Timeline of Historical Knowledge - TOK

pdf

School

Purdue University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

43200

Subject

History

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by ConstableScience9679

STEPS in the historical method (PRODUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE) : 1. Question for inquiry / topic ■ Often stems from observations made in the present ■ Seeks historical truth [knowledge claim justified by an appeal to the available evidence] 2. Identifying relevant facts and ideas (evidence) ● Construction of knowledge is “highly situated” and necessarily “selective” → methods and source selection take place in relation to the interest and selection of a person living today who looks back and tries to understand the past with the benefit of hindsight ● What is relevant evidence? Evidence that is pertinent to the scope of a historian's inquiry. ○ Problem: Wide range of the source material available, historians must make judgements on provenance (who wrote it and why), bias influencing selection for inclusion ○ How do historians ‘weigh’ the importance of the evidence? ● Primary sources (any object or written source from the time or based on the time being studied) ● Secondary sources (a second-hand account of a historical event) 3. Critically reflecting on source materials ● Evidence guides interpretation ( Responsible historians do not force evidence into a narrative) ● Provence, production, context, form, content, relationship with other evidence ● Historians ought to trust their sources once they critically examine reliability 4. Synthesis: placing together difference parts or elements (evidence) to form a connected whole / determine what the evidence suggests ● Interpret and provide a historical narrative → coherent, well-justified account ● Imagination of what must’ve been the case based on the evidence ● Problem: most vulnerable here to their own biases ● Grounded in a context or paradigm which suggests how the events should link together (Feminist v. Marxist) a. Comparative approach (general conclusions from a study of a range of X such as civil wars) - problem - unlikely to be simultaneous 2. Counterfactual approach ( What if – 9/11 attack didn’t take place?) - comparisons between real past and one that didn’t take place

3. ‘Outside approach’ - emphasizes physical and geographical elements 4. ‘Inside approach’ - thoughts, motives, desires, fears, plans and reasons of those present 5. ‘Pluralistic’ - variety of perspectives 6. History from above - “top-down” (leaders, rulers, power, etc/) 7. History from below - “bottom up” perspectives of ordinary people 8. Economic, social, political, military, etc. 5. Presentation 1. Historical narrative 2. Language in presentation (ex: Do I describe the battle with "attack" or "charge?") 3. Mediums: articles, books, podcasts, documentaries AFTER PRODUCTION ● Dissemination 1. Mediums: articles, books, podcasts, documentaries 2. News, popular culture (movies, TV shows, historical fiction) 3. Schools (curriculum) 4. Museums, archives, websites, videos, etc. ● Consumption 1. How do we [knowers/laypeople] consume or acquire knowledge about history? ■ Schools ■ Internet → social media, news sources, websites, etc. ■ Word of Mouth → Oral History and sharing between laypeople (Think: how do you know about your family and cultural history?) ■ Texts → textbooks, biographies, historical fiction ■ Media: movies, TV shows, etc. Discuss with a peer the following questions and record your answers as a draft for your History IA reflection section (submit the answers to this assignment): ● How have you applied steps in the historical method to your history IA? ○ I began with a specific historical question or topic that I wanted to investigate, which was based on observations and interests in a particular historical period or event. Identifying relevant facts and ideas (evidence): I conducted extensive research to identify relevant primary and secondary sources. This involved selecting sources that were pertinent to my research question while also considering issues like provenance, bias,

and the significance of the evidence. Critically reflecting on source materials: I carefully evaluated the reliability and credibility of the sources I collected, taking into account factors such as the source's origin, context, and the intentions behind its creation. Synthesis: I synthesized the information gathered from various sources to construct a coherent and well-justified historical narrative. I was aware of my own biases and tried to approach the evidence objectively, considering multiple perspectives and paradigms. Presentation: I presented my research findings in a structured historical narrative, paying attention to language and terminology choices to ensure an accurate representation of the events and contexts I was studying. Dissemination: I shared my research through my IA report, which is a common medium for presenting historical research in an academic context. ● What are the challenges facing historians? How do they differ from the challenges facing a scientist or a mathematician? ○ Selectivity of evidence: Historians must deal with a vast array of source material, and the selection of relevant evidence can be subjective. Unlike scientists who can conduct controlled experiments, historians often work with incomplete or biased sources, making it challenging to draw definitive conclusions. Interpretation and subjectivity: Historical interpretation is inherently subjective. Historians must grapple with the complexities of human behavior, motivations, and cultural contexts. This subjectivity is less prevalent in the sciences and mathematics, where objective laws and principles govern phenomena. Bias in sources: Historical sources can be biased or unreliable, and historians must critically assess and navigate these biases when constructing their narratives. Scientists and mathematicians deal more with objective data and empirical evidence. Complexity of context: Historical events occur within intricate social, political, and cultural contexts. Understanding these contexts requires a deep understanding of human societies, which is distinct from the more abstract principles studied in science and mathematics. Lack of experimentation: Historians cannot experiment with the past in the same way that scientists conduct experiments in controlled environments. They rely on the evidence left behind by past events and people. In contrast, scientists and mathematicians aim to discover and explain universal laws and principles, often relying on empirical evidence and controlled experiments. Their challenges revolve around hypothesis testing, data collection, and mathematical abstraction, which differ from the historical method's challenges. ● What is the difference between bias and source selection?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

○ Bias and source selection are distinct but interconnected aspects of historical research: Bias refers to the presence of prejudice, favoritism, or partiality in the content or interpretation of a source. Bias can arise from the perspective, motives, or beliefs of the source creator or historian. It can affect how information is presented or interpreted, leading to a skewed representation of historical events. Source selection, on the other hand, is the process of choosing which sources to include or exclude from a historical inquiry. Historians must select sources that are relevant to their research question, reliable, and representative of the historical period or event under study. Source selection involves assessing factors like provenance, credibility, and significance. While bias can be inherent in a source due to the viewpoint of its creator, source selection is a conscious choice made by historians to include or exclude certain sources based on their judgment of relevance and reliability. Historians aim to minimize bias in their interpretation of sources through critical analysis and by considering multiple perspectives. ● Is it possible to describe historical events in an unbiased way? ○ Achieving complete objectivity in describing historical events is challenging, if not impossible, due to the inherent subjectivity and complexity of historical research. Historians bring their own perspectives, biases, and interpretations to the table, which can influence how they construct narratives. Additionally, historical sources themselves may be biased or incomplete. However, while complete objectivity may be elusive, historians strive for a degree of impartiality and fairness in their work. They can mitigate bias by: Engaging in critical analysis: Historians critically assess the reliability, context, and motives of their sources to identify and account for bias. Considering multiple perspectives: Historians aim to incorporate various viewpoints and sources to present a more balanced and nuanced picture of historical events. Transparency: Historians should be transparent about their research methods and acknowledge their own potential biases or limitations in their interpretations. WHY DOES HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE MATTER? ● Historical Knowledge & the Knower ○ Understanding history contributes to personal identity & shared memory ○ Enriches our understanding of human nature ○ Gives us a vision of the future ○ Defense against propaganda, fake news, government corruption / distinguish between bias, propaganda, & fact

○ Plays a role in the formation and reinforcement of political views and policies ○ Provides a range of perspectives ○ History tends to be constructed through the interaction of individual historians ㅡ there is less emphasis on collaborative work than in the natural sciences