The historical research

WHAT IS HISTORICAL RESEARCH?

 It is the procedure in which a researcher collects and evaluates data to understand reports or observation made by others.

 It tests hypotheses concerning causes, effects or trends that may help to explain present events and anticipate future events.

The Comparative Method

John Stuart Mill

Themethod of agreement:The method of agreement consists in making paired comparisons in order to ascertain what causes changes we observe in the world.

Themethod of difference consists in a double application of the method of agreement. This double application springs from the need to make counterfactual comparisons when the explanatory variable is absent in the cases we chose to compare

Comparative Historical Method

A scientific method in which comparison is used to reveal the general and the particular in historical phenomena and to gainan understanding of the various historical stages of development of one and the same phenomenon or of two different butcontemporaneous phenomena; a variety of the historical method (seeHISTORICISM).

The comparative historical method makes it possible to reveal and compare a given historical object’s levels of developmentand the changes the object has undergone and to determine the trends of the object’s development. Several forms of themethod may be distinguished. One is comparison and contrast, a method that reveals the characteristics of dissimilarhistorical objects. Another is historical-typological comparison, which explains the similarity of genetically diverse phenomenawith reference to identical conditions of genesis and development. Yet another is historical-genetic comparison, whichexplains the similarity of phenomena with reference to their common origin. Finally, there is comparison, which traces themutual influence of various phenomena.

The comparative historical method dates at least as far back as Aristotle and his analysis of political form in the classicalworld. However, it gained general acceptance only in the 19th century, especially in linguistics, sociology, jurisprudence,literary theory and criticism, ethnography (the evolutionary school’s favored method), and cultural studies.

The Scientists and their works

In 19th-century bourgeois sociology, interest in the comparative historical method is associated with A. Comte and H.Spencer, both of whom considered it the fundamental method of sociological research, treating it within the framework of theevolutionist, linear-progressive conception of development. M. M. Kovalevskii used the method. E. Dürkheim regardedcomparative sociology as the essence of sociology in general. In this period, sociologists made attempts to use thecomparative historical method in conjunction with statistical methods (A. Quételet, Belgium) and in conjunction with analysisof the structure and evolution of systems. However, the study of structures and systems was linked with criticism of thecomparative historical method. Early functionalists, such as B. Malinowski, contrasted the two methods, stressing thefunctions of social systems as opposed to their dynamics and development. The prevailing tendency at present is, first, theattempt to combine the comparative historical method with structural-functional analysis and, second, the elucidation of theprocesses of change in various social structures. Much the same has taken place in linguistics, owing to the impetus givenby the work of F. Saussure. E. Troeltsch and M. Weber subjected the cultural-historical school of W. Dilthey to criticism,which led, in their own theories, to the transformation of the comparative historical method into a comparative-typologicalmethod, a method Weber used in his analysis of social structures and world religions.

In the second half of the 20th century, after a period of neglect, interest in the comparative historical method has reappearedin several of the social sciences. The comparative study of diverse cultures, values, and norms is embodied in the theory ofcultural-historical types, advanced by P. Sorokin and A. Toynbee; in their interpretation, however, cultures are seen as closedentities, and their development and the process by which one evolves into another are neglected. Comparative research isalso embodied in the study of several social institutions—in the USA, for example, in R. Benedict’s and M. Mead’s work onthe family. This tendency to redefine the comparative historical method is characteristic of cultural anthropology andlinguistics.

The founders of Marxism used the comparative historical method in their study of socioeconomic formations and the variouspolitical and economic structures within a single such formation; they also used it in analyzing social institutions, such as thestate, the family, and the army, and in analyzing social movements and ideologies. In so doing, they employed it inconjunction with study of the structure and functions of historical phenomena. Marxist methodology has given rise tocomparative historical research in history, ethnography, and literature, which, in turn, has led to the emergence of severalspecific disciplines, such as comparative linguistics and comparative literary theory and criticism.

The three identifying issues of historical comparative research are causal relationships, processes over time, and comparisons. As mentioned above causal relationships are difficult to support although we make causal assumptions daily. Schutt discusses the five criteria, which must be met in order to have a causal relationship. Of the five the first three are the most important: association, time order and nonspuriousness. Association simply means that between two variables; the change in one variable is related to the change in another variable. Time order refers to the fact that the cause (the independent variable) must be shown to have occurred first and the effect (the dependent variable) to have occurred second. Nonspuriousness says that the association between two variables is not because of a third variable. The final two criteria are; identifying a causal mechanism- how the connection/association among variables is thought to have occurred- and the context in which this association occurs. The deterministic causal approach requires that in every study, the independent and dependent variable have an association, and within that study every case (nation, region) the independent variable has an effect on the dependent variable.

John Stuart Mill devised five methods for systematically analyzing observations and making more accurate assumptions about causality. Mill's Methods discusses; direct method of agreement, method of difference, joint method of agreement and difference, method of residues and method of concomitant variations. Mill's methods are typically the most useful when the causal relationship is already suspected and can therefore be a tool for eliminating other explanations. Some methodologists contend Mill's methods cannot provide proof that the variation in one variable was caused by the variation of another variable.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH Advantages:

 The main advantage of historical research is that is permits the investigation of topics that could be studied in no other way.

It is the only research method that can study evidence from the past.

 The historical method is well suited for trend analysis.

Disadvantages:

 Cannot control for threats to internal validity

 Limitations are imposed due to the content analysis

 Researchers cannot ensure representation of the sample.

 Bias  in interpreting   historical  sources.

 Interpreting sources is very time consuming.

 Sources of historical materials may be problematic

 Lack of control over external variable

Адрес публикации: https://www.prodlenka.org/metodicheskie-razrabotki/324628-the-historical-research