“Researching history is like collecting stamps, sewing a quilt, solving a jigsaw puzzle, and reading a murder mystery at the same time. Like any human endeavor, it is at times difficult, boring, and frustrating. But when the research all comes together, it is deeply, deeply satisfying. Have fun.” This is how the introduction to The Princeton Guide to Historical Research ends, and where the book begins its mission to make its readers the best historians possible. There will never be a one-size-fits-all approach to research, and there will never be a one-sided, unambiguously right approach to history. Rather, what the guide’s writer, Zachary M. Schrag, aims to help readers of all kinds —whether students, scholars, or professionals—learn several professional recommendations on how to do research, and through that, develop their own interpretations and answers to historical questions.
What then is “history”? Rather than merely relegating it to “the study of the past,” the author devotes an entire chapter to better defining it, arguing that history is ultimately the study of people and their choices. It’s still true that a person’s choices, even if they’re a major political leader, cannot automatically change the world, and impersonal factors do affect what happens, so that needs to be accounted for during the process of understanding. History combines analysis with storytelling, as seen through the more popular types of history books, often being about discovery and disaster of all kinds. But then, is the purpose of history, to gain knowledge, understood for the sake of later-applied learning, or the pleasure of appreciation? That’s only one question the book poses; to demonstrate the importance of inquiry, this book includes a chapter specifically devoted to asking questions.
Whether it’s a narrative complete with beginning-middle-end, or a thematic study, the theme must not be too broad, and the events must be more explicitly connected to make sure the entirety is coherent and the topic manageable. Scoping out topics in advance isn’t easy, but better clarifying what questions need answering and how the research design will help provide answers can help in gaining perspective. The research design doesn’t have to be 100% original either, even if it shouldn’t become dull and conventional; identifying comparable successful works creates a good foundation for length and structure, and also means that publishers can better find a niche in the market. A good narrative needs a strong protagonist/main cast; the “who” shapes the narrative, as does the “where,” using time periods to create a beginning-middle-end.
Sources are one of the hardest things for a historian to find, filter, sift through, and then shape into. There’s the immediate problem of sources not being available; people may have destroyed some of their own records or been unable to fully record events due to factors such as accessibility issues or the emotional content being too heavy to recreate. Accepting that the sources available will ultimately be a fragment of the entire experience is hard, but necessary; even those fragments can be biased based on who was recording or participating. Even gathering every possible source for a significant event is functionally impossible, and historians are best left to find the sets/collections of sources they can access more easily, such as archival collections or periodically published documents. Using multiple types of sources, whether primary or secondary, one kind of collection or another, and one type of format out of several possibilities, not only furthers the information but also hones the main subject. A large amount of the book is dedicated to several facets of sources and how the historian should find and approach them, and Schrag makes the difficult process much easier through clear ideas, directions, and targets.
And the endgame begins with executing the plan formed along the way of finding questions and sources for answers. A research project requires project management: organizing the order in which tasks should be done and ensuring that tasks are completed only once; maintaining momentum in the work; and using the tools of the trade to safeguard and back up information. Notes taken need to identify the source (to better reference the original materials), be distinct from others’ writing by using personality while distinguishing direct quotes, involve the right amount of detail—and writers should figure out what software, formatting, and records work for them in terms of saving their notes.
Organizing history books, however, doesn’t require a particularly original format. Readers approach books with certain expectations of format and styling based on general conventions, and meeting expectations help an author convey their message. A five-paragraph essay formatted by introduction-major points of evidence-conclusion is the fetus of an eventual longer work that follows the same pattern, and both can be organized and re-organized at the necessary parts of the project. If an author doesn’t care about certain information relating to the project, readers probably won’t, so that’s one less thing to include in the work. But, regardless of any organizational format applied to a thesis statement consciously or unconsciously, the format can and should ultimately come second to the goal of telling the story in the history.
The question/balance of how much of a historical narrative should be told as a story versus how much should be told as a science has been debated for a very long time, and there is no indisputable answer as to which option is better. Real people can become larger than life when their character and role are recounted as a character in a bigger story—although, as part of the “keeping what’s relevant,” make sure the people that make their way onto the page are important players in the story being told. Converting a train of events into a story might begin with the ending: since real life never ends, choosing where the “protagonist’s” narrative ends can set the tone for the rest of the book. The trajectory of a story can make a strong argument/thesis, without even needing to state it in the manuscript. When writing, authors should think of their favorite stories (whether in books/films,/etc) and try to channel some of those techniques into their work.
“Some people will misunderstand your work, some will misuse it, and many will ignore it. You yourself will probably find flaws in the work, long after it is possible to correct them. But every competent work of history is a contribution to that infinite fandom: the shared human experience.” The experience of The Princeton Guide to Historical Research, in its shared wealth of detail and guidance, is not only informative but also thoroughly fulfilling, helping an author become a better researcher, writer, and scholar.
by Grace Dietz
