Systematic Collection

of Evidence or Data or
Literature Review.

Rigorous Evaluation of
Historical Sources.

Data Interpretation and

Synthesis into a
Narrative Account.
Writing history requires careful research and analysis. Historians collect
evidence, evaluate sources, interpret data, and create a meaningful narrative.
The process begins with gathering primary sources, which are firsthand
accounts of historical events. Finding reliable sources can be challenging, as
many records are incomplete or [Link] collecting data, historians must
assess the authenticity and accuracy of sources. This involves checking if the
information is trustworthy and relevant. Sources must be carefully examined
to ensure they are not biased, misleading, or inaccurate. Historians use various
methods, such as external and internal criticism, to verify documents and
determine their [Link] the sources are evaluated, historians interpret
and synthesize the data. They organize the information into a logical and
meaningful narrative. A well-written historical account presents facts clearly,
avoids bias, and acknowledges uncertainties. The goal is to provide an
accurate and insightful representation of the past.
Systematic
Collection of
Evidence, Data
or Literature
Review
In order to produce a work of
history, a historian undertakes
steps consisting of selection,
evaluation, interpretation and
synthesis of data into a
narrative exposition. Here we
are concerned with collection
of evidence or data. The
gathering of primary-source
(first hand) evidence is the
most difficult task.
Selection of sources is an essential step especially for recent
history. Selection is done taking into consideration, "the
nature of the researcher's particular problem and the criteria
of relevance and significance that drive from his hypotheses.

Selection is facilitated by the use of bibliographic aids and

existing secondary works but the historian of a recent topic
must nevertheless be prepared to sift and digest masses of
material, most of which will not directly appear in the final
work" (Daniels, 1996, p. 228).
• Libraries are good at collecting and maintaining records of
housekeeping statistics but those records that are required to make
library history meaningful and interesting are often lacking.

If a historian were looking for records for biographical treatment of Dr S R

Ranganathan at Madras University Library, where he was librarian for
more than two decades, then he would only find sketchy archives on him.
Same is the case with other libraries, especially with regard to archives of
interest to library historians.

Records of such nature are either lost or not well maintained. Producing
oral history interviews of librarians and teachers of library and information
science on topics of recent origin can go a long way to fill up the gaps.
Rigorous Evaluation
of Historical
Resources
Data used by a historian is usually
called evidence. Historical research
is totally based on evidence, which is
always of the past. It is complex in
nature and usually vast in quantity. A
historian spends tremendous amount
of time in sifting relevant evidence.
He narrows it down, choosing it very
carefully. Often, evidence presents
surprises at each stage of sifting.
Before using sources, he must evaluate these irrespective of
whether the resource is Internet source or any other one.

A researcher would like to know if the sources being used by

him are:

1. Relevant to his research (that is appropriate for his research

work),
2. Worthwhile (substantial enough to serve his purpose), and
3. Competent (genuine, accurate and trustworthy).
Approach 1

For evaluation, one may use the following criteria:

• Authority, Who is the author or developer of the source?

• Scope, What topics have been covered?
•Uptodateness, How up to date is the content of the source?
• Reliability, How far information is reliable and free from errors?
• Objectivity Find out, if there is bias in the presentation of information?
Approach 2

Another approach used by historians for determining the

authenticity and accuracy of historical documents constitutes of
textual criticism. Textual criticism consists broadly of two
groups, namely external criticism and internal criticism. Any
document used for historical research must pass tests of both
external and internal criticism. Historical criticism enables a
historian to expose forgeries, identify inherent defects (such as
deliberate bias or deception, errors of judgment or memory,
incompleteness of evidence) in historical sources.
External Criticism
This involves determination of "validity, trustworthiness, or authenticity of the
source" (Johnson lectures, chap 12, p.5). This is concerned with examining the
historical document from outside, so as to establish its authenticity

• Does the language and writing style conform to the period in question
and is it typical of other works done by the author?
• Is there evidence that the author exhibits ignorance of things or events
that man of his training and time should have known?
• Did he report about things, events, or places that could not have been
known during that period?
Internal Criticism
Internal criticism involves determination of reliability or accuracy of the information
contained in the resource. It is concerned with accuracy of the document involving
"the competence and integrity of the author, and the occasion of origin of the
document" (Goldhor, 1969, p. 103).

To determine the accuracy of a document, a historian should ask the following

questions (Goldhor, 1969, p. 103-104):

• What do you know about the author?

• Was he generally sincere or was he biased?
• Was he knowledgeable and competent?
• Was he even in a position to know the truth, and did he have access to reliable
sources of information?
In the process of gathering historical evidence, a researcher may ask the following
questions to evaluate the sources for their authenticity and accuracy (Losee and Worley,
1993, р. 157):

• Did the person claimed, produce at the time and the document, and was
it distributed and used as claimed?
• Did any person who produced data (written and spoken) have any
possible motive or bias in choosing what to communicate and what not to
communicate?
• How reliable is an informant?
• Is information complete, and if not is there a possible reason for what is
present and what is missing?
Approach 3

Very often, historians employ three heuristics for establishing authenticity and
accuracy of information sources, namely corroboration, sourcing and contextualisation.

Corroboration involves comparing documents on the same events to find out whether
or not they provide the same information.
Sourcing consists of identifying the author (full name, dates of birth and death, status,
etc), place and date of creation of the source.
Contextualisation refers to identifying of the place and date or period when the event
of concern took place. Using these three techniques together can help a historian to
establish authenticity and accuracy of an information source.
 Data
Interpretation
and Synthesis
into a Narrative
Account
Data synthesis includes selecting,
organising, and analysing the data
in terms oftopical themes and central
ideas or concepts. Then, these
themes and central ideas are put
together to form a narrative account
that is contiguous and meaningful
whole.
"Synthesis of historical data is the most difficult step of all. A
conceptual scheme must be developed around which the facts are
to be organized, with an appropriate logical sequence of topics
and points. Then a detailed outline is prepared. Finally, the
narrat i ve i s composed wi t h due concern f o r b a l a n c e d
presentation and the leavening of generalization with
illustration" (Daniels, 1996, p.228).
 A good historian makes an effort to:
• give the most meaningful representation of reality,
• fill up gaps wherever those exist, giving necessary
explanations,
• reconcile inconsistencies in the data,
• carefully conjure up an intelligent guess, where facts are
lacking but admits honestly that he is using an intelligent and
educated guess, and
• provide footnotes and bibliography, citing original sources
and scholarly authorities, used by him to arrive at the
conclusions.
A good historian employs lucid and logical expression to present his findings along
with supporting evidence to his intended audience consisting of knowledgeable critics
and scholars. In presenting a report, the following guidelines should be kept in view:

• The evidence and conclusions should be presented (written) in a way whereby these
can be communicated to the concerned readers effectively.
• The researcher should use his intelligence, imagination and sense of discrimination
just like a good detective, to provide a narrative exposition that is both contiguous and
meaningful.
• The write up should be interesting, graceful and flowing narrative using readable but
scholarly style, with emphasis on clarity and continuity of thought.
All aspects of the topic as well as the problem must be covered.
• He must accurately describe the past, incorporating historical evidence, blending it
into the account. He must be careful to not to simplify or misrepresent.
• Historical research due to its very nature often is subjective in nature. Thus,
relatively speaking, it is susceptible to researcher bias. In any case, he must avoid
bias or misjudgment. However, a historian should follow a style of presentation that
is objective but not lacking in feeling or color. In case a researcher feels that he has
a known bias, as an honest researcher, he must state the same clearly, so that the
reader can form his or her own judgment regarding the interpretations and
conclusions drawn by the author.
• The evidence must be analyzed and interpreted so that it supports the hypotheses (if
any) and conclusions
• The conclusions arrived at and the supporting evidence should be presented in a
clear and unambiguous prose.
• Complex ideas need to be explained in a simple style without being simplified.
• A good historian is one who accepts the fact that his conclusions are tentative and
should always be willing to revise or reject his conclusions in the light of new data
that may become available later on. At times, skepticism is necessary and serves a
useful purpose.
• Facts and interpretation should be presented along with documented evidence: (a)
whereby the readers can evaluate the conclusions reached at by the researcher. In
other words, readers can critically examine the documented sources to find out
whether or not, they would have arrived at the same conclusions as drawn by the
researcher, (b) documented evidence can also enable other researchers to replicate
the study, resulting in greater scientific accuracy, This is how knowledge advances.
• Above all, a researcher must display intellectual honesty.
Conclusion

Writing history requires careful gathering, evaluation, and interpretation of evidence.

Historians collect data from different sources, including primary documents, books,
and even online materials. However, not all sources are reliable, so historians must
check their authenticity and accuracy. This is done through careful selection,
evaluation, and comparison of sources to avoid errors or biases. Once reliable sources
are identified, historians analyze and organize the information to create a clear and
meaningful narrative. They must present facts accurately, provide explanations where
needed, and avoid misinterpretation. Historical research is an ongoing process, and
new discoveries may lead to revisions of past conclusions. Therefore, historians must
remain open to new evidence and maintain intellectual honesty in their work.
THANK YOU!!!