Historical method The discipline of history is often regarded as descriptive rather than analytical, engaged in describing events This is not fair. Contemporary historical research can be very theoretically and methodologically advanced However, the discipline of history has also provided us with a methodological toolbox, which is not new It was developed in Germany and Scandinavia in the 19 th and early 20 th centuries It focuses on sources, and how to use and evaluate them This methodology, called criticism of the sources (in German: Quellenkritik) is also very useful in social science In fact, it is essential for the majority of research in Politics and IR Sadly, however, the awareness of this toolbox is limited

Two main types of source 1) Narrative sources (accounts) –Witness accounts, for example reported in newspapers and autobiographies. 2) Remnants (remains) –Documents, such as minutes, written orders etc. In practice the distinction between the two is difficult. Example: Treaty of Versailles –A remnant that provides information about the demands and conditions set on Germany in 1919 –But the treaty also states that Germany started the war in As such it is not a remnant, it is a narrative account, from five years after the event –It may well be that it is correct that Germany started World War I, but we cannot rely on the Treaty of Versailles to prove that, we will have to start looking more closely at what happened in 1914 – not at 1919 This is an illustration of how the same document can be a narrative source and a remnant at the same time

Main criteria when evaluating sources (1): Contemporaneousness –The date of the source. The closer to the actual event, the better The human memory is usually more accurate the nearer the time of the event Of course, it is often not possible to find sources from exactly the same time as an event. Not even from a relatively short period after the event But a useful guideline is that one should try to find sources as contempory as possible. And, other things being equal, that the most contempory sources take precedence over others

Main criteria when evaluating sources (2): Tendency –Sources emanating from writers with an agenda, with certain open or hidden values, with clear associations with a ruler, a key actor in a historical event, a political party and so on, we call tendentious Many sources are completely and openly partisan. On other occasions the tendency is less open. We need to know more about the source, how it came about and if there is any particular interest or agenda behind it. But the hidden tendency can completely distort the account of events, and the source will be very problematical if we cannot discover any possible tendency

Tendency (cont.) Tendentious sources are obviously problematical But that is not to say that they as such are useless. They can be used in a number of ways 1) They may contain information that is not affected by the tendency 2) Statements of fact that go against the tendency could be expected to be more reliable 3) If you have access to sources of different tendencies, they can be matched against each other. Two sources of opposing or different tendencies can corroborate each other 4) A tendentious source can be of interest, not as a narrative source about what happened, but as a remnants of its time

Main criteria when evaluating sources (3): Dependency –The value of a source is virtually zero if it is solely based on other sources that we are already using –Dependency can vary from outright plagiarism to unconscious repetition of facts based on a different source Even if you can corroborate something with two contemporary sources, each with a different tendency, it is still not good enough, if these two sources are not independent of each other

Thus… …we have three key criteria: –contemporaneousness –tendency –dependency When trying to establish a fact or event, we should ideally strive for sources that are: –as contemporary to the event as possible –of no or differing tendency –independent of other sources

In practice… …this is often a tall order It is often not possible to rigorously apply the three criteria just discussed But that does not mean that they are useless Almost without exception in our research, we come into situations where he have to compare and evaluate different sources… …and then our history methods toolbox can be very useful It is often useful to at least consider, and in our texts discuss, contemporaneousness, tendency and dependency issues regarding our sources

Diary notes Usually contemporary, mostly a couple of days after an event Often of very strong tendency, but if not intended for public reading perhaps more open to admit own shortcomings Can depend on other sources (hearsay, what has been read in papers etc)

Letters, correspondence Same as diary notes: Usually contemporary, mostly a couple of days after an event. Often of very strong tendency, but if not intended for public reading perhaps more open to admit own shortcomings. Can depend on other sources (hearsay, what has been read in papers etc) Letters and correspondence also depends on who the intended recipient is

Eyewitness accounts Not always contemporary Often tendentious Dependency problems vary. Important to ascertain whether witness saw or heard things personally, or is relaying information from someone else

Autobiographies Often written a long time after the event Usually of very strong tendency Can sometimes depend on hearsay

Newspaper articles Usually (but not always!) contemporary Can have strong tendencies (not always openly declared) Can sometimes have dependency problems (based on news bureau reports, reports from single or few correspondents), and this is not always obvious

Official documents Usually contemporary Can have strong tendency Dependency varies

Academic accounts Usually lacking in contemporaneousness Not supposed to be tendentious – but be sceptical! Can have dependency problems – but they should be clearly accounted for!

This list of sources… …is of course not exhaustive. You could end up in situations no covered by this presentation Ideally, you should try to find as many sources as possible to cover your account In practice this is not possible. You will often be lucky to find any source at all But even then it is useful to think about the three criteria discussed here. Bear your history toolbox in mind when you draw conclusions from your sources Awareness of the toolbox could save you from making too far reaching conclusions from the sources you have Ultimately, this will put you in a better position when facing your examiners