historical research paper outline

How to Write a History Research Paper

• How do I pick a topic?
• But I can’t find any material…

Research Guide

Writing guide.

See also: How to Write a Good History Essay

1. How do I pick a topic?

Picking a topic is perhaps the most important step in writing a research paper. To do it well requires several steps of refinement. First you have to determine a general area in which you have an interest (if you aren’t interested, your readers won’t be either). You do not write a paper “about the Civil War,” however, for that is such a large and vague concept that the paper will be too shallow or you will be swamped with information. The next step is to narrow your topic. Are you interested in comparison? battles? social change? politics? causes? biography? Once you reach this stage try to formulate your research topic as a question. For example, suppose that you decide to write a paper on the use of the films of the 1930’s and what they can tell historians about the Great Depression. You might turn that into the following question: “What are the primary values expressed in films of the 1930’s?” Or you might ask a quite different question, “What is the standard of living portrayed in films of the 1930’s?” There are other questions, of course, which you could have asked, but these two clearly illustrate how different two papers on the same general subject might be. By asking yourself a question as a means of starting research on a topic you will help yourself find the answers. You also open the door to loading the evidence one way or another. It will help you decide what kinds of evidence might be pertinent to your question, and it can also twist perceptions of a topic. For example, if you ask a question about economics as motivation, you are not likely to learn much about ideals, and vice versa.

2. But I can’t find any material…

No one should pick a topic without trying to figure out how one could discover pertinent information, nor should anyone settle on a topic before getting some background information about the general area. These two checks should make sure your paper is in the realm of the possible. The trick of good research is detective work and imaginative thinking on how one can find information. First try to figure out what kinds of things you should know about a topic to answer your research question. Are there statistics? Do you need personal letters? What background information should be included? Then if you do not know how to find that particular kind of information, ASK . A reference librarian or professor is much more likely to be able to steer you to the right sources if you can ask a specific question such as “Where can I find statistics on the number of interracial marriages?” than if you say “What can you find on racial attitudes?”

Use the footnotes and bibliographies of general background books as well as reference aids to lead you to special studies. If Carleton does not have the books or sources you need, try ordering through the library minitex. Many sources are also available on-line.

As your research paper takes shape you will find that you need background on people, places, events, etc. Do not just rely on some general survey for all of your background. Check the several good dictionaries of biography for background on people, or see if there is a standard book-length biography. If you are dealing with a legal matter check into the background of the judges who make the court decision and the circumstances surrounding the original incident or law. Try looking for public opinions in newspapers of the time. In other words, each bit of information you find should open the possibility of other research paths.

Learn to use several research techniques. You cannot count on a good research paper coming from browsing on one shelf at the library. A really pertinent book may be hidden in another section of the library due to classification quirks. The Readers’ Guide (Ref. A13 .R4) is not the only source for magazine articles, nor the card catalog for books. There are whole books which are listings of other books on particular topics. There are specialized indexes of magazine articles. Modern History Journals are indexed in the Social Studies and Humanities Index (Ref. A13 .R282) before 1976 After 1976 use the Social Sciences Index (REF A13 .S62) and the Humanities Index (Ref. A13 .H85). See also Historical Abstracts (Ref. D1 .H5). Reference Librarians would love to help you learn to use these research tools. It pays to browse in the reference room at the library and poke into the guides which are on the shelves. It also pays to browse the Internet.

3. Help! How do I put this together?

A. preliminary research:.

If you do not already have a general background on your topic, get the most recent good general source on the topic and read it for general orientation. On the basis of that reading formulate as clearly focused question as you can. You should generally discuss with your professor at that point whether your question is a feasible one.

B. Building a Basic Bibliography:

Use the bibliography/notes in your first general source, MUSE, and especially Historical Abstracts on cd-rom in the Library Reading Room (the computer farthest to the left in the front row as you walk past the Reference Desk — or ask there). If there is a specialized bibliography on your topic, you will certainly want to consult that as well, but these are often a bit dated.

C. Building a Full Bibliography:

Read the recent articles or chapters that seem to focus on your topic best. This will allow you to focus your research question quite a bit. Use the sources cited and/or discussed in this reading to build a full bibliography. Use such tools as Historical Abstracts (or, depending on your topic, the abstracts from a different field) and a large, convenient computer-based national library catalog (e.g. the University of California system from the “Libs” command in your VAX account or the smaller University of Minnesota library through MUSE) to check out your sources fully. For specific article searches “Uncover” (press returns for the “open access”) or possibly (less likely for history) “First Search” through “Connect to Other Resources” in MUSE can also be useful.

D. Major Research:

Now do the bulk of your research. But do not overdo it. Do not fall into the trap of reading and reading to avoid getting started on the writing. After you have the bulk of information you might need, start writing. You can fill in the smaller gaps of your research more effectively later.

A. Outline:

Write a preliminary thesis statement, expressing what you believe your major argument(s) will be. Sketch out a broad outline that indicates the structure — main points and subpoints or your argument as it seems at this time. Do not get too detailed at this point.

B. The First Draft:

On the basis of this thesis statement and outline, start writing, even pieces, as soon as you have enough information to start. Do not wait until you have filled all the research gaps. Keep on writing. If you run into smaller research questions just mark the text with a searchable symbol. It is important that you try to get to the end point of this writing as soon as possible, even if you leave pieces still in outline form at first and then fill the gaps after you get to the end.

Critical advice for larger papers: It is often more effective not to start at the point where the beginning of your paper will be. Especially the introductory paragraph is often best left until later, when you feel ready and inspired.

C. The Second Draft:

The “second draft” is a fully re-thought and rewritten version of your paper. It is at the heart of the writing process.

First, lay your first draft aside for a day or so to gain distance from it. After that break, read it over with a critical eye as you would somebody else’s paper (well, almost!). You will probably find that your first draft is still quite descriptive, rather than argumentative. It is likely to wander; your perspective and usually even the thesis seemed to change/develop as you wrote. Don’t despair. That is perfectly normal even for experienced writers (even after 40 years and a good deal of published work!). You will be frustrated. But keep questioning your paper along the following lines: What precisely are my key questions? What parts of my evidence here are really pertinent to those questions (that is, does it help me answer them)? How or in what order can I structure my paper most effectively to answer those questions most clearly and efficiently for my reader?

At this point you must outline your paper freshly. Mark up your first draft, ask tough questions whether your argument is clear and whether the order in which you present your points is effective! You must write conceptually a new paper at this point, even if you can use paragraphs and especially quotes, factual data in the new draft.

It is critical that in your new draft your paragraphs start with topic sentences that identify the argument you will be making in the particular paragraph (sometimes this can be strings of two or three paragraphs). The individual steps in your argument must be clearly reflected in the topic sentences of your paragraphs (or a couple of them linked).

D. The Third or Final Draft:

You are now ready to check for basic rules of good writing. This is when you need to check the diction, that is, the accuracy and suitability of words. Eliminate unnecessary passive or awkward noun constructions (active-voice, verbal constructions are usually more effective); improve the flow of your transitions; avoid repetitions or split infinitives; correct apostrophes in possessives and such. Make the style clear and smooth. Check that the start of your paper is interesting for the reader. Last but not least, cut out unnecessary verbiage and wordiness. Spell-check and proof-read.

– Diethelm Prowe, 1998

Princeton Correspondents on Undergraduate Research

How to Write a History Research Paper

In my last post, I shared some tips on how to conduct research in history and emphasized that researchers should keep in mind a source’s category (transcript, court document, speech, etc.). This post is something of a sequel to that, as I will share some thoughts on what often follows primary-source research: a history research paper. 

1. Background Reading   The first step to a history research paper is of course, background reading and research. In the context of a class assignment, “background reading” might simply be course readings or lectures, but for independent work, this step will likely involve some quality time on your own in the library. During the background reading phase of your project, keep an eye out for intriguing angles to approach your topic from and any trends that you see across sources (both primary and secondary).

2. T hemes and Context Recounting the simple facts about your topic alone will not make for a successful research paper. One must grasp both the details of events as well as the larger, thematic context of the time period in which they occurred. What’s the scholarly consensus about these themes? Does that consensus seem right to you, after having done primary and secondary research of your own?

3. Develop an Argument  Grappling with answers to the above questions will get you thinking about your emerging argument. For shorter papers, you might identify a gap in the scholarship or come up with an argumentative response to a class prompt rather quickly. Remember: as an undergraduate, you don’t have to come up with (to borrow Philosophy Professor Gideon Rosen’s phrase) ‘a blindingly original theory of everything.’ In other words, finding a nuanced thesis does not mean you have to disprove some famous scholar’s work in its entirety. But, if you’re having trouble defining your thesis, I encourage you not to worry; talk to your professor, preceptor, or, if appropriate, a friend. These people can listen to your ideas, and the simple act of talking about your paper can often go a long way in helping you realize what you want to write about.

4. Outline Your Argument  With a history paper specifically, one is often writing about a sequence of events and trying to tell a story about what happened. Roughly speaking, your thesis is your interpretation of these events, or your take on some aspect of them (i.e. the role of women in New Deal programs). Before opening up Word, I suggest writing down the stages of your argument. Then, outline or organize your notes to know what evidence you’ll use in each of these various stages. If you think your evidence is solid, then you’re probably ready to start writing—and you now have a solid roadmap to work from! But, if this step is proving difficult, you might want to gather more evidence or go back to the thesis drawing board and look for a better angle. I often find myself somewhere between these two extremes (being 100% ready to write or staring at a sparse outline), but that’s also helpful, because it gives me a better idea of where my argument needs strengthening.

5. Prepare Yourself   Once you have some sort of direction for the paper (i.e. a working thesis), you’re getting close to the fun part—the writing itself. Gather your laptop, your research materials/notes, and some snacks, and get ready to settle in to write your paper, following your argument outline. As mentioned in the photo caption, I suggest utilizing large library tables to spread out your notes. This way, you don’t have to constantly flip through binders, notebooks, and printed drafts.

In addition to this step by step approach, I’ll leave you with a few last general tips for approaching a history research paper. Overall, set reasonable goals for your project, and remember that a seemingly daunting task can be broken down into the above constituent phases. And, if nothing else, know that you’ll end up with a nice Word document full of aesthetically pleasing footnotes!

— Shanon FitzGerald, Social Sciences Correspondent

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

Handbook for Historians Research Guide

• Choosing a Paper Topic

How to Create an Outline

Outline example.

• Thesis Statement
• Find Primary Sources
• Find Secondary Sources
• Formatting References
• Writing an Annotated Bibliography
• Sample Papers
• Research Paper Checklist

The outline is an organized blueprint of the material presented in your paper. 

Writing an Outline: 

• Begin by listing the main ideas you want to get across, or main points you wish to make.  These will become your Roman numeral headings.
• Divide each of these into sub-ideas or subsections, labeled with a capital letter. Make sure that you have at least two subsections under each main heading. 
• For each sub-idea, list various examples, bits of evidence, and information, numbering them with Arabic numerals.
• If necessary, sub-ideas can be divided further into details, preceded by lower case letters. Use either whole sentences or phrases, but be consistent throughout your outline.

Formal outlines usually employ Roman numerals, Roman letters, and Arabic numerals, like this example:

• Example of a sub-idea

and so on . . . till your conclusion.

Here is an example of an outline for a HST paper.

• << Previous: Title Page
• Next: Thesis Statement >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2024 4:22 PM
• URL: https://resources.library.lemoyne.edu/guides/history/handbook

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

18 Preparing to Write: Organizing and Outlines

One of the most important—and perhaps the more difficult—parts of writing a good history research paper is deciding what to say and in what order to say it. A good outline can limit a student’s anxiety about writing a big paper as it may help break the writing process down into manageable chunk. A good outline also helps ensure that you’re approaching your argument in a logical way.

How you go about organizing your thoughts and creating an outline, however, depends a good deal on how your brain works best. Effective writers do not all use the same method. But here are few steps to follow to avoid the dreaded blank page (or monitor) and the essay that meanders and never really makes an argument (or repeats elements of the same argument unnecessarily).

Before you begin the outlining process, keep in mind that the basic form of analytical writing usually utilizes the “Rule of Three.”   Simply, there should be at least three key points/pieces of evidence in a piece of writing introduced by a strong clear thesis. As you deliberate about possible thesis statements and debate what points are major elements of your argument and which ones are minor, or supporting, pieces of evidence, keep in mind that your argument will convince your readers when it has at least three supporting points.

STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPING AN OUTLINE:

Use the terms you found helpful for organizing notes to start your outline:.

The words or tags you used to organize your notes can help in a couple of ways. First, for the “brain dump” process described next, these terms can be the first entries. Second, these terms could form the basis of main elements of your outline. Keywords that appear most frequently in your note-taking process could translate into major elements of your outline.

“Dump” the contents of your brain:

• Before attempting a formal outline, compile a list of all the interesting facts, ideas, concepts, individuals, and events that you’ve uncovered in your research. Keep an open mind, and don’t limit this list to just what you assumed would be the focus of your paper when you wrote your proposal. For example, what were the arguments of the secondary sources you read? What ideas or phrases came up again and again? Who were the main historical actors and what surprises did you encounter in the primary sources they produced (or were produced about them)? Can you construct a rough timeline without looking at your notes? The unofficial term for this compilation is a “brain dump,” because you are recording all the ideas that have occurred to you without regard to whether they are Big and Important Ideas or smaller, secondary points. Write down as much as you can, without worrying where it fits in the paper or even knowing for sure that it does fit in the paper.

Making sense of the results of the “brain dump”

• Visual learners often benefit from hand-writing the terms around a physical sheet of paper, and then using a spider-web concept map. In such a concept map, once you have all the terms on the page, you draw lines between related items. The terms that have multiple lines coming to or from them are the nodal points that should serve as main elements in your outline. The items that have just one or two connections are minor explanatory points in your formal outline.
• Natural list-makers think hierarchically (from most to least important) as a matter of course. If you’re a hierarchical thinker, you might think you already know your outline without drawing lines. But before you jump straight to a formal outline, let yourself think creatively. Try creating multiple lists, with perhaps different items and different orders for the compiled “brain dump” terms and phrases. In this process, some items will appear in multiple lists. Once you have several, think through the pros and cons of each one. Choose the best one and convert it into a formal outline.

Here is a detailed description of how to create a concept map from the University of West Florida and here you can find three examples of different types of concept maps .

Mind Maps are another form of concept mapping that uses a visual hierachy with associated information branching out from that concept.

Just as there’s not one way to organize your thoughts, there’s not a single form of an outline. Some writers do best with heavily detailed outlines, while others need only “bare bones.” Likewise, the necessity of maintaining an accurate outline is also a matter of personal preference. Some writers continually revise their outline as their thinking about their topic evolves with their writing, while others use an outline only to launch their writing and to prevent the intimidation of a blank screen, then abandon it once they’ve begun writing. Still, it’s extraordinarily helpful to make a plan before you begin. Below what you’ll see are some templates that work for a few common types of arguments. You may find one that works for you, perhaps with a bit of adapting.

Option 1: Chronological

Many history essays have a natural chronological focus. Arguments that seek to explain what happened at a place and time, or demonstrate what led up to an event, as well as essays that focus on an individual’s importance, can be organized chronologically.

• Early phase or antecedents
• Middle years or main event
• Later years or impact

Option 2: Revision

If your main argument centers on suggesting a correction to a currently accepted explanation of the past—perhaps you want to establish a new periodization, or make a case for an additional influence or outcome to what historians have argued—then you might consider this sort of organization.

• Summaries of what several historians have written
• with three examples/supporting points

Option 3: Topical/thematic approach

When your argument does not fall into one of the above traditional formats, you’ll need to uncover the patterns within evidence, and align them into to (at least) 2-3 explanatory aspects. Research that is not following political or military events often is organizes topically. There are several variations on this format, but at its most basic, consider this format.

How History is Made: A Student’s Guide to Reading, Writing, and Thinking in the Discipline Copyright © 2022 by Stephanie Cole; Kimberly Breuer; Scott W. Palmer; and Brandon Blakeslee is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

4.1: Preparing to Write- Organizing and Outlines

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 174482

• Stephanie Cole, Kimberly Breuer, Scott W. Palmer, and Brandon Blakeslee
• University of Texas at Arlington via Mavs Open Press

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

One of the most important—and perhaps the more difficult—parts of writing a good history research paper is deciding what to say and in what order to say it. A good outline can limit a student’s anxiety about writing a big paper as it may help break the writing process down into manageable chunk. A good outline also helps ensure that you’re approaching your argument in a logical way.

How you go about organizing your thoughts and creating an outline, however, depends a good deal on how your brain works best. Effective writers do not all use the same method. But here are few steps to follow to avoid the dreaded blank page (or monitor) and the essay that meanders and never really makes an argument (or repeats elements of the same argument unnecessarily).

Before you begin the outlining process, keep in mind that the basic form of analytical writing usually utilizes the “Rule of Three.” Simply, there should be at least three key points/pieces of evidence in a piece of writing introduced by a strong clear thesis. As you deliberate about possible thesis statements and debate what points are major elements of your argument and which ones are minor, or supporting, pieces of evidence, keep in mind that your argument will convince your readers when it has at least three supporting points.

STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPING AN OUTLINE:

Use the terms you found helpful for organizing notes to start your outline:.

The words or tags you used to organize your notes can help in a couple of ways. First, for the “brain dump” process described next, these terms can be the first entries. Second, these terms could form the basis of main elements of your outline. Keywords that appear most frequently in your note-taking process could translate into major elements of your outline.

“Dump” the contents of your brain:

• Before attempting a formal outline, compile a list of all the interesting facts, ideas, concepts, individuals, and events that you’ve uncovered in your research. Keep an open mind, and don’t limit this list to just what you assumed would be the focus of your paper when you wrote your proposal. For example, what were the arguments of the secondary sources you read? What ideas or phrases came up again and again? Who were the main historical actors and what surprises did you encounter in the primary sources they produced (or were produced about them)? Can you construct a rough timeline without looking at your notes? The unofficial term for this compilation is a “brain dump,” because you are recording all the ideas that have occurred to you without regard to whether they are Big and Important Ideas or smaller, secondary points. Write down as much as you can, without worrying where it fits in the paper or even knowing for sure that it does fit in the paper.

Making sense of the results of the “brain dump”

• Visual learners often benefit from hand-writing the terms around a physical sheet of paper, and then using a spider-web concept map. In such a concept map, once you have all the terms on the page, you draw lines between related items. The terms that have multiple lines coming to or from them are the nodal points that should serve as main elements in your outline. The items that have just one or two connections are minor explanatory points in your formal outline.
• Natural list-makers think hierarchically (from most to least important) as a matter of course. If you’re a hierarchical thinker, you might think you already know your outline without drawing lines. But before you jump straight to a formal outline, let yourself think creatively. Try creating multiple lists, with perhaps different items and different orders for the compiled “brain dump” terms and phrases. In this process, some items will appear in multiple lists. Once you have several, think through the pros and cons of each one. Choose the best one and convert it into a formal outline.

Here is a detailed description of how to create a concept map from the University of West Florida and here you can find three examples of different types of concept maps .

Mind Maps are another form of concept mapping that uses a visual hierachy with associated information branching out from that concept.

Just as there’s not one way to organize your thoughts, there’s not a single form of an outline. Some writers do best with heavily detailed outlines, while others need only “bare bones.” Likewise, the necessity of maintaining an accurate outline is also a matter of personal preference. Some writers continually revise their outline as their thinking about their topic evolves with their writing, while others use an outline only to launch their writing and to prevent the intimidation of a blank screen, then abandon it once they’ve begun writing. Still, it’s extraordinarily helpful to make a plan before you begin. Below what you’ll see are some templates that work for a few common types of arguments. You may find one that works for you, perhaps with a bit of adapting.

Option 1: Chronological

Many history essays have a natural chronological focus. Arguments that seek to explain what happened at a place and time, or demonstrate what led up to an event, as well as essays that focus on an individual’s importance, can be organized chronologically.

• Early phase or antecedents
• Middle years or main event
• Later years or impact

Option 2: Revision

If your main argument centers on suggesting a correction to a currently accepted explanation of the past—perhaps you want to establish a new periodization, or make a case for an additional influence or outcome to what historians have argued—then you might consider this sort of organization.

• Summaries of what several historians have written
• with three examples/supporting points

Option 3: Topical/thematic approach

When your argument does not fall into one of the above traditional formats, you’ll need to uncover the patterns within evidence, and align them into to (at least) 2-3 explanatory aspects. Research that is not following political or military events often is organizes topically. There are several variations on this format, but at its most basic, consider this format.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Getting started with your research paper outline

Levels of organization for a research paper outline

First level of organization, second level of organization, third level of organization, fourth level of organization, tips for writing a research paper outline, research paper outline template, my research paper outline is complete: what are the next steps, frequently asked questions about a research paper outline, related articles.

The outline is the skeleton of your research paper. Simply start by writing down your thesis and the main ideas you wish to present. This will likely change as your research progresses; therefore, do not worry about being too specific in the early stages of writing your outline.

A research paper outline typically contains between two and four layers of organization. The first two layers are the most generalized. Each layer thereafter will contain the research you complete and presents more and more detailed information.

The levels are typically represented by a combination of Roman numerals, Arabic numerals, uppercase letters, lowercase letters but may include other symbols. Refer to the guidelines provided by your institution, as formatting is not universal and differs between universities, fields, and subjects. If you are writing the outline for yourself, you may choose any combination you prefer.

This is the most generalized level of information. Begin by numbering the introduction, each idea you will present, and the conclusion. The main ideas contain the bulk of your research paper 's information. Depending on your research, it may be chapters of a book for a literature review , a series of dates for a historical research paper, or the methods and results of a scientific paper.

I. Introduction

II. Main idea

III. Main idea

IV. Main idea

V. Conclusion

The second level consists of topics which support the introduction, main ideas, and the conclusion. Each main idea should have at least two supporting topics listed in the outline.

If your main idea does not have enough support, you should consider presenting another main idea in its place. This is where you should stop outlining if this is your first draft. Continue your research before adding to the next levels of organization.

• A. Background information
• B. Hypothesis or thesis
• A. Supporting topic
• B. Supporting topic

The third level of organization contains supporting information for the topics previously listed. By now, you should have completed enough research to add support for your ideas.

The Introduction and Main Ideas may contain information you discovered about the author, timeframe, or contents of a book for a literature review; the historical events leading up to the research topic for a historical research paper, or an explanation of the problem a scientific research paper intends to address.

• 1. Relevant history
• 2. Relevant history
• 1. The hypothesis or thesis clearly stated
• 1. A brief description of supporting information
• 2. A brief description of supporting information

The fourth level of organization contains the most detailed information such as quotes, references, observations, or specific data needed to support the main idea. It is not typical to have further levels of organization because the information contained here is the most specific.

• a) Quotes or references to another piece of literature
• b) Quotes or references to another piece of literature

Tip: The key to creating a useful outline is to be consistent in your headings, organization, and levels of specificity.

• Be Consistent : ensure every heading has a similar tone. State the topic or write short sentences for each heading but avoid doing both.
• Organize Information : Higher levels of organization are more generally stated and each supporting level becomes more specific. The introduction and conclusion will never be lower than the first level of organization.
• Build Support : Each main idea should have two or more supporting topics. If your research does not have enough information to support the main idea you are presenting, you should, in general, complete additional research or revise the outline.

By now, you should know the basic requirements to create an outline for your paper. With a content framework in place, you can now start writing your paper . To help you start right away, you can use one of our templates and adjust it to suit your needs.

After completing your outline, you should:

• Title your research paper . This is an iterative process and may change when you delve deeper into the topic.
• Begin writing your research paper draft . Continue researching to further build your outline and provide more information to support your hypothesis or thesis.
• Format your draft appropriately . MLA 8 and APA 7 formats have differences between their bibliography page, in-text citations, line spacing, and title.
• Finalize your citations and bibliography . Use a reference manager like Paperpile to organize and cite your research.
• Write the abstract, if required . An abstract will briefly state the information contained within the paper, results of the research, and the conclusion.

An outline is used to organize written ideas about a topic into a logical order. Outlines help us organize major topics, subtopics, and supporting details. Researchers benefit greatly from outlines while writing by addressing which topic to cover in what order.

The most basic outline format consists of: an introduction, a minimum of three topic paragraphs, and a conclusion.

You should make an outline before starting to write your research paper. This will help you organize the main ideas and arguments you want to present in your topic.

• Consistency: ensure every heading has a similar tone. State the topic or write short sentences for each heading but avoid doing both.
• Organization : Higher levels of organization are more generally stated and each supporting level becomes more specific. The introduction and conclusion will never be lower than the first level of organization.
• Support : Each main idea should have two or more supporting topics. If your research does not have enough information to support the main idea you are presenting, you should, in general, complete additional research or revise the outline.

A Step-by-Step Guide to Doing Historical Research [without getting hysterical!] In addition to being a scholarly investigation, research is a social activity intended to create new knowledge. Historical research is your informed response to the questions that you ask while examining the record of human experience. These questions may concern such elements as looking at an event or topic, examining events that lead to the event in question, social influences, key players, and other contextual information. This step-by-step guide progresses from an introduction to historical resources to information about how to identify a topic, craft a thesis and develop a research paper. Table of contents: The Range and Richness of Historical Sources Secondary Sources Primary Sources Historical Analysis What is it? Who, When, Where, What and Why: The Five "W"s Topic, Thesis, Sources Definition of Terms Choose a Topic Craft a Thesis Evaluate Thesis and Sources A Variety of Information Sources Take Efficient Notes Note Cards Thinking, Organizing, Researching Parenthetical Documentation Prepare a Works Cited Page Drafting, Revising, Rewriting, Rethinking For Further Reading: Works Cited Additional Links So you want to study history?! Tons of help and links Slatta Home Page Use the Writing and other links on the lefhand menu I. The Range and Richness of Historical Sources Back to Top Every period leaves traces, what historians call "sources" or evidence. Some are more credible or carry more weight than others; judging the differences is a vital skill developed by good historians. Sources vary in perspective, so knowing who created the information you are examining is vital. Anonymous doesn't make for a very compelling source. For example, an FBI report on the antiwar movement, prepared for U.S. President Richard Nixon, probably contained secrets that at the time were thought to have affected national security. It would not be usual, however, for a journalist's article about a campus riot, featured in a local newspaper, to leak top secret information. Which source would you read? It depends on your research topic. If you're studying how government officials portrayed student activists, you'll want to read the FBI report and many more documents from other government agencies such as the CIA and the National Security Council. If you're investigating contemporary opinion of pro-war and anti-war activists, local newspaper accounts provide a rich resource. You'd want to read a variety of newspapers to ensure you're covering a wide range of opinions (rural/urban, left/right, North/South, Soldier/Draft-dodger, etc). Historians classify sources into two major categories: primary and secondary sources. Secondary Sources Back to Top Definition: Secondary sources are created by someone who was either not present when the event occurred or removed from it in time. We use secondary sources for overview information, to familiarize ourselves with a topic, and compare that topic with other events in history. In refining a research topic, we often begin with secondary sources. This helps us identify gaps or conflicts in the existing scholarly literature that might prove promsing topics. Types: History books, encyclopedias, historical dictionaries, and academic (scholarly) articles are secondary sources. To help you determine the status of a given secondary source, see How to identify and nagivate scholarly literature . Examples: Historian Marilyn Young's (NYU) book about the Vietnam War is a secondary source. She did not participate in the war. Her study is not based on her personal experience but on the evidence she culled from a variety of sources she found in the United States and Vietnam. Primary Sources Back to Top Definition: Primary sources emanate from individuals or groups who participated in or witnessed an event and recorded that event during or immediately after the event. They include speeches, memoirs, diaries, letters, telegrams, emails, proclamations, government documents, and much more. Examples: A student activist during the war writing about protest activities has created a memoir. This would be a primary source because the information is based on her own involvement in the events she describes. Similarly, an antiwar speech is a primary source. So is the arrest record of student protesters. A newspaper editorial or article, reporting on a student demonstration is also a primary source. II. Historical Analysis What is it? Back to Top No matter what you read, whether it's a primary source or a secondary source, you want to know who authored the source (a trusted scholar? A controversial historian? A propagandist? A famous person? An ordinary individual?). "Author" refers to anyone who created information in any medium (film, sound, or text). You also need to know when it was written and the kind of audience the author intend to reach. You should also consider what you bring to the evidence that you examine. Are you inductively following a path of evidence, developing your interpretation based on the sources? Do you have an ax to grind? Did you begin your research deductively, with your mind made up before even seeing the evidence. Historians need to avoid the latter and emulate the former. To read more about the distinction, examine the difference between Intellectual Inquirers and Partisan Ideologues . In the study of history, perspective is everything. A letter written by a twenty- year old Vietnam War protestor will differ greatly from a letter written by a scholar of protest movements. Although the sentiment might be the same, the perspective and influences of these two authors will be worlds apart. Practicing the " 5 Ws " will avoid the confusion of the authority trap. Who, When, Where, What and Why: The Five "W"s Back to Top Historians accumulate evidence (information, including facts, stories, interpretations, opinions, statements, reports, etc.) from a variety of sources (primary and secondary). They must also verify that certain key pieces of information are corroborated by a number of people and sources ("the predonderance of evidence"). The historian poses the " 5 Ws " to every piece of information he examines: Who is the historical actor? When did the event take place? Where did it occur? What did it entail and why did it happen the way it did? The " 5 Ws " can also be used to evaluate a primary source. Who authored the work? When was it created? Where was it created, published, and disseminated? Why was it written (the intended audience), and what is the document about (what points is the author making)? If you know the answers to these five questions, you can analyze any document, and any primary source. The historian doesn't look for the truth, since this presumes there is only one true story. The historian tries to understand a number of competing viewpoints to form his or her own interpretation-- what constitutes the best explanation of what happened and why. By using as wide a range of primary source documents and secondary sources as possible, you will add depth and richness to your historical analysis. The more exposure you, the researcher, have to a number of different sources and differing view points, the more you have a balanced and complete view about a topic in history. This view will spark more questions and ultimately lead you into the quest to unravel more clues about your topic. You are ready to start assembling information for your research paper. III. Topic, Thesis, Sources Definition of Terms Back to Top Because your purpose is to create new knowledge while recognizing those scholars whose existing work has helped you in this pursuit, you are honor bound never to commit the following academic sins: Plagiarism: Literally "kidnapping," involving the use of someone else's words as if they were your own (Gibaldi 6). To avoid plagiarism you must document direct quotations, paraphrases, and original ideas not your own. Recycling: Rehashing material you already know thoroughly or, without your professor's permission, submitting a paper that you have completed for another course. Premature cognitive commitment: Academic jargon for deciding on a thesis too soon and then seeking information to serve that thesis rather than embarking on a genuine search for new knowledge. Choose a Topic Back to Top "Do not hunt for subjects, let them choose you, not you them." --Samuel Butler Choosing a topic is the first step in the pursuit of a thesis. Below is a logical progression from topic to thesis: Close reading of the primary text, aided by secondary sources Growing awareness of interesting qualities within the primary text Choosing a topic for research Asking productive questions that help explore and evaluate a topic Creating a research hypothesis Revising and refining a hypothesis to form a working thesis First, and most important, identify what qualities in the primary or secondary source pique your imagination and curiosity and send you on a search for answers. Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive levels provides a description of productive questions asked by critical thinkers. While the lower levels (knowledge, comprehension) are necessary to a good history essay, aspire to the upper three levels (analysis, synthesis, evaluation). Skimming reference works such as encyclopedias, books, critical essays and periodical articles can help you choose a topic that evolves into a hypothesis, which in turn may lead to a thesis. One approach to skimming involves reading the first paragraph of a secondary source to locate and evaluate the author's thesis. Then for a general idea of the work's organization and major ideas read the first and last sentence of each paragraph. Read the conclusion carefully, as it usually presents a summary (Barnet and Bedau 19). Craft a Thesis Back to Top Very often a chosen topic is too broad for focused research. You must revise it until you have a working hypothesis, that is, a statement of an idea or an approach with respect to the source that could form the basis for your thesis. Remember to not commit too soon to any one hypothesis. Use it as a divining rod or a first step that will take you to new information that may inspire you to revise your hypothesis. Be flexible. Give yourself time to explore possibilities. The hypothesis you create will mature and shift as you write and rewrite your paper. New questions will send you back to old and on to new material. Remember, this is the nature of research--it is more a spiraling or iterative activity than a linear one. Test your working hypothesis to be sure it is: broad enough to promise a variety of resources. narrow enough for you to research in depth. original enough to interest you and your readers. worthwhile enough to offer information and insights of substance "do-able"--sources are available to complete the research. Now it is time to craft your thesis, your revised and refined hypothesis. A thesis is a declarative sentence that: focuses on one well-defined idea makes an arguable assertion; it is capable of being supported prepares your readers for the body of your paper and foreshadows the conclusion. Evaluate Thesis and Sources Back to Top Like your hypothesis, your thesis is not carved in stone. You are in charge. If necessary, revise it during the research process. As you research, continue to evaluate both your thesis for practicality, originality, and promise as a search tool, and secondary sources for relevance and scholarliness. The following are questions to ask during the research process: Are there many journal articles and entire books devoted to the thesis, suggesting that the subject has been covered so thoroughly that there may be nothing new to say? Does the thesis lead to stimulating, new insights? Are appropriate sources available? Is there a variety of sources available so that the bibliography or works cited page will reflect different kinds of sources? Which sources are too broad for my thesis? Which resources are too narrow? Who is the author of the secondary source? Does the critic's background suggest that he/she is qualified? After crafting a thesis, consider one of the following two approaches to writing a research paper: Excited about your thesis and eager to begin? Return to the primary or secondary source to find support for your thesis. Organize ideas and begin writing your first draft. After writing the first draft, have it reviewed by your peers and your instructor. Ponder their suggestions and return to the sources to answer still-open questions. Document facts and opinions from secondary sources. Remember, secondary sources can never substitute for primary sources. Confused about where to start? Use your thesis to guide you to primary and secondary sources. Secondary sources can help you clarify your position and find a direction for your paper. Keep a working bibliography. You may not use all the sources you record, but you cannot be sure which ones you will eventually discard. Create a working outline as you research. This outline will, of course, change as you delve more deeply into your subject. A Variety of Information Sources Back to Top "A mind that is stretched to a new idea never returns to its original dimension." --Oliver Wendell Holmes Your thesis and your working outline are the primary compasses that will help you navigate the variety of sources available. In "Introduction to the Library" (5-6) the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers suggests you become familiar with the library you will be using by: taking a tour or enrolling for a brief introductory lecture referring to the library's publications describing its resources introducing yourself and your project to the reference librarian The MLA Handbook also lists guides for the use of libraries (5), including: Jean Key Gates, Guide to the Use of Libraries and Information Sources (7th ed., New York: McGraw, 1994). Thomas Mann, A Guide to Library Research Methods (New York: Oxford UP, 1987). Online Central Catalog Most libraries have their holdings listed on a computer. The online catalog may offer Internet sites, Web pages and databases that relate to the university's curriculum. It may also include academic journals and online reference books. Below are three search techniques commonly used online: Index Search: Although online catalogs may differ slightly from library to library, the most common listings are by: Subject Search: Enter the author's name for books and article written about the author. Author Search: Enter an author's name for works written by the author, including collections of essays the author may have written about his/her own works. Title Search: Enter a title for the screen to list all the books the library carries with that title. Key Word Search/Full-text Search: A one-word search, e.g., 'Kennedy,' will produce an overwhelming number of sources, as it will call up any entry that includes the name 'Kennedy.' To focus more narrowly on your subject, add one or more key words, e.g., "John Kennedy, Peace Corps." Use precise key words. Boolean Search: Boolean Search techniques use words such as "and," "or," and "not," which clarify the relationship between key words, thus narrowing the search. Take Efficient Notes Back to Top Keeping complete and accurate bibliography and note cards during the research process is a time (and sanity) saving practice. If you have ever needed a book or pages within a book, only to discover that an earlier researcher has failed to return it or torn pages from your source, you understand the need to take good notes. Every researcher has a favorite method for taking notes. Here are some suggestions-- customize one of them for your own use. Bibliography cards There may be far more books and articles listed than you have time to read, so be selective when choosing a reference. Take information from works that clearly relate to your thesis, remembering that you may not use them all. Use a smaller or a different color card from the one used for taking notes. Write a bibliography card for every source. Number the bibliography cards. On the note cards, use the number rather than the author's name and the title. It's faster. Another method for recording a working bibliography, of course, is to create your own database. Adding, removing, and alphabetizing titles is a simple process. Be sure to save often and to create a back-up file. A bibliography card should include all the information a reader needs to locate that particular source for further study. Most of the information required for a book entry (Gibaldi 112): Author's name Title of a part of the book [preface, chapter titles, etc.] Title of the book Name of the editor, translator, or compiler Edition used Number(s) of the volume(s) used Name of the series Place of publication, name of the publisher, and date of publication Page numbers Supplementary bibliographic information and annotations Most of the information required for an article in a periodical (Gibaldi 141): Author's name Title of the article Name of the periodical Series number or name (if relevant) Volume number (for a scholarly journal) Issue number (if needed) Date of publication Page numbers Supplementary information For information on how to cite other sources refer to your So you want to study history page . Note Cards Back to Top Take notes in ink on either uniform note cards (3x5, 4x6, etc.) or uniform slips of paper. Devote each note card to a single topic identified at the top. Write only on one side. Later, you may want to use the back to add notes or personal observations. Include a topical heading for each card. Include the number of the page(s) where you found the information. You will want the page number(s) later for documentation, and you may also want page number(s)to verify your notes. Most novice researchers write down too much. Condense. Abbreviate. You are striving for substance, not quantity. Quote directly from primary sources--but the "meat," not everything. Suggestions for condensing information: Summary: A summary is intended to provide the gist of an essay. Do not weave in the author's choice phrases. Read the information first and then condense the main points in your own words. This practice will help you avoid the copying that leads to plagiarism. Summarizing also helps you both analyze the text you are reading and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses (Barnet and Bedau 13). Outline: Use to identify a series of points. Paraphrase, except for key primary source quotations. Never quote directly from a secondary source, unless the precise wording is essential to your argument. Simplify the language and list the ideas in the same order. A paraphrase is as long as the original. Paraphrasing is helpful when you are struggling with a particularly difficult passage. Be sure to jot down your own insights or flashes of brilliance. Ralph Waldo Emerson warns you to "Look sharply after your thoughts. They come unlooked for, like a new bird seen on your trees, and, if you turn to your usual task, disappear...." To differentiate these insights from those of the source you are reading, initial them as your own. (When the following examples of note cards include the researcher's insights, they will be followed by the initials N. R.) When you have finished researching your thesis and you are ready to write your paper, organize your cards according to topic. Notecards make it easy to shuffle and organize your source information on a table-- or across the floor. Maintain your working outline that includes the note card headings and explores a logical order for presenting them in your paper. IV. Begin Thinking, Researching, Organizing Back to Top Don't be too sequential. Researching, writing, revising is a complex interactive process. Start writing as soon as possible! "The best antidote to writer's block is--to write." (Klauser 15). However, you still feel overwhelmed and are staring at a blank page, you are not alone. Many students find writing the first sentence to be the most daunting part of the entire research process. Be creative. Cluster (Rico 28-49). Clustering is a form of brainstorming. Sometimes called a web, the cluster forms a design that may suggest a natural organization for a paper. Here's a graphical depiction of brainstorming . Like a sun, the generating idea or topic lies at the center of the web. From it radiate words, phrases, sentences and images that in turn attract other words, phrases, sentences and images. Put another way--stay focused. Start with your outline. If clustering is not a technique that works for you, turn to the working outline you created during the research process. Use the outline view of your word processor. If you have not already done so, group your note cards according to topic headings. Compare them to your outline's major points. If necessary, change the outline to correspond with the headings on the note cards. If any area seems weak because of a scarcity of facts or opinions, return to your primary and/or secondary sources for more information or consider deleting that heading. Use your outline to provide balance in your essay. Each major topic should have approximately the same amount of information. Once you have written a working outline, consider two different methods for organizing it. Deduction: A process of development that moves from the general to the specific. You may use this approach to present your findings. However, as noted above, your research and interpretive process should be inductive. Deduction is the most commonly used form of organization for a research paper. The thesis statement is the generalization that leads to the specific support provided by primary and secondary sources. The thesis is stated early in the paper. The body of the paper then proceeds to provide the facts, examples, and analogies that flow logically from that thesis. The thesis contains key words that are reflected in the outline. These key words become a unifying element throughout the paper, as they reappear in the detailed paragraphs that support and develop the thesis. The conclusion of the paper circles back to the thesis, which is now far more meaningful because of the deductive development that supports it. Chronological order A process that follows a traditional time line or sequence of events. A chronological organization is useful for a paper that explores cause and effect. Parenthetical Documentation Back to Top The Works Cited page, a list of primary and secondary sources, is not sufficient documentation to acknowledge the ideas, facts, and opinions you have included within your text. The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers describes an efficient parenthetical style of documentation to be used within the body of your paper. Guidelines for parenthetical documentation: "References to the text must clearly point to specific sources in the list of works cited" (Gibaldi 184). Try to use parenthetical documentation as little as possible. For example, when you cite an entire work, it is preferable to include the author's name in the text. The author's last name followed by the page number is usually enough for an accurate identification of the source in the works cited list. These examples illustrate the most common kinds of documentation. Documenting a quotation: Ex. "The separation from the personal mother is a particularly intense process for a daughter because she has to separate from the one who is the same as herself" (Murdock 17). She may feel abandoned and angry. Note: The author of The Heroine's Journey is listed under Works Cited by the author's name, reversed--Murdock, Maureen. Quoted material is found on page 17 of that book. Parenthetical documentation is after the quotation mark and before the period. Documenting a paraphrase: Ex. In fairy tales a woman who holds the princess captive or who abandons her often needs to be killed (18). Note: The second paraphrase is also from Murdock's book The Heroine's Journey. It is not, however, necessary to repeat the author's name if no other documentation interrupts the two. If the works cited page lists more than one work by the same author, include within the parentheses an abbreviated form of the appropriate title. You may, of course, include the title in your sentence, making it unnecessary to add an abbreviated title in the citation. > Prepare a Works Cited Page Back to Top There are a variety of titles for the page that lists primary and secondary sources (Gibaldi 106-107). A Works Cited page lists those works you have cited within the body of your paper. The reader need only refer to it for the necessary information required for further independent research. Bibliography means literally a description of books. Because your research may involve the use of periodicals, films, art works, photographs, etc. "Works Cited" is a more precise descriptive term than bibliography. An Annotated Bibliography or Annotated Works Cited page offers brief critiques and descriptions of the works listed. A Works Consulted page lists those works you have used but not cited. Avoid using this format. As with other elements of a research paper there are specific guidelines for the placement and the appearance of the Works Cited page. The following guidelines comply with MLA style: The Work Cited page is placed at the end of your paper and numbered consecutively with the body of your paper. Center the title and place it one inch from the top of your page. Do not quote or underline the title. Double space the entire page, both within and between entries. The entries are arranged alphabetically by the author's last name or by the title of the article or book being cited. If the title begins with an article (a, an, the) alphabetize by the next word. If you cite two or more works by the same author, list the titles in alphabetical order. Begin every entry after the first with three hyphens followed by a period. All entries begin at the left margin but subsequent lines are indented five spaces. Be sure that each entry cited on the Works Cited page corresponds to a specific citation within your paper. Refer to the the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (104- 182) for detailed descriptions of Work Cited entries. Citing sources from online databases is a relatively new phenomenon. Make sure to ask your professor about citing these sources and which style to use. V. Draft, Revise, Rewrite, Rethink Back to Top "There are days when the result is so bad that no fewer than five revisions are required. In contrast, when I'm greatly inspired, only four revisions are needed." --John Kenneth Galbraith Try freewriting your first draft. Freewriting is a discovery process during which the writer freely explores a topic. Let your creative juices flow. In Writing without Teachers , Peter Elbow asserts that "[a]lmost everybody interposes a massive and complicated series of editings between the time words start to be born into consciousness and when they finally come off the end of the pencil or typewriter [or word processor] onto the page" (5). Do not let your internal judge interfere with this first draft. Creating and revising are two very different functions. Don't confuse them! If you stop to check spelling, punctuation, or grammar, you disrupt the flow of creative energy. Create; then fix it later. When material you have researched comes easily to mind, include it. Add a quick citation, one you can come back to later to check for form, and get on with your discovery. In subsequent drafts, focus on creating an essay that flows smoothly, supports fully, and speaks clearly and interestingly. Add style to substance. Create a smooth flow of words, ideas and paragraphs. Rearrange paragraphs for a logical progression of information. Transition is essential if you want your reader to follow you smoothly from introduction to conclusion. Transitional words and phrases stitch your ideas together; they provide coherence within the essay. External transition: Words and phrases that are added to a sentence as overt signs of transition are obvious and effective, but should not be overused, as they may draw attention to themselves and away from ideas. Examples of external transition are "however," "then," "next," "therefore." "first," "moreover," and "on the other hand." Internal transition is more subtle. Key words in the introduction become golden threads when they appear in the paper's body and conclusion. When the writer hears a key word repeated too often, however, she/he replaces it with a synonym or a pronoun. Below are examples of internal transition. Transitional sentences create a logical flow from paragraph to paragraph. Iclude individual words, phrases, or clauses that refer to previous ideas and that point ahead to new ones. They are usually placed at the end or at the beginning of a paragraph. A transitional paragraph conducts your reader from one part of the paper to another. It may be only a few sentences long. Each paragraph of the body of the paper should contain adequate support for its one governing idea. Speak/write clearly, in your own voice. Tone: The paper's tone, whether formal, ironic, or humorous, should be appropriate for the audience and the subject. Voice: Keep you language honest. Your paper should sound like you. Understand, paraphrase, absorb, and express in your own words the information you have researched. Avoid phony language. Sentence formation: When you polish your sentences, read them aloud for word choice and word placement. Be concise. Strunk and White in The Elements of Style advise the writer to "omit needless words" (23). First, however, you must recognize them. Keep yourself and your reader interested. In fact, Strunk's 1918 writing advice is still well worth pondering. First, deliver on your promises. Be sure the body of your paper fulfills the promise of the introduction. Avoid the obvious. Offer new insights. Reveal the unexpected. Have you crafted your conclusion as carefully as you have your introduction? Conclusions are not merely the repetition of your thesis. The conclusion of a research paper is a synthesis of the information presented in the body. Your research has led you to conclusions and opinions that have helped you understand your thesis more deeply and more clearly. Lift your reader to the full level of understanding that you have achieved. Revision means "to look again." Find a peer reader to read your paper with you present. Or, visit your college or university's writing lab. Guide your reader's responses by asking specific questions. Are you unsure of the logical order of your paragraphs? Do you want to know whether you have supported all opinions adequately? Are you concerned about punctuation or grammar? Ask that these issues be addressed. You are in charge. Here are some techniques that may prove helpful when you are revising alone or with a reader. When you edit for spelling errors read the sentences backwards. This procedure will help you look closely at individual words. Always read your paper aloud. Hearing your own words puts them in a new light. Listen to the flow of ideas and of language. Decide whether or not the voice sounds honest and the tone is appropriate to the purpose of the paper and to your audience. Listen for awkward or lumpy wording. Find the one right word, Eliminate needless words. Combine sentences. Kill the passive voice. Eliminate was/were/is/are constructions. They're lame and anti-historical. Be ruthless. If an idea doesn't serve your thesis, banish it, even if it's one of your favorite bits of prose. In the margins, write the major topic of each paragraph. By outlining after you have written the paper, you are once again evaluating your paper's organization. OK, you've got the process down. Now execute! And enjoy! It's not everyday that you get to make history. VI. For Further Reading: Works Cited Back to Top Barnet, Sylvan, and Hugo Bedau. Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing: A Brief Guide to Argument. Boston: Bedford, 1993. Brent, Doug. Reading as Rhetorical Invention: Knowledge,Persuasion and the Teaching of Research-Based Writing. Urbana: NCTE, 1992. Elbow, Peter. Writing without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973. Gibladi, Joseph. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. 4th ed. New York: Modern Language Association, 1995. Horvitz, Deborah. "Nameless Ghosts: Possession and Dispossession in Beloved." Studies in American Fiction , Vol. 17, No. 2, Autum, 1989, pp. 157-167. Republished in the Literature Research Center. Gale Group. (1 January 1999). Klauser, Henriette Anne. Writing on Both Sides of the Brain: Breakthrough Techniques for People Who Write. Philadelphia: Harper, 1986. Rico, Gabriele Lusser. Writing the Natural Way: Using Right Brain Techniques to Release Your Expressive Powers. Los Angeles: Houghton, 1983. Sorenson, Sharon. The Research Paper: A Contemporary Approach. New York: AMSCO, 1994. Strunk, William, Jr., and E. B. White. The Elements of Style. 3rd ed. New York: MacMillan, 1979. Back to Top This guide adapted from materials published by Thomson Gale, publishers. For free resources, including a generic guide to writing term papers, see the Gale.com website , which also includes product information for schools.

Writing a Good History Paper

• Top Ten Reasons for Negative Comments
• Making Sure your Paper has Substance

Common Marginal Remarks on Style, Clarity, Grammar, and Syntax

Word and phrase usage problems, analyzing a historical document, writing a book review, writing a term paper or senior thesis, top ten reasons for negative comments on history papers.

(Drawn from a survey of the History Department ) 10. You engage in cheap, anachronistic moralizing .  9. You are sloppy with the chronology .  8. You quote excessively or improperly .  7. You have written a careless “one-draft wonder.” (See revise and proofread)  6. You are vague or have empty, unsupported generalizations .  5. You write too much in the passive voice.  4. You use inappropriate sources .  3. You use evidence uncritically.  2. You are wordy .  1. You have no clear thesis and little analysis.

Making Sure your History Paper has Substance

Get off to a good start..

Avoid pretentious, vapid beginnings. If you are writing a paper on, say, British responses to the rebellion in India in 1857, don't open with a statement like this: “Throughout human history people in all cultures everywhere in the world have engaged in many and long-running conflicts about numerous aspects of government policy and diplomatic issues, which have much interested historians and generated historical theories in many areas.” This is pure garbage, bores the reader, and is a sure sign that you have nothing substantive to say. Get to the point. Here’s a better start: “The rebellion in 1857 compelled the British to rethink their colonial administration in India.” This sentence tells the reader what your paper is actually about and clears the way for you to state your thesis in the rest of the opening paragraph. For example, you might go on to argue that greater British sensitivity to Indian customs was hypocritical.

State a clear thesis.

Whether you are writing an exam essay or a senior thesis, you need to have a thesis. Don’t just repeat the assignment or start writing down everything that you know about the subject. Ask yourself, “What exactly am I trying to prove?” Your thesis is your take on the subject, your perspective, your explanation—that is, the case that you’re going to argue. “Famine struck Ireland in the 1840s” is a true statement, but it is not a thesis. “The English were responsible for famine in Ireland in the 1840s” is a thesis (whether defensible or not is another matter). A good thesis answers an important research question about how or why something happened. (“Who was responsible for the famine in Ireland in the 1840s?”) Once you have laid out your thesis, don’t forget about it. Develop your thesis logically from paragraph to paragraph. Your reader should always know where your argument has come from, where it is now, and where it is going.

Be sure to analyze.

Students are often puzzled when their professors mark them down for summarizing or merely narrating rather than analyzing. What does it mean to analyze? In the narrow sense, to analyze means to break down into parts and to study the interrelationships of those parts. If you analyze water, you break it down into hydrogen and oxygen. In a broader sense, historical analysis explains the origins and significance of events. Historical analysis digs beneath the surface to see relationships or distinctions that are not immediately obvious. Historical analysis is critical; it evaluates sources, assigns significance to causes, and weighs competing explanations. Don’t push the distinction too far, but you might think of summary and analysis this way: Who, what, when, and where are the stuff of summary; how, why, and to what effect are the stuff of analysis. Many students think that they have to give a long summary (to show the professor that they know the facts) before they get to their analysis. Try instead to begin your analysis as soon as possible, sometimes without any summary at all. The facts will “shine through” a good analysis. You can't do an analysis unless you know the facts, but you can summarize the facts without being able to do an analysis. Summary is easier and less sophisticated than analysis—that’s why summary alone never earns an “A.”

Use evidence critically.

Like good detectives, historians are critical of their sources and cross-check them for reliability. You wouldn't think much of a detective who relied solely on a suspect’s archenemy to check an alibi. Likewise, you wouldn't think much of a historian who relied solely on the French to explain the origins of World War I. Consider the following two statements on the origin of World War I: 1) “For the catastrophe of 1914 the Germans are responsible. Only a professional liar would deny this...” 2) “It is not true that Germany is guilty of having caused this war. Neither the people, the government, nor the Kaiser wanted war....”  They can’t both be right, so you have to do some detective work. As always, the best approach is to ask: Who wrote the source? Why? When? Under what circumstances? For whom? The first statement comes from a book by the French politician Georges Clemenceau, which he wrote in 1929 at the very end of his life. In 1871, Clemenceau had vowed revenge against Germany for its defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War. As premier of France from 1917 to 1920, he represented France at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. He was obviously not a disinterested observer. The second statement comes from a manifesto published by ninety-three prominent German intellectuals in the fall of 1914. They were defending Germany against charges of aggression and brutality. They too were obviously not disinterested observers. Now, rarely do you encounter such extreme bias and passionate disagreement, but the principle of criticizing and cross-checking sources always applies. In general, the more sources you can use, and the more varied they are, the more likely you are to make a sound historical judgment, especially when passions and self-interests are engaged. You don’t need to be cynical as a historian (self-interest does not explain everything), but you do need to be critical and skeptical. Competent historians may offer different interpretations of the same evidence or choose to stress different evidence. You will not find a single historical Truth with a capital “T” on any matter of significance. You can, however, learn to discriminate among conflicting interpretations, not all of which are created equal. (See also: Analyzing a Historical Document )

Be precise.

Vague statements and empty generalizations suggest that you haven't put in the time to learn the material. Consider these two sentences: “During the French Revolution, the government was overthrown by the people. The Revolution is important because it shows that people need freedom.” What people? Landless peasants? Urban journeymen? Wealthy lawyers? Which government? When? How? Who exactly needed freedom, and what did they mean by freedom? Here is a more precise statement about the French Revolution: “Threatened by rising prices and food shortages in 1793, the Parisian sans-culottes pressured the Convention to institute price controls.” This statement is more limited than the grandiose generalizations about the Revolution, but unlike them, it can open the door to a real analysis of the Revolution. Be careful when you use grand abstractions like people, society, freedom, and government, especially when you further distance yourself from the concrete by using these words as the apparent antecedents for the pronouns they and it. Always pay attention to cause and effect. Abstractions do not cause or need anything; particular people or particular groups of people cause or need things. Avoid grandiose trans-historical generalizations that you can’t support. When in doubt about the appropriate level of precision or detail, err on the side of adding “too much” precision and detail.

Watch the chronology.

Anchor your thesis in a clear chronological framework and don't jump around confusingly. Take care to avoid both anachronisms and vagueness about dates. If you write, “Napoleon abandoned his Grand Army in Russia and caught the redeye back to Paris,” the problem is obvious. If you write, “Despite the Watergate scandal, Nixon easily won reelection in 1972,” the problem is more subtle, but still serious. (The scandal did not become public until after the election.) If you write, “The revolution in China finally succeeded in the twentieth century,” your professor may suspect that you haven’t studied. Which revolution? When in the twentieth century? Remember that chronology is the backbone of history. What would you think of a biographer who wrote that you graduated from Hamilton in the 1950s?

Cite sources carefully.

Your professor may allow parenthetical citations in a short paper with one or two sources, but you should use footnotes for any research paper in history. Parenthetical citations are unaesthetic; they scar the text and break the flow of reading. Worse still, they are simply inadequate to capture the richness of historical sources. Historians take justifiable pride in the immense variety of their sources. Parenthetical citations such as (Jones 1994) may be fine for most of the social sciences and humanities, where the source base is usually limited to recent books and articles in English. Historians, however, need the flexibility of the full footnote. Try to imagine this typical footnote (pulled at random from a classic work of German history) squeezed into parentheses in the body of the text: DZA Potsdam, RdI, Frieden 5, Erzgebiet von Longwy-Briey, Bd. I, Nr. 19305, gedruckte Denkschrift für OHL und Reichsleitung, Dezember 1917, und in RWA, Frieden Frankreich Nr. 1883. The abbreviations are already in this footnote; its information cannot be further reduced. For footnotes and bibliography, historians usually use Chicago style. (The Chicago Manual of Style. 15th edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.) On the Writing Center’s website you can find a useful summary of Chicago citation style prepared by a former history major, Elizabeth Rabe ’04 ( Footnotes ). RefWorks (on the library’s website) will convert your citations to Chicago style. Don’t hesitate to ask one of the reference librarians for help if you have trouble getting started on RefWorks.

Use primary sources.

Use as many primary sources as possible in your paper. A primary source is one produced by a participant in or witness of the events you are writing about. A primary source allows the historian to see the past through the eyes of direct participants. Some common primary sources are letters, diaries, memoirs, speeches, church records, newspaper articles, and government documents of all kinds. The capacious genre “government records” is probably the single richest trove for the historian and includes everything from criminal court records, to tax lists, to census data, to parliamentary debates, to international treaties—indeed, any records generated by governments. If you’re writing about culture, primary sources may include works of art or literature, as well as philosophical tracts or scientific treatises—anything that comes under the broad rubric of culture. Not all primary sources are written. Buildings, monuments, clothes, home furnishings, photographs, religious relics, musical recordings, or oral reminiscences can all be primary sources if you use them as historical clues. The interests of historians are so broad that virtually anything can be a primary source. (See also: Analyzing a Historical Document )

Use scholarly secondary sources.

A secondary source is one written by a later historian who had no part in what he or she is writing about. (In the rare cases when the historian was a participant in the events, then the work—or at least part of it—is a primary source.) Historians read secondary sources to learn about how scholars have interpreted the past. Just as you must be critical of primary sources, so too you must be critical of secondary sources. You must be especially careful to distinguish between scholarly and non-scholarly secondary sources. Unlike, say, nuclear physics, history attracts many amateurs. Books and articles about war, great individuals, and everyday material life dominate popular history. Some professional historians disparage popular history and may even discourage their colleagues from trying their hand at it. You need not share their snobbishness; some popular history is excellent. But—and this is a big but—as a rule, you should avoid popular works in your research, because they are usually not scholarly. Popular history seeks to inform and entertain a large general audience. In popular history, dramatic storytelling often prevails over analysis, style over substance, simplicity over complexity, and grand generalization over careful qualification. Popular history is usually based largely or exclusively on secondary sources. Strictly speaking, most popular histories might better be called tertiary, not secondary, sources. Scholarly history, in contrast, seeks to discover new knowledge or to reinterpret existing knowledge. Good scholars wish to write clearly and simply, and they may spin a compelling yarn, but they do not shun depth, analysis, complexity, or qualification. Scholarly history draws on as many primary sources as practical. Now, your goal as a student is to come as close as possible to the scholarly ideal, so you need to develop a nose for distinguishing the scholarly from the non-scholarly. Here are a few questions you might ask of your secondary sources (bear in mind that the popular/scholarly distinction is not absolute, and that some scholarly work may be poor scholarship). Who is the author? Most scholarly works are written by professional historians (usually professors) who have advanced training in the area they are writing about. If the author is a journalist or someone with no special historical training, be careful. Who publishes the work? Scholarly books come from university presses and from a handful of commercial presses (for example, Norton, Routledge, Palgrave, Penguin, Rowman & Littlefield, Knopf, and HarperCollins). If it’s an article, where does it appear? Is it in a journal subscribed to by our library, listed on JSTOR , or published by a university press? Is the editorial board staffed by professors? Oddly enough, the word journal in the title is usually a sign that the periodical is scholarly. What do the notes and bibliography look like? If they are thin or nonexistent, be careful. If they are all secondary sources, be careful. If the work is about a non-English-speaking area, and all the sources are in English, then it's almost by definition not scholarly. Can you find reviews of the book in the data base Academic Search Premier? If the book was published within the last few decades, and it’s not in there, that’s a bad sign. With a little practice, you can develop confidence in your judgment—and you’re on your way to being a historian. If you are unsure whether a work qualifies as scholarly, ask your professor. (See also: Writing a Book Review )

Avoid abusing your sources.

Many potentially valuable sources are easy to abuse. Be especially alert for these five abuses: Web abuse. The Web is a wonderful and improving resource for indexes and catalogs. But as a source for primary and secondary material for the historian, the Web is of limited value. Anyone with the right software can post something on the Web without having to get past trained editors, peer reviewers, or librarians. As a result, there is a great deal of garbage on the Web. If you use a primary source from the Web, make sure that a respected intellectual institution stands behind the site. Be especially wary of secondary articles on the Web, unless they appear in electronic versions of established print journals (e.g., The Journal of Asian Studies in JSTOR). Many articles on the Web are little more than third-rate encyclopedia entries. When in doubt, check with your professor. With a few rare exceptions, you will not find scholarly monographs in history (even recent ones) on the Web. You may have heard of Google’s plans to digitize the entire collections of some of the world’s major libraries and to make those collections available on the Web. Don’t hold your breath. Your days at Hamilton will be long over by the time the project is finished. Besides, your training as a historian should give you a healthy skepticism of the giddy claims of technophiles. Most of the time and effort of doing history goes into reading, note-taking, pondering, and writing. Finding a chapter of a book on the Web (as opposed to getting the physical book through interlibrary loan) might be a convenience, but it doesn’t change the basics for the historian. Moreover, there is a subtle, but serious, drawback with digitized old books: They break the historian’s sensual link to the past. And of course, virtually none of the literally trillions of pages of archival material is available on the Web. For the foreseeable future, the library and the archive will remain the natural habitats of the historian. Thesaurus abuse. How tempting it is to ask your computer’s thesaurus to suggest a more erudite-sounding word for the common one that popped into your mind! Resist the temptation. Consider this example (admittedly, a bit heavy-handed, but it drives the point home): You’re writing about the EPA’s programs to clean up impure water supplies. Impure seems too simple and boring a word, so you bring up your thesaurus, which offers you everything from incontinent to meretricious. “How about meretricious water?” you think to yourself. “That will impress the professor.” The problem is that you don’t know exactly what meretricious means, so you don’t realize that meretricious is absurdly inappropriate in this context and makes you look foolish and immature. Use only those words that come to you naturally. Don’t try to write beyond your vocabulary. Don’t try to impress with big words. Use a thesaurus only for those annoying tip-of-the-tongue problems (you know the word and will recognize it instantly when you see it, but at the moment you just can’t think of it).  Quotation book abuse. This is similar to thesaurus abuse. Let’s say you are writing a paper on Alexander Hamilton’s banking policies, and you want to get off to a snappy start that will make you seem effortlessly learned. How about a quotation on money? You click on the index of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations , and before you know it, you’ve begun your paper with, “As Samuel Butler wrote in Hudibras ,  ‘For what is worth in anything/ But so much money as ’t will bring?’” Face it, you’re faking it. You don’t know who Samuel Butler is, and you’ve certainly never heard of Hudibras , let alone read it. Your professor is not fooled. You sound like an insecure after-dinner speaker. Forget Bartlett’s, unless you're confirming the wording of a quotation that came to you spontaneously and relates to your paper.  Encyclopedia abuse. General encyclopedias like Britannica are useful for checking facts (“Wait a sec, am I right about which countries sent troops to crush the Boxer Rebellion in China? Better check.”). But if you are footnoting encyclopedias in your papers, you are not doing college-level research.

Dictionary Abuse. The dictionary is your friend. Keep it by your side as you write, but do not abuse it by starting papers with a definition. You may be most tempted to start this way when you are writing on a complex, controversial, or elusive subject. (“According to Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary , liberalism is defined as...”). Actually, the dictionary does you little good in such cases and makes you sound like a conscientious but dull high-school student. Save in the rare case that competing dictionary definitions are the subject at hand, keep dictionary quotations out of your paper.

Quote sparingly

Avoid quoting a secondary source and then simply rewording or summarizing the quotation, either above or below the quotation. It is rarely necessary to quote secondary sources at length, unless your essay focuses on a critical analysis of the author’s argument. (See also: Writing a Book Review ) Your professor wants to see your ability to analyze and to understand the secondary sources. Do not quote unless the quotation clarifies or enriches your analysis. When in doubt, do not quote; instead, integrate the author’s argument into your own (though be sure to acknowledge ideas from your sources, even when you are paraphrasing). If you use a lot of quotations from secondary sources, you are probably writing a poor paper. An analysis of a primary source, such as a political tract or philosophical essay, might require lengthy quotations, often in block format. In such cases, you might need to briefly repeat key points or passages as a means to introduce the author’s ideas, but your analysis and interpretation of the text’s meaning should remain the most important aim. (See also: Using primary sources and Use scholarly secondary sources .)

Know your audience

Unless instructed otherwise, you should assume that your audience consists of educated, intelligent, nonspecialists. In fact, your professor will usually be your only reader, but if you write directly to your professor, you may become cryptic or sloppy (oh well, she’ll know what I’m talking about). Explaining your ideas to someone who doesn't know what you mean forces you to be clear and complete. Now, finding the right amount of detail can, admittedly, be tricky (how much do I put in about the Edict of Nantes, the Embargo Act, or President Wilson’s background?). When in doubt, err on the side of putting in extra details. You’ll get some leeway here if you avoid the extremes (my reader’s an ignoramus/my reader knows everything).

Avoid cheap, anachronistic moralizing

Many of the people and institutions of the past appear unenlightened, ignorant, misguided, or bigoted by today’s values. Resist the temptation to condemn or to get self-righteous. (“Martin Luther was blind to the sexism and class prejudice of sixteenth-century German society.”) Like you, people in the past were creatures of their time; like you, they deserve to be judged by the standards of their time. If you judge the past by today’s standards (an error historians call “presentism”), you will never understand why people thought or acted as they did. Yes, Hitler was a bad guy, but he was bad not only by today’s standards, but also by the commonly accepted standards of his own time. Someday you’re going to look pretty foolish and ignorant yourself. (“Early twenty-first century Hamilton students failed to see the shocking inderdosherism [that’s right, you don’t recognize the concept because it doesn’t yet exist] implicit in their career plans.”)

Have a strong conclusion

Obviously, you should not just stop abruptly as though you have run out of time or ideas. Your conclusion should conclude something. If you merely restate briefly what you have said in your paper, you give the impression that you are unsure of the significance of what you have written. A weak conclusion leaves the reader unsatisfied and bewildered, wondering why your paper was worth reading. A strong conclusion adds something to what you said in your introduction. A strong conclusion explains the importance and significance of what you have written. A strong conclusion leaves your reader caring about what you have said and pondering the larger implications of your thesis. Don’t leave your reader asking, “So what?”

Revise and proofread

Your professor can spot a “one-draft wonder,” so don't try to do your paper at the last moment. Leave plenty of time for revising and proofreading. Show your draft to a writing tutor or other good writer. Reading the draft aloud may also help. Of course, everyone makes mistakes, and a few may slip through no matter how meticulous you are. But beware of lots of mistakes. The failure to proofread carefully suggests that you devoted little time and effort to the assignment. Tip: Proofread your text both on the screen and on a printed copy. Your eyes see the two differently. Don’t rely on your spell checker to catch all of your misspellings. (If ewe ken reed this ewe kin sea that a computer wood nut all ways help ewe spill or rite reel good.)

Note: The Writing Center suggests standard abbreviations for noting some of these problems. You should familiarize yourself with those abbreviations, but your professor may not use them.  

Remarks on Style and Clarity

Wordy/verbose/repetitive..

Try your hand at fixing this sentence: “Due to the fact that these aspects of the issue of personal survival have been raised by recently transpired problematic conflicts, it is at the present time paramount that the ultimate psychological end of suicide be contemplated by this individual.” If you get it down to “To be or not to be, that is the question,” you’ve done well. You may not match Shakespeare, but you can learn to cut the fat out of your prose. The chances are that the five pages you’ve written for your history paper do not really contain five pages’ worth of ideas.

Misuse of the passive voice.

Write in the active voice. The passive voice encourages vagueness and dullness; it enfeebles verbs; and it conceals agency, which is the very stuff of history. You know all of this almost instinctively. What would you think of a lover who sighed in your ear, “My darling, you are loved by me!”? At its worst, the passive voice—like its kin, bureaucratic language and jargon—is a medium for the dishonesty and evasion of responsibility that pervade contemporary American culture. (“Mistakes were made; I was given false information.” Now notice the difference: “I screwed up; Smith and Jones lied to me; I neglected to check the facts.”) On history papers the passive voice usually signals a less toxic version of the same unwillingness to take charge, to commit yourself, and to say forthrightly what is really going on, and who is doing what to whom. Suppose you write, “In 1935 Ethiopia was invaded.” This sentence is a disaster. Who invaded? Your professor will assume that you don't know. Adding “by Italy” to the end of the sentence helps a bit, but the sentence is still flat and misleading. Italy was an aggressive actor, and your passive construction conceals that salient fact by putting the actor in the syntactically weakest position—at the end of the sentence as the object of a preposition. Notice how you add vigor and clarity to the sentence when you recast it in the active voice: "In 1935 Italy invaded Ethiopia." I n a few cases , you may violate the no-passive-voice rule. The passive voice may be preferable if the agent is either obvious (“Kennedy was elected in 1960”), irrelevant (“Theodore Roosevelt became president when McKinley was assassinated”), or unknown (“King Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings”). Note that in all three of these sample sentences the passive voice focuses the reader on the receiver of the action rather than on the doer (on Kennedy, not on American voters; on McKinley, not on his assassin; on King Harold, not on the unknown Norman archer). Historians usually wish to focus on the doer, so you should stay with the active voice—unless you can make a compelling case for an exception.

Abuse of the verb to be.

The verb to be is the most common and most important verb in English, but too many verbs to be suck the life out of your prose and lead to wordiness. Enliven your prose with as many action verbs as possible. ( “In Brown v. Board of Education it was the opinion of the Supreme Court that the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”) Rewrite as “ In Brown v. Board of Education the Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ violated the Fourteenth ”

Explain/what’s your point?/unclear/huh?

You may (or may not) know what you’re talking about, but if you see these marginal comments, you have confused your reader. You may have introduced a non sequitur ; gotten off the subject; drifted into abstraction; assumed something that you have not told the reader; failed to explain how the material relates to your argument; garbled your syntax; or simply failed to proofread carefully.  If possible, have a good writer read your paper and point out the muddled parts. Reading your paper aloud may help too.

Paragraph goes nowhere/has no point or unity.

Paragraphs are the building blocks of your paper. If your paragraphs are weak, your paper cannot be strong. Try underlining the topic sentence of every paragraph. If your topic sentences are vague, strength and precision—the hallmarks of good writing—are unlikely to follow. Consider this topic sentence (from a paper on Ivan the Terrible): “From 1538 to 1547, there are many different arguments about the nature of what happened.”  Disaster looms. The reader has no way of knowing when the arguing takes place, who’s arguing, or even what the arguing is about. And how does the “nature of what happened” differ from plain “what happened”? Perhaps the writer means the following: “The childhood of Ivan the Terrible has provoked controversy among scholars of Russian history.” That's hardly deathless prose, but it does orient the reader and make the writer accountable for what follows in the paragraph. Once you have a good topic sentence, make sure that everything in the paragraph supports that sentence, and that cumulatively the support is persuasive. Make sure that each sentence follows logically from the previous one, adding detail in a coherent order. Move, delete, or add material as appropriate. To avoid confusing the reader, limit each paragraph to one central idea. (If you have a series of supporting points starting with first, you must follow with a second, third , etc.) A paragraph that runs more than a printed page is probably too long. Err on the side of shorter paragraphs.

Inappropriate use of first person.

Most historians write in the third person, which focuses the reader on the subject. If you write in the first person singular, you shift the focus to yourself. You give the impression that you want to break in and say, “Enough about the Haitian revolution [or whatever], now let’s talk about me!” Also avoid the first person plural (“We believe...”). It suggests committees, editorial boards, or royalty. None of those should have had a hand in writing your paper. And don’t refer to yourself lamely as “this writer.” Who else could possibly be writing the paper?

Tense inconsistency.

Stay consistently in the past tense when you are writing about what took place in the past. (“Truman’s defeat of Dewey in 1948 caught the pollsters by surprise.”) Note that the context may require a shift into the past perfect. (“The pollsters had not realized [past perfect] that voter opinion had been [past perfect] changing rapidly in the days before the election.”) Unfortunately, the tense problem can get a bit more complicated. Most historians shift into the present tense when describing or commenting on a book, document, or evidence that still exists and is in front of them (or in their mind) as they write.  (“de Beauvoir published [past tense] The Second Sex in 1949. In the book she contends [present tense] that woman....”) If you’re confused, think of it this way: History is about the past, so historians write in the past tense, unless they are discussing effects of the past that still exist and thus are in the present. When in doubt, use the past tense and stay consistent.

Ill-fitted quotation.

This is a common problem, though not noted in stylebooks. When you quote someone, make sure that the quotation fits grammatically into your sentence.  Note carefully the mismatch between the start of the following sentence and the quotation that follows:  “In order to understand the Vikings, writes Marc Bloch, it is necessary, ‘To conceive of the Viking expeditions as religious warfare inspired by the ardour of an implacable pagan fanaticism—an explanation that has sometimes been at least suggested—conflicts too much with what we know of minds disposed to respect magic of every kind.’” At first, the transition into the quotation from Bloch seems fine. The infinitive (to conceive) fits. But then the reader comes to the verb (conflicts) in Bloch’s sentence, and things no longer make sense. The writer is saying, in effect, “it is necessary conflicts.” The wordy lead-in and the complex syntax of the quotation have tripped the writer and confused the reader. If you wish to use the whole sentence, rewrite as “Marc Bloch writes in Feudal Society , ‘To conceive of...’” Better yet, use your own words or only part of the quotation in your sentence. Remember that good writers quote infrequently, but when they do need to quote, they use carefully phrased lead-ins that fit the grammatical construction of the quotation.

Free-floating quotation.

Do not suddenly drop quotations into your prose. (“The spirit of the Progressive era is best understood if one remembers that the United States is ‘the only country in the world that began with perfection and aspired to progress.’”) You have probably chosen the quotation because it is finely wrought and says exactly what you want to say. Fine, but first you inconvenience the reader, who must go to the footnote to learn that the quotation comes from The Age of Reform by historian Richard Hofstadter. And then you puzzle the reader. Did Hofstadter write the line about perfection and progress, or is he quoting someone from the Progressive era? If, as you claim, you are going to help the reader to judge the “spirit of the Progressive era,” you need to clarify. Rewrite as “As historian Richard Hofstadter writes in the Age of Reform , the United States is ‘the only country in the world...’” Now the reader knows immediately that the line is Hofstadter’s.

Who’s speaking here?/your view?

Always be clear about whether you’re giving your opinion or that of the author or historical actor you are discussing. Let’s say that your essay is about Martin Luther’s social views. You write, “The German peasants who revolted in 1525 were brutes and deserved to be crushed mercilessly.” That’s what Luther thought, but do you agree?  You may know, but your reader is not a mind reader. When in doubt, err on the side of being overly clear.

Jargon/pretentious theory.

Historians value plain English. Academic jargon and pretentious theory will make your prose turgid, ridiculous, and downright irritating. Your professor will suspect that you are trying to conceal that you have little to say. Of course, historians can’t get along without some theory; even those who profess to have no theory actually do—it’s called naïve realism. And sometimes you need a technical term, be it ontological argument or ecological fallacy. When you use theory or technical terms, make sure that they are intelligible and do real intellectual lifting.  Please, no sentences like this: “By means of a neo-Althusserian, post-feminist hermeneutics, this essay will de/construct the logo/phallo/centrism imbricated in the marginalizing post-colonial gendered gaze, thereby proliferating the subjectivities that will re/present the de/stabilization of the essentializing habitus of post-Fordist capitalism.”

Informal language/slang.

You don’t need to be stuffy, but stay with formal English prose of the kind that will still be comprehensible to future generations. Columbus did not “push the envelope in the Atlantic.” Henry VIII was not “looking for his inner child when he broke with the Church.” Prime Minister Cavour of Piedmont was not “trying to play in the major leagues diplomatic wise.” Wilson did not “almost veg out” at the end of his second term. President Hindenburg did not appoint Hitler in a “senior moment.” Prime Minister Chamberlain did not tell the Czechs to “chill out” after the Munich Conference, and Gandhi was not an “awesome dude.”

Try to keep your prose fresh. Avoid cliches. When you proofread, watch out for sentences like these: “Voltaire always gave 110 percent and thought outside the box. His bottom line was that as people went forward into the future, they would, at the end of the day, step up to the plate and realize that the Jesuits were conniving perverts.” Ugh. Rewrite as “Voltaire tried to persuade people that the Jesuits were cony, step up to the plate and realize that the Jesuits were conniving perverts.” Ugh. Rewrite as “Voltaire tried to persuade people that the Jesuits were conniving perverts.”

Intensifier abuse/exaggeration.

Avoid inflating your prose with unsustainable claims of size, importance, uniqueness, certainty, or intensity. Such claims mark you as an inexperienced writer trying to impress the reader. Your statement is probably not certain ; your subject probably not unique , the biggest, the best, or the most important. Also, the adverb very will rarely strengthen your sentence. Strike it. (“President Truman was very determined to stop the spread of communism in Greece.”) Rewrite as “President Truman resolved to stop the spread of communism in Greece.”

Mixed image.

Once you have chosen an image, you must stay with language compatible with that image. In the following example, note that the chain, the boiling, and the igniting are all incompatible with the image of the cold, rolling, enlarging snowball: “A snowballing chain of events boiled over, igniting the powder keg of war in 1914.” Well chosen images can enliven your prose, but if you catch yourself mixing images a lot, you're probably trying to write beyond your ability. Pull back. Be more literal.

Clumsy transition.

If your reader feels a jolt or gets disoriented at the beginning of a new paragraph, your paper probably lacks unity. In a good paper, each paragraph is woven seamlessly into the next. If you find yourself beginning your paragraphs with phrases such as “Another aspect of this problem...,” then you are probably “stacking note cards” rather than developing a thesis.

Unnecessary relative clause.

If you don’t need to restrict the meaning of your sentence’s subject, then don’t. (“Napoleon was a man who tried to conquer Europe.”) Here the relative clause adds nothing. Rewrite as “Napoleon tried to conquer Europe.” Unnecessary relative clauses are a classic form of wordiness.

Distancing or demeaning quotation marks.

If you believe that a frequently used word or phrase distorts historical reality, don’t put it in dismissive, sneering quotation marks to make your point (“the communist ‘threat’ to the ‘free’ world during the Cold War”). Many readers find this practice arrogant, obnoxious, and precious, and they may dismiss your arguments out of hand. If you believe that the communist threat was bogus or exaggerated, or that the free world was not really free, then simply explain what you mean.

Remarks on Grammar and Syntax

Ideally, your professor will help you to improve your writing by specifying exactly what is wrong with a particular passage, but  sometimes you may find a simple awk in the margin. This all-purpose negative comment usually suggests that the sentence is clumsy because you have misused words or compounded several errors. Consider this sentence from a book review:

“However, many falsehoods lie in Goldhagen’s claims and these will be explored.”

What is your long-suffering professor to do with this sentence? The however contributes nothing; the phrase falsehoods lie is an unintended pun that distracts the reader; the comma is missing between the independent clauses; the these has no clear antecedent ( falsehoods? claims? ); the second clause is in the passive voice and contributes nothing anyway; the whole sentence is wordy and screams hasty, last-minute composition. In weary frustration, your professor scrawls awk in the margin and moves on. Buried under the twelve-word sentence lies a three-word idea: “Goldhagen often errs.” When you see awk, check for the common errors in this list. If you don’t understand what’s wrong, ask.

Unclear antecedent.

All pronouns must refer clearly to antecedents and must agree with them in number. The reader usually assumes that the antecedent is the immediately preceding noun. Do not confuse the reader by having several possible antecedents. Consider these two sentences:

“Pope Gregory VII forced Emperor Henry IV to wait three days in the snow at Canossa before granting him an audience. It was a symbolic act.”

To what does the it refer? Forcing the Emperor to wait? The waiting itself? The granting of the audience? The audience itself? The whole previous sentence? You are most likely to get into antecedent trouble when you begin a paragraph with this or it , referring vaguely back to the general import of the previous paragraph. When in doubt, take this test: Circle the pronoun and the antecedent and connect the two with a line. Then ask yourself if your reader could instantly make the same diagram without your help. If the line is long, or if the circle around the antecedent is large, encompassing huge gobs of text, then your reader probably will be confused.  Rewrite. Repetition is better than ambiguity and confusion.

Faulty parallelism.

You confuse your reader if you change the grammatical construction from one element to the next in a series. Consider this sentence:

“King Frederick the Great sought to expand Prussia, to rationalize agriculture, and that the state support education.”

The reader expects another infinitive, but instead trips over the that . Rewrite the last clause as “and to promote state-supported education.” Sentences using neither/nor frequently present parallelism problems. Note the two parts of this sentence:

“After 1870 the cavalry charge was neither an effective tactic, nor did armies use it frequently.”

The sentence jars because the neither is followed by a noun, the nor by a verb. Keep the parts parallel.

Rewrite as “After 1870 the cavalry charge was neither effective nor frequently used.”

Sentences with not only/but also are another pitfall for many students. (“Mussolini attacked not only liberalism, but he also advocated militarism.”) Here the reader is set up to expect a noun in the second clause, but stumbles over a verb. Make the parts parallel by putting the verb attacked after the not only .

Misplaced modifier/dangling element.

Do not confuse the reader with a phrase or clause that refers illogically or absurdly to other words in the sentence. (“Summarized on the back cover of the American paperback edition, the publishers claim that...”) The publishers are not summarized on the back cover. (“Upon finishing the book, many questions remain.”) Who finished the book? Questions can’t read. Avoid following an introductory participial clause with the expletives it or there . Expletives are by definition filler words; they can’t be agents. (“Having examined the origins of the Meiji Restoration in Japan, it is apparent that...”) Apparent to whom?  The expletive it didn’t do the examining. (“After going on the Long March, there was greater support for the Communists in China.”) Who went on the Long March? There didn’t go on the Long March. Always pay attention to who’s doing what in your sentences.

Run-on sentence.

Run-on sentences string together improperly joined independent clauses. Consider these three sentences:

“Galileo recanted his teaching that the earth moved privately he maintained his convictions.” “Galileo recanted his teaching that the earth moved, privately he maintained his convictions.” “Galileo recanted his teaching that the earth moved, however, privately he maintained his convictions.”

The first fuses two independent clauses with neither a comma nor a coordinating conjunction; the second uses a comma but omits the coordinating conjunction; and the third also omits the coordinating conjunction (however is not a coordinating conjunction). To solve the problem, separate the two clauses with a comma and the coordinating conjunction but. You could also divide the clauses with a semicolon or make separate sentences. Remember that there are only seven coordinating conjunctions ( and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet ).

Sentence fragment.

Write in sentences. A sentence has to have a subject and a predicate. If you string together a lot of words, you may lose control of the syntax and end up with a sentence fragment. Note that the following is not a sentence:

“While in Western Europe railroad building proceeded rapidly in the nineteenth century, and in Russia there was less progress.”

Here you have a long compound introductory clause followed by no subject and no verb, and thus you have a fragment. You may have noticed exceptions to the no-fragments rule. Skilful writers do sometimes intentionally use a fragment to achieve a certain effect. Leave the rule-breaking to the experts.

Confusion of restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses.

Consider these two versions of the same sentence:

1. “World War I, which raged from 1914-1918, killed millions of Europeans.” 2. “World War I that raged from 1914-1918 killed millions of Europeans.”

The first sentence has a nonrestrictive relative clause; the dates are included almost as parenthetical information. But something seems amiss with the second sentence. It has a restrictive relative clause that limits the subject (World War I) to the World War I fought between 1914 and 1918, thus implying that there were other wars called World War I, and that we need to distinguish among them. Both sentences are grammatically correct, but the writer of the second sentence appears foolish.  Note carefully the distinction between that (for use in restrictive clauses, with no comma) and which (for use in nonrestrictive clauses, with a comma).

Confusion about who’s doing what.

Remember—history is about what people do, so you need to be vigilant about agency. Proofread your sentences carefully, asking yourself, “Have I said exactly who is doing or thinking what, or have I inadvertently attributed an action or belief to the wrong person or group?” Unfortunately, there are many ways to go wrong here, but faulty punctuation is among the most common. Here’s a sentence about Frantz Fanon, the great critic of European imperialism. Focus on the punctuation and its effect on agency: “Instead of a hierarchy based on class, Fanon suggests the imperialists establish a hierarchy based on race.” As punctuated, the sentence says something absurd: that Fanon is advising the imperialists about the proper kind of hierarchy to establish in the colonies. Surely, the writer meant to say that, in his analysis of imperialism, Fanon distinguishes between two kinds of hierarchy. A comma after suggests fixes the immediate problem. Now look at the revised sentence. It still needs work. Better diction and syntax would sharpen it.  Fanon does not suggest (with connotations of both hinting and advocating); he states outright. What’s more, the comparison of the two kinds of hierarchy gets blurred by too many intervening words. The key point of the sentence is, in effect, “instead of A, we have B.” Clarity demands that B follow A as closely as possible, and that the two elements be grammatically parallel. But between the elements A and B, the writer inserts Fanon (a proper noun), suggests (a verb), imperialists (a noun), and establish (a verb). Try the sentence this way: “Fanon says that the imperialists establish a hierarchy based on race rather than class.” Now the agency is clear: We know what Fanon does, and we know what the imperialists do. Notice that errors and infelicities have a way of clustering. If you find one problem in a sentence, look for others.

Confusion about the objects of prepositions.

Here’s another one of those common problems that does not receive the attention it merits. Discipline your prepositional phrases; make sure you know where they end. Notice the mess in this sentence: “Hitler accused Jewish people of engaging in incest and stating that Vienna was the ‘personification of incest.’” The reader thinks that both engaging and stating are objects of the preposition of. Yet the writer intends only the first to be the object of the preposition. Hitler is accusing the Jews of engaging , but not of stating ; he is the one doing the stating . Rewrite as “Hitler accused the Jews of incest; he stated that Vienna was the ‘personification of incest.’” Note that the wordiness of the original encouraged the syntactical mess. Simplify. It can’t be said too many times: Always pay attention to who’s doing what in your sentences.

Misuse of the comparative.

There are two common problems here. The first might be called the “floating comparative.” You use the comparative, but you don’t say what you are comparing. (“Lincoln was more upset by the dissolution of the union.”) More upset than by what? More upset than who? The other problem, which is more common and takes many forms, is the unintended (and sometimes comical) comparison of unlike elements. Consider these attempts to compare President Clinton to President George H. W. Bush. Often the trouble starts with a possessive:

“President Clinton’s sexual appetite was more voracious than President Bush.”

You mean to compare appetites, but you've forgotten about your possessive, so you absurdly compare an appetite to a man. Rewrite as “more voracious than President Bush’s.” A variation of this problem is the unintended comparison resulting from the omission of a verb:

“President Clinton liked women more than President Bush.”

Re-write as “more than did President Bush.”

A misplaced modifier may also cause comparison trouble: “Unlike the Bush administration, sexual scandal nearly destroyed the Clinton administration.” Rewrite as  “Unlike the Bush administration, the Clinton administration was nearly destroyed by sexual scandal.” Here the passive voice is better than the misplaced modifier, but you could rewrite as “The Bush administration had been free of sexual scandal, which nearly destroyed the Clinton administration.”

Misuse of apostrophe.

Get control of your apostrophes. Use the apostrophe to form singular or plural possessives (Washington’s soldiers; the colonies’ soldiers) or to form contractions (don’t; it’s). Do not use the apostrophe to form plurals. (“The communists [not communists’] defeated the nationalists [not nationalists’] in China.”)

Comma after although.

This is a new error, probably a carryover from the common conversational habit of pausing dramatically after although . ( “Although , coffee consumption rose in eighteenth-century Europe, tea remained far more popular.”) Delete the comma after although . Remember that although is not a synonym for the word however , so you cannot solve the problem in the sentence by putting a period after Europe . A clause beginning with although cannot stand alone as a sentence.

Comma between subject and verb.

This is a strange new error. (“Hitler and Stalin, agreed to a pact in August 1939.”) Delete the comma after Stalin. Finally, two hints: If your word-processing program underlines something and suggests changes, be careful. When it comes to grammar and syntax, your computer is a moron. Not only does it fail to recognize some gross errors, it also falsely identifies some correct passages as errors. Do not cede control of your writing decisions to your computer. Make the suggested changes only if you are positive that they are correct. If you are having trouble with your writing, try simplifying. Write short sentences and read them aloud to test for clarity. Start with the subject and follow it quickly with an active verb. Limit the number of relative clauses, participial phrases, adjectives, adverbs, and prepositional phrases. You will win no prizes for eloquence, but at least you will be clear. Add complexity only when you have learned to handle it.

An historical/an historian.

The consonant “H” is not silent in historical and historian , so the proper form of the indefinite article is “A.”

Avoid the common solecism of using feel as a synonym for think, believe, say, state, assert, contend, argue, conclude, or write. (“Marx felt that the bourgeoisie exploited the proletariat.” “Emmeline Pankhurst felt that British women should be able to vote.”) The use of feel in these sentences demeans the agents by suggesting undisciplined sentiment rather than carefully formulated conviction. Concentrate on what your historical actors said and did; leave their feelings to speculative chapters of their biographies. As for your own feelings, keep them out of your papers. (“I feel that Lincoln should have freed the slaves earlier.”) Your professor will be delighted that the material engages both your head and your heart, but your feelings cannot be graded. If you believe that Lincoln should have acted earlier, then explain, giving cogent historical reasons.

The fact that.

This is a clumsy, unnecessary construction. ( “The fact that Nixon resigned in disgrace damaged the Republican Party.”) Re-word as “Nixon resigned in disgrace, damaging the Republican Party.” Never use the hideous phrase due to the fact that.

In terms of.

This phrase is filler. Get rid of it. (“Bismarck was a success in terms of uniting Germany.) Rewrite as “Bismarck successfully united Germany.”

Attend carefully to the placement of this limiting word. Note, for example, these three sentences:

“The government only interred Japanese Americans during World War II.” “The government interred only Japanese Americans during World War II.” “The government interred Japanese Americans only during World War II.”

The first limits the action to interring (as opposed to, say, killing); the second limits the group interred (i.e., not Italian Americans); the third limits the time of interring (i.e., not during other wars).

Thus and therefore.

More than likely, you have not earned these words and are implying that you have said more than you actually have. Use them sparingly, only when you are concluding a substantial argument with a significant conclusion.

Misuse of instead.

Instead is an adverb, not a conjunction. Consider this sentence: “Charles Beard argued that the framers of the constitution were not idealists, instead they promoted their economic interests.” Revise as “The framers of the constitution, Charles Beard argued, did not uphold ideals; instead , they promoted their economic interests.” Now the instead appears properly as an adverb. (Note also that the two clauses are now parallel—both contain transitive verbs.)

Essentially and basically.

These are usually either filler words (the written equivalent of “uh” or “um”) or weasel words that merely call attention to your vagueness, lack of conviction, or lazy unwillingness to qualify precisely. (“ Essentially , Churchill believed that Nazi Germany presented a grave danger to Britain.”) Delete essentially and basically unless you are writing about essences or bases.

Both share or both agree.

These are redundant. If two people share or agree , they are both involved by definition. (“Stalin and Mao both agreed that capitalism belonged in the dustbin of history.”) Delete both .

This word means one of a kind. It is an absolute. Something cannot be very unique, more unique, or somewhat unique.

Incredible.

In casual conversation incredible often means extraordinary, astonishing, or impressive (“Yesterday’s storm was incredible.”). To avoid confusion in historical prose, you should stick with the original meaning of incredible : not believable. If you write that “William Jennings Bryan gave incredible speeches,” you’re saying that you don’t believe his speeches, or that his audiences didn’t believe them at the time—in other words, that he appeared to be lying or mistaken. You probably mean that he gave great speeches. If you write that “It’s incredible that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor,” you’re calling into question the very existence of a historical event. You probably mean that the Japanese attack was unwise or reckless. English is rich with adjectives. Finding the best one forces you to think about what you really mean.

As a synonym for subject matter, bone of contention, reservation, or almost anything else vaguely associated with what you are discussing, the word issue has lost its meaning through overuse. (“There were many issues involved with Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb, and some historians have issues with his decision.”) Stop talking about issues and get to the point.

Beware of the word literally . It’s commonly misused, and you almost never need it in historical prose. Literally means actually, factually, exactly, directly, without metaphor. The careful writer would never say, “Roosevelt literally swamped Landon in the election of 1936.” One imagines Roosevelt (in his wheelchair no less!) dumping the hapless Landon off a pier in the Everglades on election night. The swamping was figurative, strictly a figure of speech. The adverb literally may also cause you trouble by falsely generalizing the coverage of your verb. “London was literally destroyed by the blitz.” This suggests that the whole city was destroyed, when, in fact, only parts were destroyed. Rewrite as “The blitz destroyed parts of London.” Now you’ve qualified properly (and gotten rid of the passive).

When you’re tempted to use this word, resist. Like issue , involve tells the reader too little. (“Erasmus was involved in the Renaissance.”) This statement could mean virtually anything. Delete it and discuss specifically what Erasmus said or did.

This is a fine old word with many precise meanings, but as an overused synonym for feature, side, or part, it is usually a sign of insipid prose (“Another aspect of the issues in this area is the fact that...”). Just get directly to the point.

Most good writers frown on the use of this word as a verb.(“Eisenhower’s military background impacted his foreign policy.”) Affected, influenced, or shaped would be better here. Impacted suggests painfully blocked wisdom teeth or feces. Had an impact is better than impacted , but is still awkward because impact implies a collision.

Here is another beloved but vapid word. (“Many factors led to the Reformation.”) Such a sentence usually opens a vague, boring, weaseling paragraph. If you believe (quite reasonably) that the Reformation had many causes, then start evaluating them.

Meaningful.

Overuse has drained the meaning from meaningful . (“Peter the Great took meaningful steps to westernize Russia.”) Just get to the point.

Interesting.

The adjective interesting is vague, overused, and does not earn its keep. (“Burckhardt had an interesting perspective on the Renaissance.”) This sentence is filler. Delete it and explain and analyze his perspective.

The events that transpired.

Your professor will gag on this one. Events take place or happen by definition, so the relative clause is redundant. Furthermore, most good writers do not accept transpire as a synonym for happen. Again, follow the old rule of thumb: Get right to the point, say what happened, and explain its significance. You don’t need any filler about events and transpiring .

The reason is because.

This phrase is awkward and redundant. Replace it with the reason is, or better still, simply delete it and get right to your reason.

For all intensive purposes.

The phrase is for all intents and purposes , and few good writers use it in formal prose anyway.

Take for granite.

This is an illiteracy. The phrase is “ take for granted .”

Should of/could of.

You mean should have or could have .

Center around.

Good writers frown on this phrase because it’s illogical and jarring. Use center on or center in. Attention to a small detail like this indicates that you’re thinking carefully about what you’re saying, so when the big problems confront you, you’ll be disciplined and ready.

Begs the question.

Recently, many people have started to use this phrase to mean raises, invites, or brings up the question. (“Stalin’s purges beg the question of whether he was paranoid.”) Actually, begging the question is the common logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion as part of your argument. (“In the late nineteenth century, many Americans moved to the cities because of urbanization.”) Note that the use of abstractions (e.g., urbanization) encourages begging the question . Understanding this fallacy is central to your education. The formal Latin term, petitio principii, is too fancy to catch on, so you need to preserve the simple English phrase. If something raises a question, just say so.

Historic/historical confusion.

Everything in the past or relating to the past is historical. Resist the media-driven hype that elevates the ordinary to the historic . (“A three-alarm fire last night destroyed the historic site of the first Portuguese-owned dry cleaners in Cleveland.”) Reserve the word historic for the genuinely important events, persons, or objects of the past. The Norman invasion of England in 1066 was indeed historic . Historically , historians have gathered annually for a historical convention; so far, none of the conventions has been historic .

Affect/effect confusion.

The chances are that the verb you want is affect , which means to have an influence on (“The Iranian hostage crisis affected [not effected] the presidential election of 1980”). Effect as a verb means to bring about or cause to exist ( effect change). Effect as a noun means result or consequence (“The effect of the Iranian hostage crisis on the election...”).

While/whereas confusion.

If you’re stressing contrast, the word you want is whereas . While stresses simultaneity. “Hobbes had a dismal view of human nature, whereas [not while] Rousseau believed that man had a natural sense of pity.”

It’s/its confusion.

This is the classic bonehead error. Note that the spell checker won’t help you. And remember— its’ is not a word at all.

Reign/rein confusion.

A queen reigns during her reign. You rein in a horse with reins.

Their/there/they’re confusion.

You do know the difference. Pay attention.

Everyday/every day confusion.

As an adjective, everyday (one word) means routine. If you wish to say that something happened on every successive day, then you need two words, the adjective every and the noun day . Note the difference in these two sentences: “Kant was famous for going on the same constitutional at the same time every day . For Kant, exercise and thinking were everyday activities.”

Refer/allude confusion.

To allude means to refer to indirectly or to hint at. The word you probably want in historical prose is refer , which means to mention or call direct attention to. “In the first sentence of the ‘Gettysburg Address’ Lincoln refers [not alludes ] to the fathers of the nation [he mentions them directly]; he alludes to the ‘Declaration of Independence’ [the document of four score and seven years earlier that comes to the reader’s mind, but that Lincoln doesn’t directly mention].”

Novel/book confusion.

Novel is not a synonym for book. A novel is a long work of fiction in prose. A historical monograph is not a novel —unless the historian is making everything up.

Than/then confusion.

This is an appalling new error. If you are making a comparison, you use the conjunction than . (“President Kennedy’s health was worse than [not then ] the public realized.”)

Lead/led confusion.

The past tense of the verb to lead is led (not lead ). “Sherman led [not lead ] a march to the sea.”

Lose/loose confusion.

The opposite of win is lose , not loose . “Supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment suspected that they would lose [not loose ] the battle to amend the constitution.”

However/but confusion.

However may not substitute for the coordinating conjunction but. (“Mussolini began his career as a socialist, but [not however ] he later abandoned socialism for fascism.”) The word however has many proper uses; however , [note the semicolon and comma] graceful writers use it sparingly.

Cite/site/sight confusion.

You cited a source for your paper; ancient Britons sited Stonehenge on a plain; Columbus’s lookout sighted land.

Conscience/conscious confusion.

When you wake up in the morning you are conscious , though your conscience may bother you if you’ve neglected to write your history paper.

Tenet/tenant confusion.

Your religion, ideology, or worldview all have tenets —propositions you hold or believe in. Tenants rent from landlords.

All are not/not all are confusion.

If you write, “ All the colonists did not want to break with Britain in 1776,” the chances are you really mean, “ Not all the colonists wanted to break with Britain in 1776.” The first sentence is a clumsy way of saying that no colonists wanted to break with Britain (and is clearly false). The second sentence says that some colonists did not want to break with Britain (and is clearly true, though you should go on to be more precise).

Nineteenth-century/nineteenth century confusion.

Historians talk a lot about centuries, so you need to know when to hyphenate them. Follow the standard rule: If you combine two words to form a compound adjective, use a hyphen, unless the first word ends in ly. (“ Nineteenth-century [hyphenated] steamships cut the travel time across the Atlantic.”) Leave out the hyphen if you’re just using the ordinal number to modify the noun century. (“In the nineteenth century [no hyphen] steamships cut the travel time across the Atlantic.”) By the way, while you have centuries in mind, don’t forget that the nineteenth century is the 1800s, not the 1900s. The same rule for hyphenating applies to middle-class and middle class —a group that historians like to talk about.

Bourgeois/bourgeoisie confusion.

Bourgeois is usually an adjective, meaning characteristic of the middle class and its values or habits. Occasionally, bourgeois is a noun, meaning a single member of the middle class. Bourgeoisie is a noun, meaning the middle class collectively. (“Marx believed that the bourgeoisie oppressed the proletariat; he argued that bourgeois values like freedom and individualism were hypocritical.”)

Your professor may ask you to analyze a primary document. Here are some questions you might ask of your document. You will note a common theme—read critically with sensitivity to the context. This list is not a suggested outline for a paper; the wording of the assignment and the nature of the document itself should determine your organization and which of the questions are most relevant. Of course, you can ask these same questions of any document you encounter in your research.

• What exactly is the document (e.g., diary, king’s decree, opera score, bureaucratic memorandum, parliamentary minutes, newspaper article, peace treaty)?
• Are you dealing with the original or with a copy? If it is a copy, how remote is it from the original (e.g., photocopy of the original, reformatted version in a book, translation)? How might deviations from the original affect your interpretation?
• What is the date of the document?
• Is there any reason to believe that the document is not genuine or not exactly what it appears to be?
• Who is the author, and what stake does the author have in the matters discussed? If the document is unsigned, what can you infer about the author or authors?
• What sort of biases or blind spots might the author have? For example, is an educated bureaucrat writing with third-hand knowledge of rural hunger riots?
• Where, why, and under what circumstances did the author write the document?
• How might the circumstances (e.g., fear of censorship, the desire to curry favor or evade blame) have influenced the content, style, or tone of the document?
• Has the document been published? If so, did the author intend it to be published?
• If the document was not published, how has it been preserved? In a public archive? In a private collection? Can you learn anything from the way it has been preserved? For example, has it been treated as important or as a minor scrap of paper?
• Does the document have a boilerplate format or style, suggesting that it is a routine sample of a standardized genre, or does it appear out of the ordinary, even unique?
• Who is the intended audience for the document?
• What exactly does the document say? Does it imply something different?
• If the document represents more than one viewpoint, have you carefully distinguished between the author’s viewpoint and those viewpoints the author presents only to criticize or refute?
• In what ways are you, the historian, reading the document differently than its intended audience would have read it (assuming that future historians were not the intended audience)?
• What does the document leave out that you might have expected it to discuss?
• What does the document assume that the reader already knows about the subject (e.g., personal conflicts among the Bolsheviks in 1910, the details of tax farming in eighteenth-century Normandy, secret negotiations to end the Vietnam war)?
• What additional information might help you better interpret the document?
• Do you know (or are you able to infer) the effects or influences, if any, of the document?
• What does the document tell you about the period you are studying?
• If your document is part of an edited collection, why do you suppose the editor chose it? How might the editing have changed the way you perceive the document? For example, have parts been omitted? Has it been translated? (If so, when, by whom, and in what style?) Has the editor placed the document in a suggestive context among other documents, or in some other way led you to a particular interpretation?

Your professor may ask you to write a book review, probably of a scholarly historical monograph. Here are some questions you might ask of the book. Remember that a good review is critical, but critical does not necessarily mean negative. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, nor is it a suggested outline. Of course, you can ask these same questions of any secondary historical work, even if you’re not writing a review.

• Who is the author, and what are his or her qualifications? Has the author written other books on the subject?
• When was the book written, and how does it fit into the scholarly debate on the subject? For example, is Smith writing to refute that idiot Jones; to qualify the work of the competent but unimaginative Johnson; or to add humbly to the evidence presented by the redoubtable Brown’s classic study? Be sure not to confuse the author’s argument with those arguments he or she presents only to criticize later.
• What is the book’s basic argument? (Getting this right is the foundation of your review.)
• What is the author’s method? For example, does the author rely strictly on narrative and anecdotes, or is the book analytical in some way?
• What kinds of evidence does the author use? For example, what is the balance of primary and secondary sources? Has the author done archival work? Is the source base substantial, or does it look thin? Is the author up-to-date in the scholarly literature?
• How skillfully and imaginatively has the author used the evidence?
• Does the author actually use all of the material in the bibliography, or is some of it there for display?
• What sorts of explicit or implicit ideological or methodological assumptions does the author bring to the study? For example, does he or she profess bland objectivity? A Whig view of history? Marxism?
• How persuasive is the author’s argument?
• Is the argument new, or is it old wine in new bottles?
• Is the argument important, with wide-ranging implications, or is it narrow and trivial?
• Is the book well organized and skillfully written?
• What is your overall critical assessment of the book?
• What is the general significance, if any, of the book? (Make sure that you are judging the book that the author actually wrote, not complaining that the author should have written a different book.)

Here are some tips for those long, intimidating term papers or senior theses:

• Start early. If you don’t, none of these tips will matter. Big trouble is looming if you don’t have a specific topic by the end of the first week. You should be delving into the sources during the second week.
• Keep in mind all of the dos and don’ts in this booklet.
• Work closely with your professor to assure that your topic is neither too broad nor too narrow.
• Set up a schedule with your professor and check his or her policy about reading rough drafts or parts of rough drafts. Then keep your professor informed about what you’re doing. You don’t want any unpleasant surprises. You certainly don’t want to hear, “I haven’t seen you for weeks, and it sounds like you’re way off base. How can you possibly get this done with only two weeks left in the semester?”
• Make an appointment with Kristin Strohmeyer, the history reference librarian in Burke Library. She will help you to find and use the appropriate catalogs and indexes.
• Use your imagination in compiling a bibliography. Think of all of the possible key words and subjects that may lead you to material. If you find something really good, check the subjects under which it is cataloged. Comb the notes and bibliographies of books and articles you’ve already found.
• Much of what you need will not be in our library, so get to know the friendly folks in the Interlibrary Loan department.
• Start early. This can’t be said too often.
• Use as many primary sources as you can.
• Jot down your ideas as they come to you. You may not remember them later.
• Take careful notes on your reading. Label your notes completely and precisely. Distinguish meticulously and systematically between what you are directly quoting and what you are summarizing in your own words. Unintended plagiarism is still plagiarism. Stay clean as a hound’s tooth. Write down not just the page of the quotation or idea, but also the whole run of pages where the matter is discussed. Reread all of your notes periodically to make sure that you still understand them and are compiling what you will need to write your paper. Err on the side of writing down more than you think you will need. Copious, precise notes won’t come back to haunt you; skimpy, vague notes will. Just accept that there is something anal about good note-taking.
• If you take notes directly into your computer, they will be easy to index and pull up, but there are a couple of downsides. You will not be able to see all of them simultaneously, as you can note cards laid out on a big table. What you gain in ease of access may come at the price of losing the big picture. Also, if your notes are in your computer, you may be tempted to save time and thought by pasting many of them directly into your paper. Note cards encourage you to rethink and to rework your ideas into a unified whole.
• Don’t start to write until you have a good outline.
• Make sure that your paper has a thesis. (See the entry State a clear thesis. )
• Check and recheck your facts.
• Footnote properly. (See the entry Cite sources carefully .)
• Save plenty of time to proofread.
• Start early.

Top Ten Signs that you may be Writing a Weak History Paper

10. You’re overjoyed to find that you can fill the required pages by widening all margins.

9. You haven’t mentioned any facts or cited any sources for several paragraphs.

8. You find yourself using the phrase “throughout history mankind has...”

7. You just pasted in another 100 words of quotations.

6. You haven’t a clue about the content of your next paragraph.

5. You’re constantly clicking on The Britannica, Webster’s, and Bartlett’s.

4. Your writing tutor sneaks another look at her watch as she reminds you for the third time to clarify your thesis.

3. Your main historical actors are this, it, they, the people, and society, and they are all involved with factors, aspects, impacts, and issues.

2. You just realize that you don’t understand the assignment, but it’s 3:00 A.M, the paper is due at 9:00, and you don’t dare call your professor.

1. You’re relieved that the paper counts for only 20 percent of the course grade.

Final Advice

You guessed it — start early.

Studying History at Hamilton

Students will learn to use interdisciplinary methods from the humanities and social sciences to probe the sources of the past for answers to present questions. They will learn to draw comparisons and connections among diverse societies across a range of historical eras. They will further learn to convey their findings through writing that is clearly structured, precise, and persuasive.

Tutor Appointments

Peer tutor and consultant appointments are managed through TracCloud (login required). Find resources and more information about the ALEX centers using the following links.

Office / Department Name

Nesbitt-Johnston Writing Center

Contact Name

Jennifer Ambrose

Writing Center Director

Help us provide an accessible education, offer innovative resources and programs, and foster intellectual exploration.

Site Search

History Research Paper

This sample history research paper features: 5800 words (approx. 19 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 25 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Introduction

Diachronic anthropology, the radical left as an intellectual tradition, anthropology of advocacy, rise of fascism, elite theory, conflict approach to history, ideology, revolution, and reaction in history, where is science now, more history research papers:.

• Adolescence Research Paper
• Adolf Hitler Research Paper
• American Revolution Research Paper
• Ancient Greece Research Paper
• Apartheid Research Paper
• Asia Research Paper
• Australia Research Paper
• Automobile Research Paper
• Aviation Research Paper
• China Research Paper
• Christopher Columbus Research Paper
• Climate Change Research Paper
• Coffee Research Paper
• Cold War Research Paper
• Columbian Exchange Research Paper
• Computer Research Paper
• Consumerism Research Paper
• Deforestation Research Paper
• Diseases Research Paper
• Earthquakes Research Paper
• Economic Growth Research Paper
• Egypt Research Paper
• Energy Research Paper
• Freedom Research Paper
• French Revolution Research Paper
• Genetics Research Paper
• Genocide Research Paper
• Geography Research Paper
• Government Research Paper
• Holocaust Research Paper
• Human Rights Research Paper
• Napoléon Bonaparte Research Paper
• Industrial Revolution Research Paper
• Iron Research Paper
• Mass Media Research Paper
• Mathematics Research Paper
• Mesopotamia Research Paper
• Migration Research Paper
• Natural Law Research Paper
• Nature Research Paper
• Nuclear Power Research Paper
• Oil Spills Research Paper
• Orientalism Research Paper
• Ottoman Empire Research Paper
• Population Growth Research Paper
• Racism Research Paper
• Radio Research Paper
• Religion Research Paper
• Renaissance Research Paper
• Roman Empire Research Paper
• Salt Research Paper
• Science Research Paper
• Scientific Revolution Research Paper
• Silk Road Research Paper
• Social Sciences Research Paper
• Space Exploration Research Paper
• Television Research Paper
• The Crusades Research Paper
• Tourism Research Paper
• Transportation Research Paper
• Urbanization Research Paper
• US History Research Paper
• Vernacular Architecture Research Paper
• Waste Management Research Paper
• Water Management Research Paper
• Water Research Paper
• World History Research Paper
• World War I Research Paper
• World War II Research Paper

History is both a structured and a dynamic process. The history of history begins with the proposition that it is the telling of history that is important. Objectivity is a specific interpretation that is related to a specific subjective reference point. The social facts a historian deals with are related to dominant but changing social forces that appear dissimilar to people with different points of reference. These social facts and forces are defined in terms of historical trends that are interpreted differently by different historians of the same time period. Historical trends then presuppose that a transformation is happening with these social facts. Changes in the social life of a nation are reflected in the changes in the class structure, and ultimately changes in the productive techniques and social environment.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Human knowledge as expressed by individual psychology develops collectively through growing up and interacting in a social setting in concert with a changing social environment. Even the language that a people speaks is learned through communication within social groupings. The world as we experience it is created out of the way we see our lives and think about our personal active participation in the events of our lives. This, in turn, is at every point a social creation.

We are products of our social upbringing. Our thoughts and ideas are the invention of a specific set of social, cultural, and historical conditions. We learn through the exchange of ideas in the social setting we participate in.

Each culture within its own historical setting develops a unique worldview. Every culture develops along its own path, with its own thought patterns that are created out of a shared but changing worldview and narration. This is reflected in the way a people responds to events in their world.

Within each society and each ethnic group in that society, different classes often develop different, and sometimes competing, belief arrangements and points of view. Even within classes, different genders and generations develop competing convictions and perspectives. This is true even if people are employing the same symbols and unifying ideologies. These distinctive occurrences in the collective beliefs and attitudes are built on historical paradigms. New sets of assumptions that constitute a way of viewing reality for the community are forged from what is left over from past worldviews, creating an acknowledged understanding that becomes recognized as real. This change develops continuously because life is always changing. Altered circumstances that are lived in the present stand in contrast with past interpretations of life. Because people are active within their social environment, their environment reflects that activity. People interact consciously with their environment. While reacting to their immediate needs, they often create outcomes that have long-term effects. This is in part the nature of social evolution. The result is largely the consequences of our collective actions that are, in fact, unpredicted. This leads to a need for a people to come up with new strategies to come to terms with the changes brought about in the societal ecosystem. History at this point is the story of important modifications.

History reflects recurrent adjustment to a continuously changing environment. There is constant engagement between communities, between individuals within communities, and between people within their larger environment. This alteration also coaxes a persistent reinterpretation of the conventional cardinal philosophy. This is the essence of the enduring human condition.

To understand these changes by using both diachronic anthropology and historical sociology, we begin by observing just how situational truth is. It is not enough to describe a social fact objectively. The historical sociologists/ anthropologists need to also look at the cultural understanding of the fact in the context of the larger society. This includes the careful examination of the motives, values, and interpretations of the participating actors in their lived social drama. In the social sciences, objective explanations are in fact trite, dispassionate accounts, and without cultural understandings, they are basically dull.

Because changes in people’s attitudes reflect changes in their existential reality, a people’s beliefs and point of view are part of any scientific study of society. The actual experience of existence is filtered through a shared worldview that is culturally and historically specific. Each cultural-historical epoch has its own unusual and salient worldview. The historical artifacts of socially created worldviews are the tense interaction between differing worldviews of the historian and the subject matter being studied. The actual threat of domestic communism during the post–World War II era is going to be told differently by historians who came of age in the turmoil of the 1960s and those who came of age in the post– Cold War era, 30 years later. The second set of historians does not have the same sense of moral indignation leveled against the U.S. government’s antisubversive programs.

Along similar lines, particular sociological theories are set in specific historical settings. Established social theories correspond to the position and point of view of the individual who initially set up the theory. The devotees inhabit a distinctive point in the tiered social structure. Each theory, then, has a legitimate perspective given the social site of the researcher.

Any serious study of anthropology or sociology would require that at some point students carefully read the classics while examining the historical context in which they were written. Because the contemporary code of beliefs and philosophies is created out of elements of past theories, the classics remain important to any dynamic study of sociology. Through anthropology, we can better understand the historical and social-cultural context that gives rise to any theory.

For example, the idea that a society is like an integrated organism requires that the writer be living in a modern industrial nation-state. British structural functionalism is set in the early 20th century and is intellectually reflective of the British Empire. The incorporated essence of this society bears a resemblance to an organism. This analogy is derived from the structure of a society in which different institutions, like different organ systems of a living individual, tend to specialize in function. Functionalism reflects the development of a modern industrial society following the French Revolution in Europe. In these societies, because of an integrated market economy, the society moves in the direction of a more centralized and efficient economic and political amalgamation.

A modern industrial society cooks up a multitude of theories developed to explain the same or similar phenomena. The anthropologist or sociologist or historian is a product of this environment. The opposing theories represent conflicting social positions in the same society.

History and 19th-Century Evolutionary Thought

Evolutionary thought began to take root during the 18th-century European Enlightenment. By the second half of the 19th century, evolutionary anthropologists were developing evolutionary thought even before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species (1859). Biblical scholars looked on non-European societies as being an erosion of a basic humanity that monotheism, and specifically Christianity, had generated. The evolutionist developed an alternative view by hypothesizing that nonwhites (i.e., nonEuropeans) were a more primitive type of human subspecies. Monotheism was superior to either polytheism or animism. Science was superior to religion and rationalism superior to mysticism. Consequently, European civilization was at the apex of evolutionary development. All other cultures were somewhere along the evolutionary trajectory from early apelike hominids to modern Europeans.

In reaction to universal evolution, Franz Boas became a founding spirit of historical particularism, which claimed that the universal or unilinear evolution, in which Europe was the apex, was teleological and therefore not scientific. British structural functionalism also became antievolutionary in how it saw the separate parts of a society interact to form a cooperating whole as being the focus of their studies; this synchronic theory characterizes the most important goal of any cultural element as being the harmony of the society as a whole. In doing so, history is not the core in these studies. However, history could not be ignored. Change is a constant in all social settings. Therefore, societies must be studied in their historical context. Cultural evolution reemerges as a fact of life.

Historical sociology as a part of diachronic anthropology demonstrates the continuous development of groups, classes, nations, and social institutions in which one set of social organizations replaces earlier examples. In doing this, we learn how each small part interacts with the others in order to establish ever-larger units until we define a global economy.

In the study of the mixture of discrete elements, we learn that these parts come together to provide an interrelated whole. The world is made up of a combination of millions of local communities that are always in a process of transformation. Because of the increasing tempo of change following World War II and the degree of external intrusion in local affairs, process theory developed as a sharp criticism of functionalism by a younger anthropologist hostile to colonialism.

Cultural motifs form themes that condition the evolution of future national designs. A modern way of looking at the world would not have been possible before the advent of the Industrial and Liberal Revolutions. The modern mind-set develops a way of looking at things along the lines of a concept that holds that both the past and the future are real units of time and that this linear time frame is real and related to an ever-changing present. This liberal worldview is a noticeable departure from the previous age in which people saw truth as both absolute and unchanging.

Capitalism, liberal government, industrial technology, and scientific development mutually feed one another. Liberal society began being defined during the Enlightenment of the 18th century, and with Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and the Market Economy, its rough outline was delineated. Along the same lines, feudal privilege and the power of religion was being challenged. Science developed in this environment. Modern rational philosophy was the expression of a revolutionary, capitalist bourgeoisie in its assent to power. Empiricism and science became the practical expression of the empowered capitalist class. The growing capitalist economy required the quantitative analysis of market possibilities, production expenses, and technological innovation.

With a market economy, production grows in importance, replacing local subsistence economy. The new market economy was founded on an exchange of values and prices that defined the relationship among production units and thus among individuals. Previously, production and production units were embedded in social obligations. Thus, the expansion of market relations within a society changed the established social relations.

Because liberalism became the dominant worldview, the political changes that followed were revolutionary. Natural law and human nature became the cornerstones of the new philosophy. National identity creates a general spirit of the time and outlook, going beyond local distinctiveness and native uniqueness. “The rights of man” and resistance against tyranny replaced theocratic absolutes. Through revolution in Europe and America and colonialism everywhere else, liberal ideas spread throughout most of the world. As the liberal bourgeois society spread, it destroyed much of the time-honored social organization in traditional society. The ideas of John Locke, Jean Rousseau, Adam Smith, and others helped to define much of the liberal thought, which gained a definition.

History and Conservative Philosophy

The reaction to the spread of liberal society was the expansion and fruition of conservative philosophy. Conservatism came into existence with the advent of liberal capitalism. Because there is a specific connection between beliefs, attitudes, values, and the social circumstances of a particular group, it can be seen that the conservative ideology appeals to those most threatened by the spread of capitalism. By putting an end to the ancient order, a call for its return is likely to follow.

Because of the rise of liberal society and its corresponding worldview, conservative philosophy would be characterized by its way of following and countering an opposition to liberalism. Conservative philosophy was born after and not before liberal philosophy. Because it was a reaction against capitalism, it was a dream of a return either to feudalism in Europe or to a traditional society everywhere else. Because science, empiricism, rationalism, and modern technology coevolved with capitalism, conservatives find a lot to fight against. Because this progressive market economy undermines the ancient order and the saga of heroes—to free both people and resources for production for profit—those who did better under a traditional society will oppose both free enterprise and science. To the conservative, liberalism, capitalism, and modernism were seen as the destruction of all that was decent in life to the conservative thinker.

The conservative movement was a romantic attempt to reestablish traditional communities that existed before capitalism. The capitalist and the working class are a product of capitalism, and both stand to gain nothing by a return to the antique civilization. Thus, both the capitalist and the working class are very much underrepresented in the ranks of the conservative thinker.

Those elements utterly damaged by the development of bourgeois-capitalist society are the small-property owners, such as small farmers, peasants, urban small-business owners, independent artisans, and the self-employed. These factions join forces with the natural leaders of the conservative movement, the large-landed aristocracy with ties to their feudal or traditional past.

With the robust formation of a romantic-conservative movement, a milieu is set up in which some intellectuals, who feel alienated from both bourgeois liberalism and the socialism of the revolutionary working class, can find a home within the setting of the romantic folklore, that is, a vision of what the traditional society was like before the Enlightenment of the 18th century, the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, and the modern global capitalism of the 20th century. Community is defended against society. The spiritual is seen as preferable to science. Family and kinship are understood as favored over contracts and professional qualifications. The conservatives such as Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling or Joseph de Maistre believed that society must be governed by divinely inspired internal principles that are embedded in deep traditional roots, which are culturally embedded and long established within deep historical roots.

With the advancement of the market economy and the Industrial Revolution, a new industrial working class is formed from the disrupted elements of the previous society. These detached fragments come together to form a distinct organic class unique to capitalism. Wage labor is the minimum requirement for the further development of industrial capital. The working class has lost its connection to traditional society and can now be fashioned into an original class within capitalism. Because the very nature of wage labor is creating a surplus for the capitalist, the defining characteristic of the proletariat is exploitation. It is only the natural workers who develop an alternative perspective in opposition to liberal philosophy. Socialism stands in marked opposition to both liberals and conservatives. Because of shared common experiences, socialism can be neither liberal nor conservative.

Along similar lines, many anthropologists see their roles not only as researchers but also as advocates for the people they study. In 1968, anthropologist Helga Kleivan formed the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs as a human rights support organization to help indigenous peoples define their rights, maintain control over their lands, and maintain their independent existence. Science has served capitalism well by creating this worldview of objectivity in which truth is independent of ethics. Now, these anthropologists claim that they must offer whatever assistance they can to help the surviving indigenous peoples to resist becoming the victims of someone else’s progress.

Fascism is the effect of failed liberalism and the excessive remains of conservatism that has come to nothing. As fascism goes, it absorbs disempowered liberals and disenchanted socialists. Fascism is both activist and irrational. Militant engagement and the intuitive sentiments are glorified over reason and caution. Leadership is virtually made sacred. Elite theory states that history is made by elites, and everyone else simply follows. The acting without regard to science or reason, placing the act of conquest above ethical principles, negates the need for careful analysis or an interpretation of history.

Fascists believe that history at the simplest level, while an intellectually coherent and understandable method of knowledge, disappears. Fascism is the irrational exaltation of the deed, and the antihistorical myth takes priority over history as the imaginative symbols provide the edifice for the simple rendition of a future golden age based on a newly created folklore of the past that is envisioned by the leader. History becomes a lie, and the myth is a creative fiction become real in the hearts of the masses. Only the leader has the vision, and the rest of the population is only glad for the prophet to lead them out of the wilderness.

In the beginning, Fascism was anticapitalist and antisocialist. While destroying socialism by its strong hostility to equality, democracy, and all socialist ideology, it borrows from the people’s socialism in order to make the claim that it speaks to the masses. While being anticapitalist, fascism can never come to power without making peace with the very largesse of capitalists who not only support but also finance it in the quest for power.

Fascism makes an extremely patriotic use of platitudes, catch phrases, flags, symbols, songs, and strong emotions to rally crowds of people into the frenzy of a unifying mania of patriotism. Xenophobia and a passionate love of one’s “country” rally large groups of people against the treat of a common foe, that is, anyone or anything that is different. Because of a perceived need for national security, basic civil liberties and human rights are seen as a luxury that needs to be suspended for the greater need for security. The military, our protector, is given top priority in government funding until social programs must be cut to pay for the swollen military budgets. Life in the military is glorified, while human rights and peace activists are vilified. Sexism is commonplace. Opposition to abortion is a high priority, as is homophobia and antigay legislation. Religion is central to fascism. Government backing for the dominant religion receives support from many in the church hierarchies. The industrial and business upper crust support the government leaders, creating a mutually beneficial business-to-government relationship and strengthening the position of the power elite. In spite of a popular appeal, ordinary working people are treated like expendable resources. Workers in their labor unions are severely suppressed. There is encouragement of an open hostility to higher education. Intellectuals are dismissed as irrelevant. Professors who are competent are sometimes censored or fired for taking a political stand. Openness in the arts is blatantly harassed either in the public media or by the government, which refuses to fund the arts. Either the mass media are directly controlled or their range of opinions are limited through a control of funding.

Elite theory is based on the idea that a small, powerful ruling elite rules all societies. Politics is but the tool by which this elite maintains control. Leaders govern because the masses are too weak to rule themselves. Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923) claimed that the ruling elite was in fact an association of superior individuals having the will to power. Because of this, history is the “circulation of elites.” As one group of elites becomes weak, it is replaced by another group of elites in a violent revolution. Gaetano Mosca (1858–1941) added that the superiority of the political elite was based on the fact that the elites have the virtues needed to rule. Often proponents of this theory looked on fascism as a necessary corrective force.

The conflicts among classes, ethnic groups, and classes within ethnic groups reflect larger social contradictions. The long-lasting results are the deployment of reciprocally contradictory explanations for social reality in capitalist societies. Sociology gives us the tools to study the complex interactions of a whole society within a global context. Anthropology adds a cross-cultural and historical component within which to better understand the relational connections among social interactions. But there is more than one kind of sociology, and social or cultural anthropology is often found in a separate department at a college or university. Competing groups use the sociological method in mutually antagonistic ways.

Critical historical sociology is the basis of scientific socialism. What is largely a cultural subconsciousness of competing groups within a larger society is exposed through historical sociology. This is why Marxism defines the rest of sociology as either a debate with the ghost of Marx or an attempt at trying to disprove or defend or reform Marxism.

Historical studies are embedded in a rigorous theory that can be used to examine the data. Radical social scientists use the critical methods in the demanding engagement of social activism. This is analyzed in the context of power relationships to determine the possibilities of collective vigorous action as a means of achieving radical political and economic change. By becoming aware of one’s social, cultural, political, and economic situation, the activists become aware of the real conditions. From this awareness, one can begin to see the possibilities in terms of strategies to strengthen one’s class or group’s position in society.

Intellectuals exist in all classes, and many, for personal reasons, transcend class lines by strongly identifying with another class. Because many intellectuals identify so closely with a class other than the one of their origin, they bring fresh insights into their adoptive class. Communication among intellectuals of antagonistic classes is easy. This allows for the intellectual in each of the major classes to develop counterarguments to any and all criticisms of the intellectuals’ theories. This creates a cross-fertilization of ideas. Intellectuals are strongly influenced by their opponents. Departmental divisions and specializations at the university only weaken this trend.

At one level, a group of intellectuals representing themselves as professionals structurally becomes its own class, both in and for itself. With the increasing specialization and growth of bureaucracy since the end of the 19th century, the modern nation-state saw the rise of a new class to challenge the capitalists for dominance. Not the industrial working class but the professional class is next in line to be the ruling class.

With increasing specialization, the expanding bureaus or departments are staffed with educated professionals. The importance of the expert means that democracy is continuously being undermined. Both capital and labor become increasingly dependent on the expert, and the professionals progressively take on more responsibility for all aspects of life. The overall working class is kept permanently disempowered. At the top levels of the major universities and research institutes, a small group of professionals form a power block that can be seen as a real threat to the most powerful capitalists. Because of the capitalists’ dependence on these intelligentsia, there is a monopoly of expert knowledge.

With experts in a class of their own, the two power blocks, capitalists versus professionals, begin to compete for dominance in the larger capitalist society. The prize is control over the economy and politics. A small elite versus a not-quite-as-small elite means the serious rivalry between capital and expertise, suggesting that the majority of the population is left out of the preponderance of decisions affecting their lives. Add to this a highly industrialized military, and the total domination of society by these twin oligarchies is complete. Most people, because of the quality of their education, are kept ignorant of the process that allows a small group of autocrats to dominate their lives.

The anxiety of the powerless is intensified because of their inability to gain any substantive insight into their lives. Personal shrewdness replaces political understanding. Because rebellion becomes undirected, the repressed assert themselves through irrational outbursts. Leaders of the nation count on this and manipulate the influence of management in order to control the population. Either crime for the individual or fascism for the many allows people to avoid the worst aspects of this perfidious class structure. Crime and fascism is preferred to revolution.

For the proletarian intellectual, the challenge is to gain an understanding of these social facts in order to direct social change by influencing people to take the actions that will strengthen their choices. If a proletarian mental laborer and cultural worker carefully examine the current social situation and its historical background, the iron cage can be unlocked. The essential major thinking is the hopeful knowledge of objective opportunity making it likely to coordinate tangible circumstances and capability. Since each of the competing factions within society use their own sociological theories and have a drastically different understanding and analysis of what is going on, it is important to understand that the opposing theories are of the social environment and must be carefully studied. The more complete the study, the more likely the activist will come up with a successful program.

If a psychological explanation fails to take into account changing goals, values, and beliefs that are socially defined, we will know nothing about how changing social and cultural circumstances mold the personality. Every judgment includes values of good and evil, beauty and unattractiveness, or just better or worse. All knowing or learning is a group project. Individual knowledge is born in this group process, and each person influences that process. This is what we study in our struggles with the opposition. Combined achievement of conflicting groups establishes daily habits while defining the struggle.

Different cultures have their own evolutionary trajectories. Individuals experience similar events differently, and the significance of events is viewed differently by different classes. Elites and the dispossessed live in different universes. Each segment within the larger group has unique standards and deciphers the ordinary contents and knowledge of daily life and life experiences differently. Unless an individual has a real break with the past, his or her experiences generally confirm what is already believed to be true. Only when the external world comes in direct conflict with established beliefs does conversion become likely.

While knowing is interpreted through the living experiences of a personal biography, it is set in a social and historical context. Social position and life situations influence the particular character of this world and the encounters of real people. Through the active creation of their technology, their material culture, and the process of survival, people reproduce and change their social relations, resulting in a particular way of thinking and responding to their environment.

Meaning is related to the general ideas that bring together a combination of culturally unique processes and purposes for a historically explicit episode. When a person fails to understand the long-term consequences of an immediate action, it can be viewed as an example of false consciousness. Because knowledge is set in a historical context, it is not relative because some statements are incorrect. Knowledge is dependent on historical and social relationships to be correct. However, values and goals of the observer are as important as the subject in any study. The interaction between theory and the social setting points to a relation between various elements in the social setting.

Science has grown with the advent of the university’s independence from the church. Science by the mid-19th century was closely allied with industry, finance capital, and the rising power of the nation-state. During the prior 200 years, science had to fight against the feudal theocratic monopoly of political domination over the rest of society. With the establishment of the liberal state, science as an intellectual movement became the new symbol of hope or official creed. The romantic-conservative reaction fought a pitched battle, retreating into idealistic reconsideration of a venerated fable of history. It established a historical tradition creating an antirational folklore of the way things should remain. However, socialists, both utopian and scientific, would steal science in support of a revolutionary transformation of society and its eventual management. This world-shattering overhaul and ultimate organization would develop but not replace science.

Science is a method of studying events and objects around us and produces a history of ideas developed using an evolving scientific method. What is chosen to be researched is entrenched in the history that the researcher is part of. These research priorities are in turn affected by and effect our living concepts of nature. The ever-changing result is that discoveries are embedded in political, social, and economic historical forces. Social science follows a similar path.

In point of fact, the economic base only sets the limits of what is possible, as the environmental and technological bases set the limits for the economy. The economy in turn is limited by the possibilities of the rest of the sociocultural environment. All parts of the social and cultural whole have a profound effect on each of the other parts of the historically changing whole. Science is no exception. The history of science is the investigation of associations. Now, although the arrow of causality goes both ways, it more often than not travels from existence to consciousness. This complicates social science research, making the break between science and philosophy less clear.

The philosophy of social science, like science itself, is set inside a moving history that reflects a set of values or reflects a point of view that is overloaded with cultural biases. Theory is necessary to understand anything, and theory reflects both ideologies and their underlying worldviews. These basic culturally derived assumptions saturate our scientific thinking. This in turn establishes what we consider to be facts. This becomes the foundation of our scientific theories, and an established theory sets up research priorities and delineates adequate scientific discoveries.

Historical sociologists such as Weber, Mannheim, and Merton (and their current counterparts) find a way of rooting the history of science in society without risking tenure or promotion in the academic world by believing that they are objective scholars. Theory and practice are forever separated in their cowardice. While attempting neutrality, these scholars studied in detail the historical and social context of the development of science while avoiding the moral context of scientific research. These brilliant intellectuals carried on excellent scholarship. They even studied the close relationship between technology, economic class, and a global economy within the evolution of science, but what is lacking is the ethical consequences of scientific research. Much has been done in the way of research into the class origins of scientists. The culture of scientific communities, patronage of individual research projects, commercial and political investments in grants to researchers, scientific accountability and to whom have been carried out in detail without asking the difficult question of ethical responsibility. The honors given to top scientists along with accolades, the ethos of laboratory analysis, and scientific lack of responsibility to the powerless, poor, and dispossessed is left unstudied.

Chronological storytelling would have us believe that scientific insight develops progressively in the path of a superior gathering of more and more factual knowledge. This myth is at the present time generally ridiculed as a history that is overly simple and highly subjective of a romanticized fantasy of fulfillment (Mannheim, 1936, p. 205). This fairy tale is founded on the illusion of a universal scientific method, similar to the economic fable of marginal utility. This literary fiction would have us believe a body of scientific knowledge is allegedly expanded by generalizing from the gathering of information from meticulous observations and experiments rather than to the articulation of universal laws presented as fact.

There are convincing points of view that there are many acceptable methods in any research. We need to subject all research to rigorous assessments because it is possible to chip away at the complete scheme of a single scientific method by arguing that human action cannot be comprehended as a simple process of following general rules applicable to any research project. It may be that working scientists are not constrained by any of the rules of method that are universally applicable.

The conflicting total worldview of an entire class in contemporary society is molded by the existential condition of history. This existential moment of choice is the focus of the external manifestation of a way of life. Each particular mind-set identifies itself as the psychology of an individual. What lies behind a personal set of beliefs is born out of that person’s social and historical location. Ultimately, the total social and cultural origin of the psychology lies in a changing historical setting.

All philosophy or science or religion is a social product that is created out of a very real living history shared differently by different groups. Each person is the product of a specific social environment. Because different classes experience life differently, they develop conflicting interests and opposing values. The oppressed want change that will end their oppression. The oppressed look to the future with their utopian dreams. The liberal looks to preserve the current social inequality by allowing only those reforms that will safeguard the status quo. The romantic looks longingly at the existing conditions of the past in the hope of reestablishing those golden days of yesteryear.

The predominant patterns that are socially arranged provide the raw resources for shared culture. Thinking, accepted wisdom, reasoning, imagining, judgment, conclusions, opinions, and beliefs can be radically transformed through ever-changing social conditions. However, the new patterns of thought are formed out of the obsolete and altered outlines of previous thought.

In every historical period, knowing is given birth from genuine existing phenomena. All elements of meaning in a given situation are interconnected causally and have reference to each part and to the whole. When a shared, collective set of circumstances changes, the arrangement of norms, customs, and values ceases to be in harmony with real life and a rupture arises with reference to traditional beliefs.

A crisis arises within the traditional philosophy of wisdom and its corresponding historical perspective. This forms a new reciprocal interrelated framework of thought. People themselves change as does basic human nature, both of which are culturally distinct. People are always adapting and regenerating through the awareness of a new body of knowledge and are consequently generating innovative factions. There are new compositions of groupings of intellectual categories, leading to changes in patterns of social stratification in the larger society and ever-changing debates between antagonistic segments of society and their differing views of that society.

Competing social theories are always being redefined and reinforced to offset potential criticism. The theories once articulated directly inform the participants of what needs to be done. Then, they act in ways that change the social environment and the corresponding political culture.

The statement of any scholar may be true or false, valid or invalid, but it is so only in the context of a specific social, cultural, and historical context. Because of continuously changing social environments, categorical forms of knowledge are always changing. What is right in any one period of time will be wrong in another. Validity is determined within the context in which categories themselves are changing. Consequently, theory must continuously be updated to be valid.

Bibliography:

• Boas, F. (1963). The mind of primitive man. NewYork: Macmillan.
• Ehrenreich, J., & Ehrenreich, B. (1979). The professionalmanagerial class. In P.Walker (Ed.), Between labor and capital (pp. 213–278). Boston: South End Press.
• Engels, F. (1975). The origin of the family, private property and the state. New York: International.
• Engels, F. (1976). Anti-Duhring: Herr Eugen Duhring’s revolution in science. New York: International.
• Francisconi, M. J. (1998). Kinship, capitalism, change: The informal economy of the Navajo, 1868–1995. NewYork: Garland.
• Harris, M. (1968). The rise of anthropological theory: A history of theories of culture. New York: Crowell.
• Harris, M. (1974). Cows, pigs, wars and witches: The riddles of culture. New York: Vintage Books.
• Harris, M. (1977). Cannibals and kings: The origins of cultures. New York: Vintage Books.
• Harris, M. (1980). Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. New York: Vintage Books.
• Harris, M. (1998). Theories of culture in postmodern times. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
• Lenin, V. I. (1970). Left-wing communism, an infantile disorder. Peking, China: Foreign Languages Press.
• Lewellen, T. C. (1983). Political anthropology. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
• Lukacs, G. (1971). History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist dialectics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Luxemburg, R. (1951). The accumulation of capital. New York: Monthly Review.
• Luxemburg, R. (1977). The industrial development of Poland. New York: Campaigner.
• Malinowski, B. (1961). A scientific theory of culture and other essays. London: Oxford University Press.
• Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner.
• Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The German ideology. NewYork: International.
• Polanyi, K. (1957). The great transformation: The political economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon.
• Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1965). Structure and function in primitive society. New York: Free Press.
• Rose, H., & Rose, S. (Eds.). (1976). The radicalisation of science. London: Macmillan Press.
• Steward, J. H. (1955). Theory of culture change: The methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Szymanski, A. (1978). The capitalist state and the politics of class. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
• Trotsky, L. (1993). Fascism: What it is and how to fight it. NewYork: Pathfinder Press.
• Zeitlin, I. M. (1990). Ideology and the development of social theory (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER