will display a rather selective memory, or will use the interview as a chance to either burnish their own reputation or settle old scores. (This is especially true of show-business and political figures.) My own rule is that any information I get from an interview has to be checked and double checked against contemporaneous primary sources -- and if I can't document it, I don't use it. That's something I learned in my career as a reporter, and it's stood me well ever since.

 

[Brad Bowers]

My own rule is that any information I get from an interview has to be checked and double checked against contemporaneous primary sources -- and if I can't document it, I don't use it. That's something I learned in my career as a reporter, and it's stood me well ever since.

Good point, Lizzie! I ran into that as well. One fellow I knew was convinced that something had happened, but it was contradicted by every other piece of evidence I could find. I finally figured he must have seen something similar during an earlier year, and misremembered it as something else. No other explanation fit.

Newspapers, particularly early ones, are just as bad, if not worse in some instances. They should usually be taken with a grain of salt. That's why it is important to gather as much research as you can, and then disseminate it as best you can.

Brad.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

I do have a library card. In my question, I was trying my best to describe a person who has an interest in history but really the regular joe who just finds some things facinating. I'm trying to be as clear as I can, and I hope I am. haha. More of a hobby you could say.

Mr. Bowers, my cousin is a big railroad person. He's now I believe 12, but I remember walking into his railroad books, toy trains and Thomas the Tank Engine filled room. I hope he is still interested.

I'm not crazy about reading newspaper articles online. I miss those microfiche machines.

Let's hear some more subjects that "non-historians" here research on. I'm interested in hearing.

 

[Twitch]

Do what makes you feel good. The thirst for knowledge on a particular subject should noy be limited by arbitrary levels of enthusiasm.

As a writer of historical combat aviation subjects I'd say it varies. If I get tickled by one aspect of one thing that happened I'll exhaust all reasonable measures to find out all I can about the event- more than I'd need for the sake of an article.

 

[Alan Eardley]

Research methods

I teach research methods at university for a living and do research as a hobby. I would say that you don't have to have formal training to do research that would be accepted as a valid contribution to 'the body of knowledge' in most subjects, but it helps.

There are many examples of historians and socialogists whose methods have been developed empirically and validated in practice. The research they do and the writing (or films) they produce is valued and respected.

On the other hand there are those (David Irving springs to mind) who have allowed an imbalanced view of their subject area allied to poorly chosen primary research techniques to produce research that is not widely respected.

If you just want to do research 'as finding out' because you enjoy it, what the heck. You don't need a PhD. Just do it. If you want it to be interesting, record what people tell you. If you want it to be accurate, cross check it with other sources.

Alan

 

[TM]

Certainly agree about multiple sources! It's always best to check sources against each other.

And it's also really important to go back to primary sources, when possible. For example, on some research I was doing about the history of the High Desert near Joshua Tree, I came across the story of Willie Boy. This is a famous story about a Native American who kills a Chief and runs away with the Chief's daughter, leading to a massive manhunt at the turn of the century. It was very interesting to review the period L. A. Times reporting of the event. You can watch the story evolve and notice how the attitudes of the writers changed with time. It also puts the story in the day-to-day context of the time period.

Tony

 

[NoirDame]

Well, as a historian of sorts (going to grad school for history in the fall), I can give some tips. Since I have not begun my Master's program yet, I'm not an expert on research.

First of all, I consider research to be an exciting treasure hunt (most people think it is boring). Each piece of information leads to more information. Like they say in National Treasure, "Another clue!"

Before you start you have to figure out what you are trying to prove or find out (notice what I said there agrees with what Brad said. He's right!). If you just want to generally resource something that is okay, but it can be helpful to have a list of questions you want answered. It is okay and to some extent expected to have your premises change as you uncover new information. From these questions, you can draw key search words or topics to plug into the library search engine or online.

Starting out can be daunting, but once you get a lead, things can move on quickly. Depending on how in-depth I want to go, I either start at the internet or the library (I use the internet for my casual, personal info cruises). Be leery of information on the internet, however. Anyone can publish info online and it isn't always accurate. In any source, they should cite their information frequently and well. I once cast a book aside as invalid for my research because of its poor citation and its grammatical mistakes (even though the writer was supposedly a journalist). In my eyes, it lost its credibility completely.

The citation notes can be a wealth of leads. Each book constitutes a lot of reasearch. You may find more relevant information in one of those sources as well if you seek them out. (I tend to be pretty exhaustive in my research, but you don't have to be.)

You always can ask the research librarian to help you get started. They can help find out what library may have a rare, out of print document on microfiche as well. I was able to track down a book written by Deodat Lawson during the Salem Witch Trials due to a helpful librarian. One thing to remember with primary sources however is that they are not scholarly. It is one person's account of an event that will be colored with opinion and emotion. It will not have the detachment and adherence to fact that an academic source will have. They are very valuable however if you remember to question the source and to cross-reference it against later scholastic sources.

Depending on what you are looking for, public records, censuses and other documentation may be useful. The procedure for getting those varies from office to office and you can contact them to request access to those documents and the procedures you will need to follow.

When I get stuck, I can also go back into books I have previously studied and check the indexes for related topics to begin a new search with.

As for me, I am currently branching into oral history for the first time. I am interviewing WW2 veterans and writing a book with their experiences. My main aim in this is historical preservation.

Happy Hunting!

 

[NoirDame]

Certainly agree about multiple sources! It's always best to check sources against each other.

And it's also really important to go back to primary sources, when possible. For example, on some research I was doing about the history of the High Desert near Joshua Tree, I came across the story of Willie Boy. This is a famous story about a Native American who kills a Chief and runs away with the Chief's daughter, leading to a massive manhunt at the turn of the century. It was very interesting to review the period L. A. Times reporting of the event. You can watch the story evolve and notice how the attitudes of the writers changed with time. It also puts the story in the day-to-day context of the time period.

Tony

There was a movie about Willie Boy on TCM yesterday with Robert Redford.

 

[Fletch]

Keep everything you can. Share everything you can. And say where you got it. (Unless someone made you promise not to - and then, please, say so.)

I have to qualify Lizzie's rule about "if you can't corroborate it, you can't use it." This holds when you write for pay or print. But every lead may be useful to someone, somewhere, someday. If you have the luxury of space (and on the net you usually do), why snip the loose thread? You can always say "so-and-so says" or "such-and-such may have happened."

Then there's the matter of material history. I'm talking on behalf of my fellow collector-types here. How should we conceive of a three-dimensional or multimedia artifact? A 78 record? A flight jacket? A vintage dress? Is it a primary source, like print or oral memory? Or something even more primary yet? Isn't it a little piece of the past that is still "happening"? Is it "history" at all as historians understand it?

The collector personality doesn't necessarily make a good historian. He's too subjective, often too specialized. He doesn't have the researcher's discipline or communication skill, and too often hoards knowledge to keep the competition down. What he doesn't realize is that sharing will make his kind of goodies easier to find and probably increase their value.

 

[Haversack]

A few things I would add:
While Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How are important, the Historian earns his bread and butter by answering So What. As has already been mentioned, it is the historian’s job to provide context and state why something is significant.
Be aware of your biases. We all have them and are influenced by them regardless of our awareness of them. They are a big part of the reason that it usually takes at least 20 years after an event before cogent histories can be written about the event. It takes some distance before the picture begins to come into focus. A historian’s biases are, however, often his motivation for writing, and if used adroitly, can make for good or entertaining history. Procopius’s Secret History is a fine example of this.
Be aware of your preconceived ideas. Beginning your research with your conclusions already in mind can lead you into looking only for data which supports your position while ignoring data which does not.
A caveat on contemporary newspapers has already been mentioned. Circular documentation is an increasing risk with the advent of wire services. If you do use contemporary newspaper and periodical articles, learn a bit about the publications they appeared in. Most newspapers, (and their advertisers), had biases which may not be readily apparent to the modern reader. Similarly, many magazines were connected to seemingly unrelated businesses. For example, "Sunset" a life-style magazine for the western USA, was owned for many years by the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Related to being aware of preconceived ideas, keep your mind open to contradictory data and beware of those things "that everybody knows". In one of the fields in which I have an amateur interest, the history of food and cookery, one of the commonest erroneous beliefs is that European people in the Middle Ages imported spices from Asia in order to cover up the taste of rotten meat. It ain’t true. Spices were expensive. If you could afford them, you could easily afford fresh meat. They imported spices because they taste good. Besides, no amount of cinnamon or cloves will disguise meat that has truly gone bad. One trait which humans have evolved is to detect that particular flavour.

Haversack.

 

[Chas]

A historian also writes about history as well.

You don't necessarily need to be a John Keegan or Stephen Ambrose to be a historian; Martin Middlebrook immediately springs to mind. He was an amateur historian who published at least two books I know of that were highly regarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Middlebrook

I started on a BA in History some years ago, and never really went back, but what I did learn that was of great use was how to write. When you write about history, it pays to work on brevity and specifics. Keep it short, simple. I would highly reccomend a night school history course as well; a credit course where you can learn how to write about history. It helps, believe me.

Multiple sources, cross-referenced and check the sources that the authors are using in the cited references and footnotes.