ilovepotato Posted July 10, 2013 Report Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Hey! So I'm doing my EE in history and I'm evaluating how successful the French Resistance was during WWII (I'm saying they weren't actually unified and couldn't have succeeded without the help of the Allies and all). Essentially, I'm shattering the "myth" that revolves around the Resistance. Anyway, the problem is I have no idea how one should best organize an EE in history. I've read examples, and it seems like they all organized it somewhat thematically. (i.e. someone did it on the decisiveness of Spanish intervention during WWII and organized it by military, economy, covert operations, etc.). I was thinking chronologically, so:1. Background - fall of France in 19402. Early resistance (1940-1942)3. Late resistance (1942-1944)4. Aftermath - how the myth evolved and allBut would that be too narrative? That's my concern because I can't really do much analysis in the background. Help is appreciated! Thanks Extra question: I remember for the IA in history, there is a section for pure narrative background and a section for analysis. Is this the same for the EE or do we analyze all throughout? Edited July 10, 2013 by ilovepotato Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjy Posted July 10, 2013 Report Share Posted July 10, 2013 NO! Do not do what you did for the IA for your EE. It's completely different. If you can't analyse chronologically then do it thematically. For example, mine was on the results of the 1983 general election in the UK and why Thatcher won and split it into the following themes:1) Social and economic policies of the Thatcher government2) Weakness of the opposition and formation of a new political party3) British success in the Falklands. This made analysis much easier. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak18 Posted July 10, 2013 Report Share Posted July 10, 2013 DO NOT follow the IA rubric or IA format for EE. In your EE, you need to have analysis throughout. And I arranged my EE chronologically because it seemed to flow better that way. But thematically works just as well, if not better. And the background info generally doesn't have too much analysis; i remembered it didn't for me. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilovepotato Posted July 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2013 I'm getting the impression that I should probably avoid doing it chronologically as that puts my essay at risk of sounding too narrative with too little analysis. Is that right ? Also, how is the analysis really supposed to look? How do you incorporate historians in there? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak18 Posted July 10, 2013 Report Share Posted July 10, 2013 Well it really depends on your essay. If you're not focusing on themes then chronological seems to be a better option. The analysis is not only what historians say, but also your analysis of the information you've collected. But after stating a fact, you say 'historians also claim...' or if you state a fact, and you want to argue against it you'd say 'but historians have stated..' you get the point 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.