I give permission for my work to be published
in the SIRLS LIS Learning Showcase.
IRLS 587 Research Proposal Report
Shawn T. Nelson
Fall 2003
Historiography: Is There a Difference and How Can it be Used
to in the Academic Library?
I. Statement of the Problem
This study will attempt to discover if there are differences between the information seeking behaviors of college history students who have had historiographical education and those who have not. It is important to examine how history and research are taught to understand why there could be a difference with the addition of historiography. I will begin with the high school study of history to illustrate how little teaching and researching change between high school and the lower level undergraduate history courses.
High school history courses focus on memorization of historical facts: names, dates, and events. Students are taught that history is an absolute and discouraged from discussing the validity of these facts. This type of teaching can make history seem dull. As students progress into college, they are still taught facts, just more of them. In the upper level courses, history is taught with more emphasis on different points of view and theories. There is deeper study of the already learned events and fresh study of newly learned events.
High school creates a foundation of basic research skills by requiring students to write term papers and use multiple sources of information like books, magazines, and newspapers. High school also teaches students how to cite their sources. Once students enter college they are required to present more complex research. Academic and professional journals are included in the sources and students may need to learn other forms of citation. They are required to present papers with greater depth of knowledge. If students progress to the upper level or graduate history courses, more is required of them. In most schools, history majors and graduate students must take some form of historiography. Some schools blend historiography into all of these upper level courses.
Historiography teaches students many things. The definition of Historiography is: “1. The principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation. 2. The writing of history based on a critical analysis, evaluation, and selection of authentic source materials and composition of these materials into a narrative subject to scholarly methods of criticism. 3. A body of historical literature.” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000)
For instance, students who previously learned the “facts” of history, now learn that there are many different points of view for all aspects of history. Students also learn how to conduct critical analysis to decide whether a source is valid or credible. Sources are no longer divided into the categories of book/journal/newspaper, but primary and secondary sources. Peer review begins and students begin to write different types of papers like interpretive essay, book review, compare/contrast, seminar, and thesis.
Through all of this, student’s research skills change dramatically. In high school, students are blending two or three types of information on a simple topic to write a solid term paper. In the lower level history courses, students are refining this skill, but not much is changing. In the upper level and graduate courses, student’s research skills become more complex. They are looking into every possible source, evaluating the validity of sources, using “primary source” material in varying forms (letters, interviews, government documents, foreign documents), and combining all this information into a well thought-out thesis-type paper with a presentation and defense of their research. History students must learn the responsibilities of reading, writing, and research. As consumers and producers of scholarship, students of history need to cultivate special skills: the reading requires certain powers of retention and synthesis; a capacity to work over large bodies of information; and to establish a measure of intellectual possession. The act of research becomes intellectual possession while writing calls for an ability to communicate clearly, in plain, jargon-free prose. The research compels, among other things, orderly, systematic, and imaginative forms of inquiry. The degree to which historians can attain such capabilities will determine their successes and failures.
Professional historical writing falls into several
categories: the general textbook, the narrowly defined scholarly articles and
monographs, the broader synthetic works, and the doctoral dissertations. Each has a standard format and a particular
role to play. Within the profession of
historians, such types of writing bear the descriptive name “secondary
source.” They are “secondary” in that
historians have derived them from “primary sources,” that is, documentary
materials in archives and other forms of artifact. The formal writing by history students is
smaller in scale and scope and consists of at least three types, including the
interpretive essay, the book review, and the research paper. Generally, the interpretive essay calls for a
reasoned response to a question of some sort, presented with proper regard for
the rules of logic and evidence. The
student develops a coherent and defensible line of thinking, making critical
thinking the focus of the learning experience.
A book review is an appraisal of a work published by a practicing
writer. This kind of writing should
accomplish two aims: to describe the contents of the book and to develop a
critical appraisal. Finally, there is
the research paper, which often elicits a panicked response by students. First, the selection of a topic has critical
importance. The student must try not to
doom their efforts by selecting a dull or unrealistic topic. Moreover, students need to calculate whether
they possess the appropriate library resources, specialized knowledge and
skills, and the capacity to cover the subject adequately within the allotted
space and time. Once a workable topic
has been chosen, the novice scholar next needs to mount a systematic search for
research materials. (
There is still a resistance to new technology by historians. While this trend is slowly changing, the instructors’ bias of traditional methods of research is present even today. This was more of an obstacle in the early 1990’s, but more recent research is demonstrating that the familiarity with new technologies by students is forcing instructors to bend to the times. (Delgadillo & Lynch, 1990; Massey-Burzio, 1999; Wiberley & Jones, 1989)
This study is important because students trained in historiography will develop different information seeking behaviors. From an academic librarian’s perspective, how can the understanding that there is indeed a difference in information seeking behavior between these two groups be put to use? What can be gained from this knowledge? How will it allow librarians to better assist history students, one of the largest user groups in academic libraries? (Wiberley & Jones, 1989) Further, how can the principles of historiography allow librarians to better assist students from all disciplines? From these general questions the following research questions have been developed:
1. How do students with/without
historiography experience begin their research process?
2. How persistent are they in their search?
3. Are they fully utilizing their sources?
4. What are the search terms used to find the materials they need?
5. Are the students finding the materials they need?
6. Are they able to attest to the validity of the material they find?
II. Literature Review
The literature on this subject ranged from the general information seeking of students to the specific information seeking of history and humanities students. Included were discussions on the reliance of traditional research methods, reluctance to use new technologies, and the significance of special instruction on library use and researching. To better understand the literature, I have broken it down into five categories.
1. How to study information seeking behaviors
2. How students, in general, seek information
3. How history students seek information
4. Traditional methods versus new technologies
5. Importance of instruction
1. How to study information seeking
behaviors
Different techniques of
measurement have been used to study the information seeking behavior of
students and scholars. Broadbent (1986),
Conway (1986), and Stieg (1981) all used surveys.
2. How students, in general, seek information
Internet research was studied by Zhang (1999), Hsieh-Yee (1993), and Jansen, Spink, & Saracevic (2000). Zhang was primarily interested in scholarly use of internet-based sources and their problems. Some of the problems were the quality and reliability of the information, access and stability of the site, and citation problems. Hsieh-Yee studied the influence of search experience and subject knowledge on search tactics in online searches. Jansen et al. researched the successes and failures of user queries on the Web. Wozny (1988) observed students inability to utilize a database in research while Case (1991a) was not concerned with what information was sought, but the nature of the research. Beaulieu’s (2000) study involved information retrieval and human-computer interaction. Bates (1996) determined that interdisciplinary studies were more difficult to research since they may not have the usual range of documentary sources available to them. This applies directly to history specializations such as Women’s History or African-American History.
3. How history students seek information
The typical stereotype of a history student or historian is of working alone, “grazing” for information, and using primary source bibliographic material. This stereotype is exactly what Watson-Boone (1994, p. 203) found to be true. Green (2000) also found a distinct reluctance to use formal bibliographic tools. Delgadillo & Lynch (1999), Case (1991b), and Wiberley & Jones (1989) studied the research methods of history or humanities students and Siegfried, Bates, & Wilde (1993) observed how advanced humanities scholars operated as end-users of online databases. Delgadillo & Lynch were interested in the student’s research in the university library, while Wiberley & Jones looked at how they used it in their work. Case’s interest was in the way the information was organized once it was retrieved. Cole (1998, p. 51) studied the “cognitive underpinnings of information acquisition” during the information seeking process. In his study he found that although the information seeking may not seem to have a purpose, it is “strongly motivated” by virtue of being in the “middle of an information process.”
4. Traditional methods versus new technologies
All of the studies concluded that humanists, historians, and history students preferred traditional methods of researching than new technologies. Broadbent (1986), Horner & Thirlwall (1988), Orbach (1991), and Stieg (1981) all found that their respondents did not feel any need to use new technologies. Delgadillo & Lynch’s (1999) study found that students are influenced by their history professors who are suspicious of new technologies and have no desire to use them. By 1999, however, the students, who had been raised with computers and the Internet, had less reluctance to use online sources. The importance of peer influence and known sources influenced Green’s (2000) study. This importance and prestige led the faculty in Speier, Palmer, Wren, & Hahn’s (1999) study to question the legitimacy of electronic journals. Stern (1988, p. 161) found an “ingrained resistance” to new technology, while Case (1991a) found a hesitation to use them except for email, word processing, and organizing notes. Humanities faculty in Massey-Burzio’s (1999) study felt frustrated and pressured into using new technologies. While Watson-Boone (1994) concluded that historians do not need new technology since they are happy using their traditional methods, Wiberley & Jones (2000) discovered that, over time, they will gradually be using more and more new technologies. Interestingly, Stieg (1981, p. 552) discovered that microfilm was the universally hated new technology. She found that “equipment-related” problems occurred because “there is dislike of equipment per se, a feeling that it is an interposition between the scholar and his material.” Harter (1998) studied what impact the controversial electronic journals had on scholarly communication and found that there was no relevant impact.
5. Importance of instruction
Fister (1992) discovered that librarians teaching research can be problematic and should be seriously considered before undertaken. She found that defining “research” was virtually impossible and that, in many cases, library instruction only taught students the tools of research. This conclusion was echoed by Ford (1986, p. 59) who agreed that teaching the tools – “cataloguing, classifying, indexing techniques and the like” – must decrease in relation to the need to develop more applicable research skills. In Hsieh-Yee’s (1993) study, it was determined that search experience had more of an influence in the researcher’s success than subject knowledge. Orbach (1991) and Conway (1986) both found that library orientation and experience had the most influence on the success of a student’s research. Stieg (1981) was the most passionate about librarians taking charge of bibliographic instruction.
I have a Master’s degree in
History from the
This study is not based on any other study. The research methods were created by the author to satisfy a curiosity of the differing research skills, or lack there of, by students of history. This is a case-study in the context of occupation/role (history student) based on grounded theory. The techniques for measurement were direct observation and a survey immediately following the observation. There was no established model used.
For the purpose of this study, I have chosen a few operational
definitions:
Research:
1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. 2. Close, careful study. 3. To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner. (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000)
Information Seeking Behavior:
“The purposive seeking for information as a consequence of a need to satisfy some goal.” (Wilson, 2000, p. 49)
Information Seeking:
“The conscious effort to acquire information in response to a need or gap in your knowledge.” (Case, 2002, p. 5)
There were several factors that were focused on during observation. These are the things I watched for as they maneuvered through the library. These will be called methodology factors:
1. What do the students do upon entering the library?
2. What keywords, etc. are used during the inquiry?
3. Do the students utilize one type of source or many?
4. Do the students look for the topic in the title or dig deeper?
5. What is the duration of the search? Are the students persistent?
6. How do the students decide validity? Or do they?
7. Do the students look for primary and secondary source material?
8. What is the scope of the search? Is it broad or narrow?
9. Do the students utilize bibliographies in their textbooks?
10. Do the students utilize bibliographies in their research materials?
IV. Results
The information contained in Table 1 illustrates the results of these methodology factors. The table has 10 rows, one for each of the factors I was considering. For simplicity, the student without historiography experience will be termed Student A, and the student with historiography experience will be termed Student B and both will be referred to in the feminine.
1. Student A walked into the library with only an idea of a topic and had nothing prepared to assist in the search process. Student B entered the library with a clearly defined topic and pages of notes from her text and other class sources.
2. Student A typed simple topic searches and looked for each item after finding it in the computer. Student B searched using many and varied terms and only went to find items after she had exhausted her time at the computer.
3. Student A did not know how to find articles, therefore, she focused on books. Student B was open to relevant material in any form.
4. Student A only found books with the topic in the title. Student B looked at sources all around her main topic.
5. Student A found 3 books in two hours – not persistent. Student B found 32 books, 5 Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), a microfilm of a New York Times article, and 5 journal articles in six hours – very persistent.
6. Student A never considered validity. Student B looked through the table of contents, introduction, acknowledgments, author’s biography, references, and notes.
7. Student A did not know the meaning of the terms. Student B looked for both, emphasis on primary in FRUS, memoirs, letters, and correspondence.
8. Student A had a very narrow scope, looking only for the topic in the title of books. Student B had a very broad scope, looking for sources surrounding the topic and in many forms.
9. Student A did not know the meaning of this. Student B did use the bibliographies in her course texts, which is how she prepared the list for her initial search.
10. Student A did not. Student B used the bibliographies in the materials she found to broaden and substantiate her search.
|
|
Student
A |
student
B |
|
1 |
Go straight to OPAC with no Idea where to begin |
Go to OPAC prepared With notes |
|
2 |
Simple, direct terms – only Uses topic terms to search |
Complex array of terms – Broad search |
|
3 |
Focused on books; had no idea how to find articles |
Many: books, articles, government Documents, microfilm, newspapers |
|
4 |
Only in the title – went to find Each book after looking it up |
Dig deeper – looked all around topic |
|
5 |
2 hours, not persistent |
6 hours, very persistent |
|
6 |
Does not consider validity |
Look through table of contents, introduction, Acknowledgements, author bio, references, and notes |
|
7 |
Does not know what it means |
Yes, in government documents and memoirs |
|
8 |
Narrow |
Broad – came prepared, knew what to look for |
|
9 |
No |
Yes |
|
10 |
No |
Yes |
Table 1 – Methodology Factors
After the student’s were finished researching, they answered a brief survey. The survey is comprised of open-ended questions which they answered in their own words. Table 2 illustrates the results of this survey. The table has 14 rows, one for each of the survey questions. The survey can be found in Appendix II.
Questions 1 and 2 were asked to provide a demographic within the study. Student A was an undergraduate, freshman, traditional student. Student B was 2nd year graduate, non-traditional student.
3. Student A’s paper topic is a narrow topic with a pre-conceived result. Since a researcher should not wish to beg the question, this can be tricky. Student A may research to fit her conclusion, or end up changing her topic to fit the results of her search. Student B’s topic is broad, including enough specifics to use as examples, but not hindering the purity of the research process. Her conclusion is open.
4. Student A was looking for only books, even though her professor required 3 articles as well. Student B had no such requirement.
5. Student A was open to finding multimedia sources, but made no effort to search them out. Student B was seeking out various multimedia sources.
6. This answer recounts the student’s awareness of time spent researching.
7. The purpose of this question was to see if there were any motivations for searching other than what was observed. Student A confirmed that no thought had been put into the research until she was sitting at the computer terminal, while Student B affirmed her preparedness.
8. Student A demonstrated that she only used the most direct search terms and deemed this ineffective. Student B gave a list of search terms that surrounded her topic to make the search for materials more productive and deemed this very effective.
9. Student A had not used the Internet. Student B expressed a negative impression of researching via the Internet.
10. Student A did not. Student B listed author biographies in the books, looked at the tables of contents, and references.
11. The purpose of this question was to see if the students understood the meaning of the term “primary source.” Student A admitted that she did not know what a primary source was. Student B listed memoirs, FRUS, and other government documents.
12. Student A had no special instruction on library use, while Student B had.
13. Both students asked a librarian for assistance when necessary.
14. Student A stated that “using article search was difficult,” while Student B left this question blank.
|
|
student
A |
student
B |
|
1 |
19 – traditional |
29 – non-traditional |
|
2 |
Freshman |
2nd year graduate student |
|
3 |
How did the War Department help The North win the Civil War? |
Who John Foster Dulles was as a person and how that
influenced his role as Secy. Of State, and therefore, |
|
4 |
Required – 5 books, 3 articles |
No requirement |
|
5 |
Yes, if I can find it |
Yes, microfilm, televised speeches and interviews, if any |
|
6 |
2 hours |
6 hours |
|
7 |
Computer at library |
Textbook notes, references, suggested reading |
|
8 |
War Department War Department Civil War War Department history civil war US Civil War War Department history Not very effective |
John Foster Dulles (JFD) Eisenhower Secretary of State and JFD Foreign Relations of the Communism and JFD Communism and Eisenhower Jacobo Arbenz Guzman Jawaharal Nehru Indira Gandhi Very effective |
|
9 |
None |
Did not use |
|
10 |
Did not |
Read author bio’s, looked at TOC, references |
|
11 |
No |
Yes, memoirs, FRUS, other government documents |
|
12 |
No |
Yes |
|
13 |
Yes, where to find a book |
Yes, locating materials |
|
14 |
Using article search was difficult |
None |
Table 2 – Survey Questions
Table 3 shows the relationships between the research questions for this study and the methodology factors and survey questions in matrix format. The table has 24 rows, one for each of the methodology and survey questions. The methodology factors are defined as M1-M10 and the survey questions as S1-S14. The columns RQ1-RQ6 correspond to the six research questions. If the factor or question represented demographic information, it was included in the General Information column. As Table 3 demonstrates, the research questions are fairly evenly distributed with the methodology factors and survey questions.
|
|
rq1 |
rq2
|
RQ3 |
RQ4 |
RQ5 |
RQ6 |
General
information |
|
M1 |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M2 |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
M3 |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
M4 |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
M5 |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
M6 |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
M7 |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
M8 |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M9 |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
M10 |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
S1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
S2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
S3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
S4 |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
S5 |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
S6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
S7 |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S8 |