How to best implement historiography in essay?

[Penguin4512]

Okay, so some background, I'm currently in IB History I, halfway through, and my teacher has decided it is time for us to start using historiography in our essays. I understand the basics of historiography (the perspectives of notable historians, right? I think) but I'm not quite sure how to implement it

Let's say I'm writing an essay on some war and its causes. Should I present the causes and support and then say how that connects to a historian's view?

"Thus, War X was caused by Factor A, Factor B, and Factor C. This is supported by the argument of historian Y, who..." and etc.

Or should I base my initial argument around the conflicting view of historians?

"Though Historian Y argues that War X was caused by Factor A, Factor B, and Factor C, the argument of Historian Z can be said to be more accurate, as..." and etc.

Or is it something else? If anyone who has experience in writing essays with historiography could share some advice, that would be really great, My teacher is a very "learn from your own mistakes" kind of person which I'm sure is a great way to teach information but unfortunately can be terrible for my grades. I think a lot of it is that I don't really understand why we need historiography, how can what someone else said back up an argument, if these papers are meant to be an analysis rather than a persuasive essay.

Oh well, I'm sure I have it all confused, but thanks for reading and I am eager to learn how to implement historiography and hopefully get a 7 on the test way down the road.

[tjk11]

I would say that your first example would be better, because you are first displaying your idea then backing it up with historians.

Now with historiographys, i would use them to show the limitations of a particular historian.

For example if a historian has a social historiography, that can cause them to overlook the economic implications of a certain issue.

So use the historians to support your thesis, then using thier historiography to show how they may have limitations, wherein you can pose a opposing arguement or another supporting arguement using that angle.

[t.r. barrows]

@tjk11 I think, in part, you might be conflating personal bias with historiography. Historiography just refers to the extant literature within a particular area of history. Take, for example, WW1 historiography -- since wars tend to attract more attention than, say, environemtal or women's history, such historiographies tend to have a more developed and, perhaps, richer literature. In other words, there's more historians taking part in the conversation; and there's a lot more books on WW1 than these other areas.

So, think of the historiography as the written "conversation" that takes place across time between historians. A person can't just come along and not pay heed to this past historiography; if you want to be taken seriously, even as a student, and get into the higher mark-bands for paper 2, 3, the IA and the EE, you have to show that you understand the past arguments within a area of history and that you're capable of situating your essay within this historiographical framework.

History is not this static thing that stays the same. Yes, events "stay the same," but our understanding of these events changes. Historians of the 1940s had a different view of the First World War than the counterculture historians of the 1960s and 1970s. Likewise, historians from different regions of world have somewhat separate historiographies. Believe it or not historians in North America are not really reading historians from, say, the Middle East such that there might be 2 historiographies for "Middle Eastern" history -- one in English, the other Arabic. Our understanding and evaluation of the past changes based on a number of things and these biases are reflected in the historiography. @tjk11 True, there are biases in the historiography, but mentioning this is not necessarily going to get you to the higher mark-band because basically everything is biased in one way or another (there is no "view from nowhere" that can situate itself within this perfect value free, objective view of reality). Instead your essay needs to engage historiographical arguments as much as possible. And for Paper 1 (or Section C of IA) if you're going to say that a particular source is "biased," you need to be able to explain HOW it is biased. It's not enough to just say something is biased, because that's always going to be the case.

The purpose of studying historiography is so that students begin to understand the texture of this "historical conversation," and ultimately to grapple with the evaluation of evidence historians used to justify their arguments.

In terms of implementing historiography into your essays focus on the evidence that historians use to justify their arguments about a particular thing. Ultimately, if you're forwarding an argument you can mention a particular argument in the historiography and then explain why you disagree with it. The higher mark-band essays will show an understanding of historiographical arguments and attempt to refute them based on their evaluation. So if you can re-evaluate the evidence or claim to explain how a particular claim doesn't hold water you're going to be rewarded. It's not easy to get into the higher mark-bands for papers 2 and 3 (it's part luck, getting a question that you're more familiar with), but this is a start.

Edited February 6, 2013 by t.r. barrows