Page 60 - DLIS401_METHODOLOGY_OF_RESEARCH_AND_STATISTICAL_TECHNIQUES

Unit 4: Historical and Experimental Research Methods

• Human sources may be relics (e.g. , a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. , a statement or a Notes
letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
• A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the
source increases its reliability.
• The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust
it to give an accurate description of what really happened.
• A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, that is more reliable than a
tertiary source and so on.
• If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the
message is strongly increased.
• The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies
should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
• If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating
bias, the credibility of the message is increased.

Task Give an analytical differentiation between historical and experimental research
methods.

Procedures
Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source
criticism in history:
1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that
version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some
of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire
text.
4. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source
with most “authority” i.e., the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
5. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred, especially in circumstances where the
ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically,
when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measureably
enhanced.
7. When two sources disagree (and there is no other means of evaluation), then historians
take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
The process of learning and understanding the background and growth of a chosen field of
study or profession can offer insight into organizational culture, current trends, and future
possibilities. The historical method of research applies to all fields of study because it encompasses
their: origins, growth, theories, personalities, crisis, etc. Both quantitative and qualitative variables
can be used in the collection of historical information. Once the decision is made to conduct
historical research, there are steps that should be followed to achieve a reliable result. Charles
Busha and Stephen Harter detail six steps for conducting historical research:

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 55