EmanueleIta91 Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Hi all! I'm Emanuele, from Italy (you closed the presentation topic, so I don't know where to present myself) I think I have a problem with my Historical investigation... It should be a comparison between Nazi concentration camps and gulags but I'm finding very difficult to write a proper summary of evidence... I mean, I've seen lots of historical investigation, but I've never seen a comparison, and I have no idea of how the summary of evidence should be written... I mean, usually the summary of evidence should be the "easy" part and the analysis and the conclusion should be the difficult ones but... how should i proceed? Should I just divide it into two parts and do one about the history of the gulags and the other about the one of the c.c.? Thanks Emanuele Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperbole Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Well, you could either go through first one and then the other, or you could find certain points of comparison and go through them for each place. So either a structure of AAA-BBB or AB-AB-AB where A is, say, concentration camps and B gulags. Personally, I prefer the AB-AB-AB version, because it makes it easier to see the similarities and differences clearly, but I think either would be fine. Also, maybe you could limit your comparison to certain areas? The word limit is very restricting, and having a focused research question is part of the criteria. If you do, you should probably detail what points of comparisons you will do in the Plan of Investigation section. But that's just a suggestion. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmanueleIta91 Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Yeah, but I think you are referring to the analysis... My main concern is the summary of evidence... I mean, should I also divide the summary into two pieces, one for the gulags and one for the c.c.s? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperbole Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 No, I was referring to the Summary of Evidence. You will need to decide what points to bring up in the Summary too, no? It's definitely impossible to say something about "everything". What I meant was that you may want to group ideas about, say, how the prisoners were guarded in the two different systems together, despite being about two different systems. And then have another point about the sustenance in either system go right after that, followed by a point of how people were transported to both systems. That way you have each point of comparison clearly indicated. The alternative would be writing two small Summaries: one for the gulags, and one for the concentration camps, bringing up the relevant points for each system. How were you planning on structuring the Analysis part? Whatever way you choose there should work just fine for the Summary too; if nothing else it'll be consistent and not confuse the examiner so much. Clearly, at least, you must include both systems in your Summary of Evidence. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.