Historical
Investigation Dos and Don’ts
Process
DO
§ Read the History-Schmistory section about the Historical Investigation and samples of successful past student work of the type that you would like to write.
§ Choose one “tree” in the assigned or chosen “forest” (a broad topic that interests you) to “get your arms around”–that is, to investigate in depth.
§ Proceed with background reading about your general topic until you can specify a precise issue.
§ Examine a single event, in a limited time-frame–usually not years or decades. The “historical investigation” assignment corresponds to a very short essay (the length of section C)!
§ Think twice before you decide to do a comparison of two events or people. It can be hard to develop two topics satisfactorily in such little space. The same goes for broad social or intellectual history.
§ Check your topic with me and get my approval for it.
§ Change your topic as soon as you realize it is too broad, or you don’t have access to good sources.
§ Use this Dos and Don’ts document as a check-off list as you work through the paper. You are required to submit your completed check-off list as part of the assignment!
§ To get best value of the checking-off requirement, I recommend you fulfill it as you progress through the project. Put an “O” next to items that you have read and understood, but not completed. Put a check through the “O”s as you actually carry out that step.
DON’T
§ Take on a topic that is too broad to be treated effectively within the word limit. If a book has been written about it, it’s probably too broad for you. (There are exceptions. See History-Schmistory.)
§ Neglect to plan to complete all deliverables associated with this assignment: a digital version submitted to Turnitin.com, a printed version, a filled-in self-evaluation using Mr. Ergueta’s criteria, this Dos and Don’ts sheet with your own check-offs point by point, and an IB cover sheet CS-HI, completely filled in and signed by you.
Title Page and Paper Format
DO
§ Give your paper a title!
§ State the word count clearly and accurately on the title page. The word limits are 1,500–2,000 words.
§ Use page numbering.
§ Double space and use a font size of 12.
§ Use a “standard‟ font such as Times New Roman, Calibri or Arial.
§ Use default-sized margins without any added border.
DON’T
§ Use the research question as the paper title. It is not an accepted practice in scholarly writing.
A. Plan of the investigation
DO
§ State clearly “a research question, and describe a method and scope of the investigation that are fully developed and closely focused on the research question” (IB rubric). At the center should be a question, not a thesis!
§ State your research question and explain why you chose it: its significance at the time it happened, the implications it may have for today, your personal interest in the topic, etc. Provide brief background context. (E.g., Paragraph 1: "This study will seek to answer the question 'X'. This question is significant because..." )
§ Explain clearly how your chosen research question helps to clarify the guiding question or issue: For example: It examines a representative instance of the broader phenomenon. Or it tests a proposed interpretation against the best currently available evidence today, etc. (See History-Schmistory for a more detailed look at this question.)
§ Explain what you will be looking for in the historical record that will dispose you to decide the issue one way or the other: Which “if-then” test will you apply to sort things out, and what pattern of evidence will you take as confirmation for one hypothesis or another? (E.g., Paragraph 2: "In order to answer this question, I have structured my analysis section [d] using the following method:...")
§ Describe the nature of the sources you will use, and your rationale for why those kinds of sources will be an effective basis for answering your specificquestion. (E.g., Paragraph 3: "In order to keep the scope of the study manageable, I have made use of a variety of carefully selected sources, in particular the following:...")
§ Frame your research precisely, in terms of time, place and other relevant limits (e.g., “I’ll examine Palestinian political life between the two World Wars, 1918-1939”.)
§ Generally, make sure that you define the research focus (1) clearly (2) broadly enough to yield interesting results (3) narrowly enough to be manageable.
§ Keep this section to 100-150 words, about 1/3 to 2/3 of a page.
§ Be clear, not lengthy. Cut unnecessary verbiage.
§ Review what you have written for this section after you complete a full draft of every other section, and make sure the two are coherent by changing one of them until they are.
DON’T
§ Offer “books, articles and websites on the topic” as your method of investigation–this will earn you the minimal score!
§ Specify what your essay is NOT about unless the reader has some natural reason to believe it might be about that.
§
B. Summary of the Evidence
DO
§ Use this section to provide “the facts, the facts, the facts” (IB History Chief Examiner). But only facts relevant to answering the research question. If there are points of evidence in this section that you don’t later use in section D, take them out.
§ This section should have as little student voice, opinion or analysis as possible–that is what section D is for.
§ Treat this as the analog to a datalog in a scientific experiment.
§ Model this on an encyclopedia article. Give the reader an overview of the topic (events, issues, personalities, etc.) Structure it into paragraphs by chronology or theme, not by source or your own sequence of notetaking. Try to tell a story.
§ Use this section to make the key events clear–this is essential, and would be out of place in any other section. Often it can help to describe the initial situation, then explain what happened from there.
§ Include the “Who-What-Where”—but not the ‘Why’ or ‘So What’.
§ This is a good place to introduce the main historiographical approaches to your topic, usually in a separate subsection.
§ Present evidence that is clearly (1) relevant, (2) well-organized (3) in full, clear connected sentences, (4) accurate, (5) and impartially stated.
§ Use a minimum of 5, and up to around 10, scholarly sources. A main evaluation criterion for this section is: Does the writer have an “adequate research base”–has he/she consulted appropriate and sufficient sources?
§ Try hard to include the recognized, “standard” treatments of your chosen subject areas among your sources. Find out which works are considered “standard” from a historiographical book or article, book reviews, book introductions devoted to a review of the literature, or Amazon.com user reviews.
§ In any case, use at least a couple of focused works by top historians of the subject being studied.
§ If possible, include among your sources articles from scholarly journals (use Questia, or JSTOR to access them).
§ Try to provide sources of different types: photos, statistics, interviews, journal entries, websites, etc.
§ Include if possible a couple of primary sources.
§ Use a “bullet point” format if you insist, but make sure each point is intelligible and there is a reasonable flow from point to point.
§ Footnote every point, in Chicago citation format. Without references, the highest score you can get on this section is a “D”. If you make one mistake in referencing, examiners are allowed to overlook it. Beyond that, points will be taken off.
§ Paraphrase points of evidence (put them into your own words) in most cases. Quote verbatim only when there is value in preserving the original wording, such as with a primary source or a particularly illuminating quote.
§ Put charts, illustrations, and document excerpts as appendices (which will not be included in the total word count), give them a brief description in the text, and cite them in a footnote to their text description.
§ Remember that the second and later times you cite a source require a much shorter citation format than the first. LOOK THIS UP and DO IT!
§ Cite page numbers in books and articles.
§ Cite two dates for Internet sources: of updating and consultation.
§ Keep this section to 500-600 words, or 2 printed pages or a little more
DON’T
§ Include in this section historians’ interpretations of the key points of evidence you offer, or discussion about the validity or reliability of possible interpretations. That should go in D.
§ Include background material or evidence that is related to the general topic but does not reflect the specific issue addressed by the research question.
§ Format this as a list of quotations from historical sources listed as a series of bullet points. The IBO in fact officially allows this, but IB examiners will probably mark you down for it on the grounds of disconnectedness, or lack of flow.
§ Rely on only one or two sources.
§ Rely on Internet sources except for universally recognized educational sites, such as the National Archive, PBS, etc.
§ Cite any encyclopedias or textbooks. Use them only to obtain an overview for yourself, early in your research.
§ Be redundant, by doing analysis or interpretation in this section that you then repeat in the Analysis.
§ Try to get around the word count by putting substantive points of your central argument into footnotes.
§ However, you are allowed to put illustrative materials, such as excerpts from source documents, into footnotes.
C. Evaluation of Sources
DO
§ Evaluate sources that are central to your research, with “explicit reference to their origin, purpose, value and limitation” (applying the full O-P-L-V analytical framework).
§ Focus on exactly two sources.
§ Ensure beforehand that both sources chosen are clearly substantial and important.
§ Secondary sources should offer both (1) depth of substance as well as (2) an authoritative standpoint.
§ Ideally, choose two sources that represent different perspectives on a central issue, with different implications about it. Ideally, use this section to help you to reconcile the two accounts. You can then apply the results of your evaluation here in your Analysis section.
§ Present the two sources' origins in such a way as to establish both their (1) basis of credibility and (2) particular viewpoint on the key issue.
§ Evaluate a full source and not simply an “excerpt” from a source.
§ Use Internet search and other investigative methods to learn enough about your sources (See “Research” section of History-Schmistory)
§ Describe briefly not just a source’s origins and purpose, but also the key evidence/ interpretation that it puts forward that is relevant to your investigation.
§ Be succinct. It’s fine to write: “Origins are…. Purpose is…etc”. But use full sentences rather than be unclear.
§ Unfold key attributes knowable about your source. Infer attributes where appropriate (e.g., Senator Henry Clay was a man; he was powerful, and he was probably rich). When it is not obvious why you infer a purpose or other attribute, explain why.
§ Assess each source’s limitations and value for usefulness, historical significance and reliability.
§ Untangle, where relevant, whether your source “informs to persuade” or “persuades to inform”.
§ Make specific reference to a source’s origin and purpose in assessing its historical significance and reliability.
§ If appropriate, draw a conclusion about which of two contending sources appears more reliable, but don’t report it in this section, report it in D.
§ Remember that if a source has a bias, the appropriate response is not to discard it completely, but rather, to seek corroborating evidence.
§ Remember that any “point of view” has, by definition, the drawback of not offering other points of view.
§ Remember that everyone is a “fish that doesn’t question the color of the water it’s swimming in”, with a world-view bias.
§ Consider this section the analog to the “Possible Sources of Errors” section in a laboratory report for a scientific experiment.
§ Keep this section to 250-400 words, or 1-2 typewritten pages.
DON’T
§ Just mention an author’s name without offering her credentials.
§ Waste your essay word limits on tearing apart a “straw man”. If a source is not valuable in some important way, you should not be using it at all.
§ Assume that a secondary source is not as good as primary source, or that a primary source is unproblematic.
§ Offer generalities about a source’s category of evidence, which assume that generic descriptors of value and limitation are necessarily representative of the source being evaluated.
§ Confuse “value” with “values”. This is not the place to discuss the political or ethical preferences/principles of your sources, but rather, their usefulness and reliability with regard to your research project.
D. Analysis