Which IA title? (/How narrow should a title be?)

[TykeDragon]

Hey everyone!

i began my IA under the title of 'How successful was Bismarck's alliance system in fulfilling his aims from 1871-1890?'

In order to answer the question, I was going to research his aims, the treaties/alliances, their outcomes, and the surrounding events that may have affected these alliances. However my problem is that I like to cover things thoroughly. For a rough overview of the chronology i had in mind:

>Context (situation of Bismarck/Europe - may affect his aims. Only brief, mind.) Overriding fear of the 'nightmare coalition' of F & R.

>Dreikaiserbund 1873. G, A-H, R.

>War in Sight Crisis 1875 (affected dreikaiserbund due to the conflict between russia with germany)

>Eastern Crisis 75-78 (Turks killing balkan peoples, Russia defeating the turks in 1877. Treaty of San Stefano '78. found unacceptable by other powers.)

>Congress of Berlin.78, 'climax' of Bismarck's career. 'honest broker.' (russia dissatisfied, basically ruined 3 emperors league. don't think it's also worth noting that bismarck wanted this to be held in paris in case it upset russia, to disassociate himself from it?)

>Resentment from russia over this pushed G and A-H together to the dual alliance 1879. defensive treaty, fear of russia, etc.

>Dreikaiserbund revived in 1881 as russia fearing diplomatic isolation.

>Triple Alliance 1882 - dual expanded to Italy, although Italy a weak ally.

>dreikaiserbund renewed in 1884 (but unsure of significance of this)

>Bulgarian crisis 85/86 - prince alexander kidnapped and forced to abdicate. (as this affected the dreikaiserbund)

>Reinsurance treaty 1887 - but was weak due to the amount it clashed with dual alliance.

As you can see, this is FAR too much for the history IA, considering i get 500-600 ish words to summarise all evidence I found for this, and only 500-650ish to analyse it all and make an argument out of it! In fact, i did note that I started with it - my summary of evidence is about 700 words with any potentially analytical stuff cut out, it has about 30 references, yet I'm only up to Congress of Berlin. (chronologically)

So evidently this is far too much, but my question is how much do you guys think it should be cut by?? Severely irritated and down about how much time has gone into this and it needs to be changed again, is all. Should I focus on one specific treaty, eg how successful was dreikaiserbund? Or two - how successful were dreikaiserbund and dual alliance? Or should I focus on a very small range of it, such as from dreikaiserbund to congress of berlin? I just don't know where to cut the line at the moment!

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[alefal]

Hey!

My history teacher always told us to focus on two sources (preferably first-hand) that disagreed upon something, and build our IA on that. For instance, a HI dealing with two different sources on a secret meeting where one says the meeting resulted in nothing substantial whilst the other claims that the meeting was decisive would be perfect in his eyes. Of course, it doesn't have to be a secret meeting, nor does it have to be first-hand sources (I am relating my HI to a debate between two historians regarding a couple of documents and their importance), but you should aim to keep it that focused.

To be a bit more specific regarding your current work and ideas - your initial question is, as you have understood, way too broad. If I wrote my HI on a similar topic, I'd at least limit myself to one specific aim, if not also to a specific treaty or crisis. For instance, 'To what extent was the social consequences of the Bulgarian Crisis of 1885-86 the most important factor for the dreikaserbund?' would be a starting point, and then focusing on a small number of important sources. You could then, in your analysis, compare this to the War in Sight Crisis of 1875 and other related factors leading to the dreikaserbund.

Remember that the summary of evidence should only contain facts that you use in your analysis. Nothing more, nothing less. For instance, mentioning the Triple Alliance of 1882 when actually analysing the Eastern Crisis of 1875-78 would be of no use (assuming that they're not related and comparable).

I hope this gives you an idea of where to start. If you have any questions left unanswered, just ask again

Good luck with your History IA!

[TykeDragon]

Thanks a lot for your speedy reply! (do i have to tag you or something so you know I reply, or is there a notification..?)

And also yeah I can see the value of where you are coming from - I bet that certainly makes Section C (source evaluation) easier and more interesting! Unfortunately, our class had a slightly different method of doing things... We were told to go away and think of a title that is part of what we have covered (I initially tried to do something else as I thought this would be better) but he said to keep it to something we have studied so I know more, which is fair enough and has helped I guess. He gave that initial question the go ahead but maybe didn't figure how thorough I'd be, and did invite many people to tweak their questions depending on what sources and information they managed to find - might as well make it easier for yourself!

Alright yeah I see what you mean about section B too - in fact I can see in the criteria that to get the top 5/6 out of 6 it does specify all information recorded is relevant to the investigation, so you're right there. It's just unfortunate I didn't do it the source way first, but what I have done is got about 5 books for first draft and made extensive notes on all things relevant - I have about 15 pages of notes from aims to crises to treaties. So I want to make my question more narrow but I'm unsure as to how narrow is too narrow. If you understand? Like, I wouldn't know when or why to make a date the cut off date, e.g 1878 with the congress.

Potential questions could be 'how successful was the dreikaiserbund in fulfilling Bismarck's aims between 1873 and 1878?' This could allow me to focus on that one alliance, yet also use the war in sight and eastern crisis to show how it was undermined, and no need to mention Dual Alliance, triple alliance, Bulgarian crisis, reinsurance treaty - it cuts out a lot! I can end it with congress of berlin leaving russia a dissatisfied power.

[TykeDragon]

In fact, the more i read that, the better and more logical it seems to me! I think I may go with that one. I find it tricky to limit myself in section b to info only lol, i keep going into narrative and analytical mode. I find it hard to distinguish between whether I'm just stating facts or narrating a story. Plus cutting 1879-1890 literally shaves off 50+% of the content!

Slightly screwed for Section C, though. I have like 5 books that I used, that I just took notes and info from, they didn't seem to have a particular slant or anything. I have just literally chosen at random two of my books which I will endeavor to OPVL at a later time. Bad method I know but don't really see what else to do. :/

I'm guessing in Section A, I just state my question, my scope of 73-78 (the factors I will look at - context, aims, treaty, war in sight, eastern, congress) and then my method, and what books I'm gonna use for section C?

Edited October 5, 2012 by TykeDragon

[alefal]

Hey again!

You don't have to tag me in any way, there's an automatic system for that

It seems like our history teachers have a different approach to the IAs. We are allowed to do our IAs in anything related to history, and we could start wherever we wanted. I suppose there's some truth to the fact that the students have more freedom here in Norway. Doing an IA on something related to something you've done in class don't guarantee less work though. I've read a comment by someone here on IBS that it may be equally as much work, actually.

As for your proposed question - I find it still too broad to be a very good RQ, despite the fact that you're limiting yourself even more than with your initial question. What is successful? Successful in what terms? Your question also insinuates that the dreikaiserbund actually was successful. Remember from TOK classes that assumptions are bad? That also goes for essay writing, whether it is a history essay or a lab report. Maybe you should change it to "To what extent was..."? Then you open up for the possibility that it was not successful at all as well.

Maybe you could narrow Bismarck's aims to one single aim and name it? I must admit I don't know much about Bismarck and his aims, but it would help narrowing your IA. This also goes for the time span you've chosen. Did something decisive happen during that period that could help measuring 'success'? Is the congress in 1878 such a decisive event?

As for section B - write them as if they were full-sentenced bullet points. That helps me, at least. They don't need fancy transitions or anything. Keep them for the analytical parts!

Section C could prove to be slightly tricky for you. I am that lucky I have two historians thinking quite the opposite of each other, but if yours are quite neutral, it might be troublesome. This is why my teacher advocated for discussing something disputed - such as Stalin's objectives in granting Kim Il Sung to invade South Korea, or whether or not Mao (and China) actually favoured the invasion of the South. Such sources would claim different things, and stand out more, and are thus easier to choose for a OPVL analysis. Do your sources show some bias in some way, however nuanced? What about their selection of sources, does one of them appear to select sources supporting one point of view? Do they say much the same, but have some variations indicating mollification or quite the opposite?

[Emmi]

In fact, the more i read that, the better and more logical it seems to me! I think I may go with that one. I find it tricky to limit myself in section b to info only lol, i keep going into narrative and analytical mode. I find it hard to distinguish between whether I'm just stating facts or narrating a story. Plus cutting 1879-1890 literally shaves off 50+% of the content!

Slightly screwed for Section C, though. I have like 5 books that I used, that I just took notes and info from, they didn't seem to have a particular slant or anything. I have just literally chosen at random two of my books which I will endeavor to OPVL at a later time. Bad method I know but don't really see what else to do. :/

I'm guessing in Section A, I just state my question, my scope of 73-78 (the factors I will look at - context, aims, treaty, war in sight, eastern, congress) and then my method, and what books I'm gonna use for section C?

Technically for Section C you could do OPVL for any number of sources you want. But you should limit it to like two or three so you can get a full analysis and OPVL out of them. I disagree for only sticking with using two sources that contradict each other. Mine didn't disagree, but then again they weren't in 100% agreement. What I did was pitted an important primary source against a secondary source that I used extensively in my IA. See, if you only quoted from your two disagreement sources like once or twice, why use those in your IA? Use the sources that were most important to it.

And yes for section A, state your question, how exactly you will investigate it, your scope, and what books.

And if you want to reply to someone so they can get a notification, hit "quote" in the bottom right of their post. When you type a reply, it will show the quoted post (as mine will with yours) and the other person will be notified.

[alefal]

Technically for Section C you could do OPVL for any number of sources you want. But you should limit it to like two or three so you can get a full analysis and OPVL out of them. I disagree for only sticking with using two sources that contradict each other. Mine didn't disagree, but then again they weren't in 100% agreement. What I did was pitted an important primary source against a secondary source that I used extensively in my IA. See, if you only quoted from your two disagreement sources like once or twice, why use those in your IA? Use the sources that were most important to it.

And yes for section A, state your question, how exactly you will investigate it, your scope, and what books.

And if you want to reply to someone so they can get a notification, hit "quote" in the bottom right of their post. When you type a reply, it will show the quoted post (as mine will with yours) and the other person will be notified.

One doesn't have to quote if one follows the thread But, of course, not everyone does that, which makes my comment only relevant in those instances..

You might be right regarding section C. It makes more sense to analyse the most used works, actually. If a person is running a comparison of two different opinions on a topic, though, it would make sense that the most used works are one from each side of the case, wouldn't it?

[Emmi]

Yes and no. You want to include a variety of opinions and viewpoints, both for and against, in your IA. You really can't do well if you don't consider multiple viewpoints or perspectives. If two important sources in your IA do happen to contradict each other, then by all means it's fine to use those two. Those are actually some of the most interesting OPVLs because you need to consider both cases, and oftentimes they use the same facts to come up with a different conclusion, so then you'd get to explore why their viewpoints differ. But if you have contradicting sources that were not used much, it's better to not use them and use sources that were extensively used in your IA. Like in my IA. I had this one source that contradicted like 95% of my other sources, but I only quoted from it like two times. I did not use it in Section C for that reason, and chose to analyze a very important primary source instead.

[TykeDragon]

Oh, lol, I was going to conclude that it was unsuccessful anyway, just never thought to make it a 'to what extent' question... in answer to 'how successful' I thought i would just say it wasn't. I never thought saying how successful meant it actually was as for what I meant by success, I mean when compared with his aims. He had three main overriding aims - to politically quarantine France, to gain allies for himself, and avoid war. He particularly feared the 'nightmare coalition' of France and Russia due to the two-fronted war it would result in. also an ally for him strengthens him whilst depriving France of a potential ally. It was basically as simple as that...

The factors if I used that question would be as follows:

>Dreikaiserbund 1873 gives him Russia and Austria as allies.

> War in sight crisis 1875 was when rumours circulated that Germany favoured idea of a preventative war against France. France appealed to Britain and Russia, both of whom sent troops to Berlin to warn Bismarck that they would not tolerate a repeat of Franco-Prussian war 1870-1. (Obviously this weakened the DKB)

>Eastern Crisis led to Congress of Berlin, after which Russia left Berlin feeling cheated and dissatisfied. DKB is dead, and Russia resents Germany.

>Conclusion? DKB was unsuccessful in fulfilling his aims of leaving France politically abandoned and preventing hostile relations (especially a failure with Russia, his main target.)

I reckon I could fit that into the word count. Plus, I have a clear question - evidence/analysis - conclusion. No idea how my first question got the go ahead!! (May play around with 'to what extent' though, if I'm sure 'how successful' is inappropriate!) I also only reject the 'only do one of Bismarck's aims' thing because he did not have many anyway, in fact his aims were even said to just be 'crisis management with no long-term aims'... Plus I'd then feel the need to continue with dual alliance, dreikaiserbund 81/84, triple alliance and reinsurance treaty and compare with those aims

But yeah for Section C I'll just pick my two most used. I only have about 5 anyway. The level 7 sample we were given had 9. =/ And just a note we were told not to make it like bullet points lol, we were told to make Section B continuous prose, no choice. =P

[TykeDragon]

Yes and no. You want to include a variety of opinions and viewpoints, both for and against, in your IA. You really can't do well if you don't consider multiple viewpoints or perspectives. If two important sources in your IA do happen to contradict each other, then by all means it's fine to use those two. Those are actually some of the most interesting OPVLs because you need to consider both cases, and oftentimes they use the same facts to come up with a different conclusion, so then you'd get to explore why their viewpoints differ. But if you have contradicting sources that were not used much, it's better to not use them and use sources that were extensively used in your IA. Like in my IA. I had this one source that contradicted like 95% of my other sources, but I only quoted from it like two times. I did not use it in Section C for that reason, and chose to analyze a very important primary source instead.

(just to gain your attention)

Guys, just wondering - i was so bogged down with other stuff than history coursework that I never went to another library to get more books - I have about 5 books (would have been one more but when I focused on it it was revealed to be the same book, but a slightly different version that had a different appearance )

How much of a hindrance would this be mark wise? I can put in a few more references to bring it up to 7 or 8 with a redraft. But how much would your marks be pulled down by having 4/5 sources??

Thanks.

[alefal]

Yes and no. You want to include a variety of opinions and viewpoints, both for and against, in your IA. You really can't do well if you don't consider multiple viewpoints or perspectives. If two important sources in your IA do happen to contradict each other, then by all means it's fine to use those two. Those are actually some of the most interesting OPVLs because you need to consider both cases, and oftentimes they use the same facts to come up with a different conclusion, so then you'd get to explore why their viewpoints differ. But if you have contradicting sources that were not used much, it's better to not use them and use sources that were extensively used in your IA. Like in my IA. I had this one source that contradicted like 95% of my other sources, but I only quoted from it like two times. I did not use it in Section C for that reason, and chose to analyze a very important primary source instead.

(just to gain your attention)

Guys, just wondering - i was so bogged down with other stuff than history coursework that I never went to another library to get more books - I have about 5 books (would have been one more but when I focused on it it was revealed to be the same book, but a slightly different version that had a different appearance )

How much of a hindrance would this be mark wise? I can put in a few more references to bring it up to 7 or 8 with a redraft. But how much would your marks be pulled down by having 4/5 sources??

Thanks.

Although I'd prefer to have more sources than 'just' five, I'm not sure how the IBO (and more importantly, your teacher - it's an IA after all) looks at it. Have you read the criteria for section F? Do you feel that 'a list of sources is included but these are limited' (one of the criteria for 1 mark out of 3), or can you say that 'an appropriate list of sources, using one standard method, is included' (one of the criteria for mark 3 out of 3)? How many sources are there about your topic? If there are many, five are too few. Are there only a handful, five might be a good start.

If you're in the need for sources, there's always quite a few to find on the internet. Of course, be critical and don't use wikipedia (although the references used at wikipedia are sometimes good), blogs (unless written by historians) and other unreliable pages. Search through Google Books (you will most likely not be able to read all the pages, but the pages that are there might prove useful) and Google Scholar, you'll find a lot there. Also, when searching through google, add the tag 'filetype:pdf' (without the quotes) to find pdf-files. Documents written by historians and acknowledged writers are often uploaded to the internet in the form of pdf-files.

Edited October 8, 2012 by alefal

[TykeDragon]

Good ideas there, I'll use them to add more to my bibliography. Thanks!