History 1302 Research Project Custom Essay

History 1302 Research Project

Select a Topic. Your topic must be relevant to the scope of this class, Reconstruction through the Present Day. Below are some possible approaches to picking a topic. While you may elect to go outside these ideas, all projects outside these guidelines must be approved by the instructor.
Technology and Warfare. Select one of the majors wars covered in the course (WWI, WWII, Vietnam) and research how technology advanced during and impacted the war. This may include weapons and/or medical advancements.
Propaganda and Advertising. Select a particular time period (WWII, The Red Scare, The Sixties, The Civil Rights Movement) and research the use of advertising and propaganda of that period. Consider how it both impacted and reflected the culture.
Films. Historical films are particularly popular. Analyze a film that captures a historical event for both accuracy and relevance. Do not just fact check the film; consider as well how it captures/does not capture the time period. Also consider the time period in which the film was made and how that might impact the version of events.
Minorities. Select a minority group discussed in class (African Americans, Native Americans, Women, Chinese, Japanese, Jews, Hispanics) and research a particular even in their history that you feel represents their interaction with American history. Avoid just summarizing the event. Look at what came before and after the event, how that impacted the minority, and how those elements resonate in modern society.
Conduct research on the selected topic. The final project will require four academic sources and one image. At least one of these sources must be from an Academic Journal found through TEXShare. Although the textbook may be used as a source, it will not count as part of the four required sources. Students MAY NOT use any of the following:Wikipedia, About.com, Ehow, 123HelpMe, Cliffsnotes, Sparknotes, or any other internet source that is not academically linked, ie. presented by a university or historical organization.
For tips on finding and using sources, please see the Conducting Historical Research Guide.

III. Write a 1000 to 1200 word research paper over the information gathered. This should include a multiple paragraph essay and works cited page. For specific guidelines on how to structure the essay, see Writing a Research Paper.

Submit the essay to the appropriate drop box by deadline listed on Schedule.
TexShare Login—Username: RCC5134, Password: TX79720

How to Write a Research Paper Lecture
Writing a Research Paper

Arguments and the thesis: The best papers are not droll surveys of historical data, but arguments. That is, they stake out a thesis (a conclusion or historical argument) and try to support it. Arguing a point provides focus for your paper; it engages you as the author and challenges you to think critically.

Developing your topic: The best way to devise a thesis to argue is to pose yourself questions about subjects that interest you. How did print and film propaganda shape the war effort during World War II? How did this impact American society overall? These are examples of questions or problems that can lead you into theses. You start out by looking into the question you set for yourself. As you learn more, you refine your question until you develop the problem that will guide you through your paper-writing. Ideally, your question will be interesting enough to let you do a sophisticated paper, yet narrow enough to be manageable. I can help you develop a problem and narrow your topic once you have expressed an interest in a particular time or subject.

Sources: The sources you will use will provide the raw data from which you will seek to answer the question you pose for yourself. Some sources are more challenging to get and use than others; be realistic about what you are willing to do.

PAPER WRITING STEPS

Here are the steps involved in writing a paper.

Start out: Develop a problem and select primary sources in consultation with me.

Find primary sources: Locate the primary sources you will use. Consult with me if you cannot find useful sources.

Research: Take notes from your primary sources. It is best to do this on note cards, so that you can arrange notes by topic when you prepare to write. Make sure to note on each card the source for the note, so you can cite it later.

Analyze notes: After you have taken notes, look over all the note cards you have compiled so far. Do this even if you have just started taking notes. Look over your notes, observing recurring patterns in your data, or interesting questions that pop up. The point is that you must analyze your notes as you do your research. Constant analysis will suggest themes to look for when researching, and will help you develop your argument. Do not wait to analyze your notes until you have finished taking them; it doesn’t work like that.

Prepare outline and develop thesis: After analyzing your notes, prepare an outline of your paper. An outline is your tentative scheme for organizing and writing the paper. The main purpose of the outline is to determine the structure of your paper. Without an overall sense of how the component parts of your research will address your topic (and hence support your thesis), you will have a very difficult time writing your paper. Through preparation of an outline, you should begin to get a sense of the argument you want to make. This argument is your tentative thesis, or hypothesis. You should keep your thesis in mind at all times when writing; you should ask yourself if your material supports it, or if you need to modify it.

Write first draft: Once you have a good collection of notes (you needn’t have finished all of your research) and an outline, you should write a first draft of your final paper. Arrange your notes according to your outline. Your paragraphs should correspond to your outline, and each should advance your goal of supporting your hypothesis. A first draft will challenge you to articulate ideas that have been floating around in your head. You will probably realize that what you thought were simple ideas are actually complex, and are more difficult to express than you expected. That is normal; most of us don’t realize how smart we really are.

Write final draft: Evaluate and edit your first draft. This is a crucial step! After reconsidering your paper, write your final draft, revising your first draft and incorporating the extra research you have completed. Throughout the paper writing process, the most important (and challenging) task will be to constantly edit and revise your work.

TAKING NOTES

Your research paper is based on your reading from different sources, so your notes must be sufficiently complete to be meaningful after the source has been read (or interviewed or heard or seen). Since you have to document (in-text citation) your paper, your notes must contain adequate resource information. Notecard method (using 3″x5″ or 4″x6″ index cards) is a convenient and flexible method of organizing your research. When you take notes, write only one note on each card. In addition to the note itself, write:

a. in the upper left hand corner of the card, the appropriate category or topic/subtopic to which the note refers.

b. in the upper right hand corner, the name of the source.

c. the page number(s) of that part (or those parts) of the source that you have used in taking the note. If you have used more than one page, indicate your page numbers in such a way as that when you start to write your paper, you can tell from what page each part of your note comes, for you may not choose to include the whole note.

This separate card method will make organizing your information much easier. When you come to outline and to organize your paper, you will be able to sort your notes in any way you please–by subtopic for example–and to arrange them in any order you please. You may even find that you want to recategorize some of your notes. Such flexibility is impossible if you take notes in a notebook. You will also be able to footnote your paper without having to refer to the sources themselves again.

In taking the note itself, paraphrase or quote your source or do both; but do only one at a time. Paraphrases and quotations require special care. Anything between paraphrase and quotation is not acceptable: you either paraphrase or quote, but do nothing in between. To paraphrase a source (or part of a source) is to reproduce it in words and word orders substantially different from the original. When you paraphrase well, you keep the sense of the original but change the language, retaining some key words, of course, but otherwise using your own words and your own sentence patterns. As a rough guide, if you copy more than three words in a row from a source, these words should be in quotation marks.

To quote a source (or part of a source) is to reproduce it exactly. When you quote well, you keep both the sense and language of the original, retaining its punctuation, its capitalization, its type face (roman or italic), and its spelling (indeed, even its misspelling).

REVISING THE DRAFT

1. After you have written the first draft, you should revise it. You should not begin this revision immediately after you have finished the first draft. Let your paper sit for awhile and then come back to it with a fresh view. As the researcher and writer, you have been too close to your work. You need a little distance before you look at the paper again. You might want to change some of the original organization, or delete parts which are tangential or insignificant to your main argument. You may also need to do some additional research and strengthen your arguments.

2. Think about how you have arranged the arguments in your paper. Does the paper’s organization offer the most effective arrangement of your ideas and evidence to support the theme?

3. Reread the topic sentence for each paragraph. Does the sentence make your point and does the information in the paragraph support it?

4. Be sure that you have placed your topic in its historical context, preferably in the first few pages of the paper.

5. Locate your argument among those offered in the secondary historical works which you have read. At this point, you should have some idea of how your approach/theme adds to the body of historical literature on your topic. How have other historians treated the subject? What is different and/or unique about your approach/theme by comparison to the way previous historians have treated the topic? (Bear in mind that I realize that you have not completed an exhaustive analysis of all of the secondary works on your topic. In fact, you have probably only read a few articles and/or books. I just want you to locate your work in relation to the secondary material you have read.)

6. Think about your introduction and conclusion. Remember that these are crucial to the paper and you should take some time when writing them. The introduction not only interests the reader in getting beyond the first few pages but it also presents the focus of your argument. The conclusion is your chance to make a lasting impression on your audience; take advantage of it!

7. The final revision of your paper should include a check of overall organization, style and composition, spelling, proof of thesis, and format (heading, citation form, works cited).

Conducting History Research Lecture
Conducting Historical Research

There are two types of sources used in Historical Research: primary and secondary. A primary document is something like the Magna Carta. A secondary sources would be an article analyzing the Magna Carta. For undergraduate Freshman level writing, you will be dealing mostly with secondary sources. If you can find a mix of the two, it will strengthen your essay.

How to Read a Primary Source

Good reading is about asking questions of your sources. Keep the following in mind when reading primary sources. Even if you believe you can’t arrive at the answers, imagining possible answers will aid your comprehension. Reading primary sources requires that you use your historical imagination. This process is all about your willingness and ability to ask questions of the material, imagine possible answers, and explain your reasoning.

I. Evaluating primary source texts: I’ve developed an acronym that may help guide your evaluation of primary source texts: PAPER.
Purpose of the author in preparing the document
Argument and strategy she or he uses to achieve those goals
Presuppositions and values (in the text, and our own)
Epistemology (evaluating truth content)
Relate to other texts (compare and contrast)
Purpose

Who is the author and what is her or his place in society (explain why you are justified in thinking so)? What could or might it be, based on the text, and why?
Why did the author prepare the document? What was the occassion for its creation?
What is at stake for the author in this text? Why do you think she or he wrote it? What evidence in the text tells you this?
Does the author have a thesis? What — in one sentence — is that thesis?
Argument

What is the text trying to do? How does the text make its case? What is its strategy for accomplishing its goal? How does it carry out this strategy?
What is the intended audience of the text? How might this influence its rhetorical strategy? Cite specific examples.
What arguments or concerns does the author respond to that are not clearly stated? Provide at least one example of a point at which the author seems to be refuting a position never clearly stated. Explain what you think this position may be in detail, and why you think it.
Do you think the author is credible and reliable? Use at least one specific example to explain why. Make sure to explain the principle of rhetoric or logic that makes this passage credible.
Presuppositions

How do the ideas and values in the source differ from the ideas and values of our age? Offer two specific examples.
What presumptions and preconceptions do we as readers bring to bear on this text? For instance, what portions of the text might we find objectionable, but which contemporaries might have found acceptable. State the values we hold on that subject, and the values expressed in the text. Cite at least one specific example.
How might the difference between our values and the values of the author influence the way we understand the text? Explain how such a difference in values might lead us to mis-interpret the text, or understand it in a way contemporaries would not have. Offer at least one specific example.
Epistemology

How might this text support one of the arguments found in secondary sources we’ve read? Choose a paragraph anywhere in a secondary source we’ve read, state where this text might be an appropriate footnote (cite page and paragraph), and explain why.
What kinds of information does this text reveal that it does not seemed concerned with revealing? (In other words, what does it tell us without knowing it’s telling us?)
Offer one claim from the text which is the author’s interpretation. Now offer one example of a historical “fact” (something that is absolutely indisputable) that we can learn from this text (this need not be the author’s words).
Relate: Now choose another of the readings, and compare the two, answering these questions:

What patterns or ideas are repeated throughout the readings?
What major differences appear in them?
Which do you find more reliable and credible?
II. Here are some additional concepts that will help you evaluate primary source texts:

Texts and documents, authors and creators: You’ll see these phrases a lot. I use the first two and the last two as synonyms. Texts are historical documents, authors their creators, and vice versa. “Texts” and “authors” are often used when discussing literature, while “documents” and “creators” are more familiar to historians.
Evaluating the veracity (truthfulness) of texts: For the rest of this discussion, consider the example of a soldier who committed atrocities against non-combatants during wartime. Later in his life, he writes a memoir that neglects to mention his role in these atrocities, and may in fact blame them on someone else. Knowing the soldier’s possible motive, we would be right to question the veracity of his account.
The credible vs. the reliable text:
Reliability refers to our ability to trust the consistency of the author’s account of the truth. A reliable text displays a pattern of verifiable truth-telling that tends to render the unverifiable parts of the text true. For instance, the soldier above may prove to be utterly reliable in detailing the campaigns he participated in during the war, as evidence by corroborating records. The only gap in his reliability may be the omission of details about the atrocities he committed.
Credibility refers to our ability to trust the author’s account of the truth on the basis of her or his tone and reliability. An author who is inconsistently truthful — such as the soldier in the example above — loses credibility. There are many other ways authors undermine their credibility. Most frequently, they convey in their tone that they are not neutral (see below). For example, the soldier above may intersperse throughout his reliable account of campaign details vehement and racist attacks against his old enemy. Such attacks signal readers that he may have an interest in not portraying the past accurately, and hence may undermine his credibility, regardless of his reliability.
An author who seems quite credible may be utterly unreliable. The author who takes a measured, reasoned tone and anticipates counter-arguments may seem to be very credible, when in fact he presents us with complete balderdash. Similarly, a reliable author may not always seem credible. It should also be clear that individual texts themselves may have portions that are more reliable and credible than others.
The objective vs. the neutral text: We often wonder if the author of a text has an “ax to grind” which might render her or his words unreliable.
Neutrality refers to the stake an author has in a text. In the example of the soldier who committed wartime atrocities, the author seems to have had a considerable stake in his memoir, which was the expunge his own guilt. In an utterly neutral document, the creator is not aware that she or he has any special stake in the construction and content of the document. Very few texts are ever completely neutral. People generally do not go to the trouble to record their thoughts unless they have a purpose or design which renders them invested in the process of creating the text. Some historical texts, such as birth records, may appear to be more neutral than others, because their creators seem to have had less of a stake in creating them. (For instance, the county clerk who signed several thousand birth certificates likely had less of a stake in creating an individual birth certificate than did a celebrity recording her life in a diary for future publication as a memoir.)
Objectivity refers to an author’s ability to convey the truth free of underlying values, cultural presuppositions, and biases. Many scholars argue that no text is or ever can be completely objective, for all texts are the products of the culture in which their authors lived. Many authors pretend to objectivity when they might better seek for neutrality. The author who claims to be free of bias and presupposition should be treated with suspicion: no one is free of their values. The credible author acknowledges and expresses those values so that they may accounted for in the text where they appear.
Epistemology: a fancy word for a straight-forward concept. “Epistemology” is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of knowledge. How do you know what you know? What is the truth, and how is it determined? For historians who read primary sources, the question becomes: what can I know of the past based on this text, how sure can I be about it, and how do I know these things?
This can be an extremely difficult question. Ultimately, we cannot know anything with complete assurance, because even our senses may fail us. Yet we can conclude, with reasonable accuracy, that some things are more likely to be true than others (for instance, it is more likely that the sun will rise tomorrow than that a human will learn to fly without wings or other support). Your task as a historian is to make and justify decisions about the relative veracity of historical texts, and portions of them. To do this, you need a solid command of the principles of sound reasoning.
How to Read a Secondary Source

Reading secondary historical sources is a skill which may be acquired and must be practiced. Reading academic material well is an active process that can be far removed from the kind of pleasure reading most of us are used to. Sure, history may sometimes be dry, but you’ll find success reading even the most difficult material if you can master these skills. The key here is taking the time and energy to engage the material — to think through it and to connect it to other material you have covered.

I: How to read a book

Read the title. Define every word in the title; look up any unknown words. Think about what the title promises for the book. Look at the table of contents. This is your “menu” for the book. What can you tell about its contents and structure from the TOC?
Read a book from the outside in. Read the foreword and introduction (if an article, read the first paragraph or two). Read the conclusion or epilogue if there is one (if an article, read the last one or two paragraphs). After all this, ask yourself what the author’s thesis might be. How has the argument been structured?
Read chapters from the outside in. Quickly read the first and last paragraph of each chapter. After doing this and taking the step outlined above, you should have a good idea of the book’s major themes and arguments.
You are now finally ready to read in earnest. Don’t read a history book as if you were reading a novel for light pleasure reading. Read through the chapters actively, taking cues as to which paragraphs are most important from their topic sentences. (Good topic sentences tell you what the paragraph is about.) Not every sentence and paragraph is as important as every other. It is up to you to judge, based on what you know so far about the book’s themes and arguments. If you can, highlight passages that seem to be especially relevant.
Take notes: Many students attempt to take comprehensive notes on the content of a book or article. I advice against this. I suggest that you record your thoughts about the reading rather than simply the details and contents of the reader. What surprised you? What seemed particularly insightful? What seems suspect? What reinforces or counters points made in other readings? This kind of note taking will keep your reading active, and actually will help you remember the contents of the piece better than otherwise.
II. “STAMP” it: A technique for reading a book which complements the steps above is to answer a series of questions about your reading.

Structure: How has the author structured her work? How would you briefly outline it? Why might she have employed this structure? What historical argument does the structure employ? After identifying the thesis, ask yourself in what ways the structure of the work enhances or detracts from the thesis. How does the author set about to make her or his case? What about the structure of the work makes it convincing?

Thesis: A thesis is the controlling argument of a work of history. Toqueville argued, for instance, that American society in the first half of the nineteenth century believed itself to be radically oriented towards liberty and freedom while in fact its innate conservatism hid under a homogeneous culture and ideology. Often, the most difficult task when reading a secondary is to identify the author’s thesis. In a well-written essay, the thesis is usually clearly stated near the beginning of the piece. In a long article or book, the thesis is usually diffuse. There may in fact be more than one. As you read, constantly ask yourself, “how could I sum up what this author is saying in one or two sentences?” This is a difficult task; even if you never feel you have succeeded, simply constantly trying to answer this question will advance your understanding of the work.

Argument: A thesis is not just a statement of opinion, or a belief, or a thought. It is an argument. Because it is an argument, it is subject to evaluation and analysis. Is it a good argument? How is the big argument (the thesis) structured into little arguments? Are these little arguments constructed well? Is the reasoning valid? Does the evidence support the conclusions? Has the author used invalid or incorrect logic? Is she relying on incorrect premises? What broad, unexamined assumptions seem to underlay the author’s argument? Are these correct?
Note here that none of these questions ask if you like the argument or its conclusion. This part of the evaluation process asks you not for your opinion, but to evaluate the logic of the argument. There are two kinds of logic you must consider: Internal logic is the way authors make their cases, given the initial assumptions, concerns, and definitions set forth in the essay or book. In other words, assuming that their concern is a sound one, does the argument make sense? Holistic logic regards the piece as a whole. Are the initial assumptions correct? Is the author asking the proper questions? Has the author framed the problem correctly?

Motives: Why might the author have written this work? This is a difficult question, and often requires outside information, such as information on how other historians were writing about the topic. Don’t let the absence of that information keep you from using your historical imagination. Even if you don’t have the information you wish you had, you can still ask yourself, “Why would the author argue this?” Many times, arguments in older works of history seem ludicrous or silly to us today. When we learn more about the context in which those arguments were made, however, they start to make more sense. Things like political events and movements, an author’s ideological bents or biases, or an author’s relationship to existing political and cultural institutions often have an impact on the way history is written. On the other hand, the struggle to achieve complete objectivity also effects the ways people have written history. It is only appropriate, then, that such considerations should inform your reading.

Primaries: Students of history often do not read footnotes. Granted, footnotes are not exactly entertaining, but they are the nuts and bolts of history writing. Glance occasionally at footnotes, especially when you come across a particularly interesting or controversial passage. What primary sources has the historian used to support her argument? Has she used them well? What pitfalls may befall the historians who uses these sources? How does her use of these kinds of sources influence the kinds of arguments she can make? What other sources might she have employed?

III. Three important questions to ask of secondary sources

What does the author say? That is, what is the author’s central claim or thesis, and the argument which backs it up? The thesis of a history paper usually explains how or why something happened. This means that the author will have to (1) tell what happened (the who, where, when, what of the subject); (2) explain how or why it happened.

Why does the author say it? Historians are almost always engaged in larger, sometimes obscure dialogues with other professionals. Is the author arguing with a rival interpretation? What would that be? What accepted wisdom is the author trying to challenge or complicate? What deeper agenda might be represented by this effort? (An effort to overthrow capitalism? To justify Euro-Americans’ decimation of Native American populations? To buttress claims that the government should pursue particular policies?)

Where is the author’s argument weak or vulnerable? Good historians try to make a case that their conclusion or interpretation is correct. But cases are rarely airtight – especially novel, challenging, or sweeping ones. At what points is the author vulnerable? Where is the evidence thin? What other interpretations of the author’s evidence is possible? At what points is the author’s logic suspect? If the author’s case is weak, what is the significance of this for the argument as a whole?