IA Question

[ypa]

What do you guys think about my IA question: To what extent did the Enabling Act of 1933 consolidate Hitler's position as absolute ruler (Führer) of Germany? Is it too broad? Too narrow? How should I structure my argument? Also, where can I find any primary documents and historiography for my IA? 

[Emmi]

It sounds fine to me. If you want to narrow this down further you can look at selected years leading up to him becoming Fuhrer, but you should be okay.

 

Structure your argument the way that works best for you. The IA has a pretty set structure that should be followed based on what section you're in.

 

For Section B (the summary of evidence) you must list all of the relevant evidence you found for answering your question and should be about 600 words long. You can either do this in continuous prose, or in bullet points. If you do prose you can make each paragraph about a separate point, or if you do bullets you can separate each subpoint into small sections. No analysis here at all, just list the facts and figures you found. You may have a section about the enabling act, and then two-three other factors that you'll discuss as counterarguments. Then in Section D (the analysis) you analyze all of the facts you found. A good paragraph about each sub-area containing all of the facts from earlier is fine for this. Don't make any conclusions yet, just analyze. You can say stuff like "This wasn't as effective as the enabling act" or "this actually contributed more" but don't reach a conclusion yet, that's for the last section.

 

You can find sources online and at a local library. Databases are good, and your school or library may have subscriptions for you to use to find sources here. Historiography is any historian's input, so if you find a textbook with a section on Hitler's rise to power then using that historian's point of view would be an example of historiography. Primary sources often come from databases or be found online but they can be found as books as well. Just don't use Wikipedia unless you're browsing through the list of sources at the bottom of the article, which is another good place to check for sources.

[ypa]

Thank you so much, Emmi!! I feel much more confident about my IA ! I still have some questions, though. Should the IA be cited in MLA format or ALA? My teacher says that ALA is more suited for historical investigations, but I'm more used to MLA. Also, what kind of primary documents should I use? I have not found essays/articles/cartoons dealing with the Enabling Act itself; in contrast, I have already found two primary documents (an article and a cartoon) about the Night of the Long Knives. Lastly, how do I incorporate the historiography? I mean, I feel like I should present two contrasting perspectives, but none of the historians I have found seem to have sharply deviating opinions regarding Hitler's rise to power. Sorry for all the questions, I just want my IA to be as refined as possible. Once more, if you feel like you would be telling me too much, please do not reply to this post. Again, thanks for your help!

Edited August 6, 2014 by ypa

[Emmi]

1. You can use any citation format you want, as long as it's a recognized style and you stick to it throughout your IA (this means don't do the first half in MLA and the second half in APA). Use the style you're most comfortable with because you don't want to get in trouble for something dumb like citing incorrectly. I did MLA.

 

2. Use any sort of primary documents you want that contribute to your investigation. This goes for secondary sources as well. Don't just throw a primary source in to have one, if you want to include one you better talk about it in some way. My IA had a poster, letters, and some newspaper headlines for primary sources that I used in my summary of evidence section, and then I analyzed the letters in Section C (the OPVL section) because they were very important for my IA.

 

3. You incorporate historiography to use to back-up your own arguments when you analyze the data in your analysis section. Presumably you'll have listed the facts and quotes from these historians in your summary of evidence section, and now you'll bring in their arguments and analyze them. You can take a historian whose view you agree with and use their analysis to aid your own. Additionally you can use it as a counterexample and say something like "Although some historians such as ___ argue that _____, because of ____, arguments to the contrary suggest that ____." You should talk about opposing views if they exist in your IA, and definitely when you are doing your OPVL section if you choose to analyze a historian's argument for that. If there are no contrasting perspectives, is there a reason for that? You could discuss that as well somewhere in your IA.