Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Historiography

Recommended Posts

Welll to get the best marks in History, the mark scheme asks for some sort of Historiography.

I just wanted to know how you guys do it?! I've heard two conflicting views.

One teacher has said to say for example, AJP Taylor's view on Hitler was that...etc.
The other has said you need to be like, Some historians say...but other historians believe....etc.

How do you guys do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My teacher tells us to write stuff like "according to historian Walter LaFeber, blah blah blah", i.e. name the historians (I think this is what you are asking, whether to name the historians?). Which kind of stinks because there are so many of them, many with crazy historian names. My favourite are William Appleman Williams and David Brion Davis (one wonders why they go with their middle name :)). Edited by Agneisse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well you are supposed to give alternative points of views and if you can name historians (Taylor is obviously the major one that everyone names but you have to name the right view he had) then awesome. HOWEVER if you can't think of a name DONT make one up. Just say "certain historians" believe such and such. Don't put in names just for the sake of it. Argue your points and if you can name historians then good, but if not, just answer your question as you would, don't get hung up on having to have a certain historian backing up your arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is more important to actually understand the different viewpoints, than just drop names around. You won't get better points (at least our teacher has strongly said this) by simply inserting names of different historians. In most of my essays I get the historiography rather easily in, because in many cases it is actually hard to give "the one" right answer. Therefore when I give my arguments I also look at the different ways in which they can be interpreted. Sometimes I include some straightforward historiographical debate (for example if there are more revisionist, conservative and some other kinds of views).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I have been told is not so much to focus on the names as the perspectives. Understand them properly before talkig about them too, if one perspective is too complicated choose another one and work it into your essay instead. Just make sure that it is not to similar to the first. Also do not simply state WHAT happened without saying WHY. The different perspectives only come into play here. There is no debate that WWI started, but was it Germany's fault for offering the blank check? Did the French want revenge for Alsace-Lorraine that badly? Maybe Russia is to blame for offering support for the Serbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive been told that the essay itself requires that you show you are aware of the different perspectives on the issue rather than throwing names and everything, however my teacher says that names are better than just stating ''some historians state that...'', but he also remarks that if we dont know a specific historian its okay to just expose the different views and discuss on them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My teachers advice us to do BOTH, there is a need to mention conflicting historians' names...but we also need to offer a general one, for example considering the october revolution, some consider it a coup'd etat while some consider it a popular revolution...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Welll to get the best marks in History, the mark scheme asks for some sort of Historiography.

I just wanted to know how you guys do it?! I've heard two conflicting views.

One teacher has said to say for example, AJP Taylor's view on Hitler was that...etc.

The other has said you need to be like, Some historians say...but other historians believe....etc.

How do you guys do it?

Well technically both are correct, however the first way is deffinaly more accurate. It is always better to use the historians name so that the markers know that you know you stuff, and also so they know your just amking up random opinions. In an essay that are not in an exam it is vital that you do it this way. However if you are in an exam and just can't remember the historians name then you can say "a noted hisotian". Just remember that the markers use positive marking and not negative marking. That is they look for points to give, not to take away. As long as you have something you'll get at lest some marks for showing you know how to do it.

It is also really good to give more than one historian's point of view for each point that you are commenting on. Also when you do this make supre you are using OPVL [origin, purpose, value and limitation] to comment, or make a jusgement on the validity and worth of the veiw of that particular historian. However just remeber not to use the word 'bias' when your doing this. Apparently it's not a great word to use... although im not sure why....

Hope this helped

-soph x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.