No historian is any better than their sources, and finding the right sources is an essential step in writing good history.
Please read Chapter II of Rampolla's Pocket Guide to Writing In History (pp. 8-23). Comment here on that second chapter. What here strikes you as particularly important? Is there anything you hadn't thought of before? Anything you disagree with?
Something that caught my eye as important is when Rampolla said, "By examining primary sources, historians gain insights into the thoughts, behavior, and experiences of the people in the past." (Rampolla, Chap. 2, pg. 9) This is important to realize because if you only base your research or paper on secondary sources, it might not be factual. If you base your research and paper on primary sources you will be able to see things from a historic perspective because of the firsthand accounts of events that happened in history. I hadn't thought about standing in the middle ground when it comes to using both primary and secondary sources. When I write papers, I typically end up using one or the other only, and I can see how it can make my paper seem one sided since I am not taking the other into consideration when writing. There wasn't really anything in this chapter that I disagreed with.
ReplyDeleteAn idea I found to be important was the understanding of primary and secondary sources. The author states, “For recent history, oral sources, such as interviews with Iraq War veterans or Holocaust survivors and other such eyewitness accounts, can also be primary sources” (Rampolla 9). I think we tend to think of written documents a lot, making history seem more boring than it is. Being able to ask people about impactful events that shape the world today is a great way to get perspective into what was going on at the time, and you can understand emotion through someone’s words unlike a document.
ReplyDeleteAnother tip I found useful was taking into account whether a source could be primary or secondary. Rampolla discusses how Suetonius’s "Lives of the Twelve Caesars” could be a primary or secondary source based on the question being asked (Rampolla 10). Sometimes the age of a document won’t affect its relevance to your question, because it might have bias or incorrect views even if the source was from the same period you are studying.
The big takeaway from this chapter would have to be that evaluating sources can be extremely important, because your research is dependent on it. Finding information on the author and their credibility, ideas and views during the source’s creation, and even evaluating the sources they used is important for writing your own paper. I did not disagree with anything said in this chapter, as it further established my understanding of sources.
One thing that strikes me as important is understanding the difference between primary and secondary sources. "To study history and write history papers, you will need to know how to work with both kinds of sources" (9). Understanding the difference between the two sources is an important piece of writing history.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I hadn't thought of before when analyzing historical documents is considering the implications of the publication date. "For some papers it may be important that you know the most recent theories about a historical subject" (19). The date in which a publication is published can influence the way the story is told. Rampolla also states that even though a document may be old, it can still have valuable information to be derived from it. "Do not assume, however, that newer interpretations are always better; some older works have contributed significantly to the field" (19).
I do not disagree with anything said in this chapter.
When reading through chapter two of the Pocket Guide to Writing in History I learned that you need to make sure what sources you are truly evaluating. You have primary sources and secondary sources you will need to evaluate when going through history. I particularly like when the author gives us tips on how to evaluate secondary and primary sources so we know what to look for.
ReplyDeleteI like when the author also goes over evaluating online sources because a lot of history is now being uploaded to the internet and you'll need to be able to know if the sources are reliable. It's good to look at E-Journal websites so you can see what the authors are researching about and what sources they use. Universities and museums are also good websites to find historical information.
Overall, I like that this chapter goes into secondary and primary sources and gives us tips on each one. I also like how the author goes over tips on evaluating web sites. I do not disagree with anything that the author said in this chapter. Overall a very helpful chapter to learn about writing history.
I think it’s very important to understand the differences between primary and secondary sources, in order to use them correctly. I also thought it was important to note that not all primary sources are completely accurate. The reading stated that even though something may be a primary source it still can be bias. This something that I often forget. One thing I hadn’t thought of, was the precautions that need to be taken when viewing an article that has been translated. The editor or translator will arrange the material in a certain way or leave material out, which will in turn effect your understanding of the material.
ReplyDeleteWhile this chapter had many great insights, I think that the best of them was about how important primary sources are to historical discussions. The author states that we can "gain insights into the thoughts, behavior, and experiences of the people in the past" by examining these documents, which are unclouded by contemporary lenses. This alone makes primary sources worth the time to source, read, and understand.
ReplyDeleteSomething that strikes me as particularly important in Chapter II of Rampolla's Pocket Guide to Writing In History is the distinction between primary and secondary sources. The Guide explains that “Both primary and secondary sources can provide valuable information; however, they provide different kinds of information. Primary sources allow you to enter the lives and minds of the people you are studying. . . Secondary sources provide a broader perspective on the events of the past and allow you to see them in context.” (pp. 11) As this chapter explains, both of these kinds of sources are useful, but in distinctly different ways. Therefore, it is important to be able to distinguish between these two types of sources in whatever project your working on because the same sources can be both a primary and secondary source in different contexts. Moreover, I also thought it was interesting to learn about tertiary sources and how you shouldn’t rely on them in a paper, but they can give you a better understanding of new topics (pp. 10) I feel like Wikipedia is a great example of a tertiary source because you shouldn’t rely on it for a paper, but I often use it to get a better understanding of subjects I don’t know much about.
ReplyDeleteWhat strikes me as particularly important in this chapter was the paragraph titled "thinking about nonwritten primary sources." This paragraph, it talks about the importance of photographs, maps, etc. that can be used when researching a specific subject in history.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I have never thought of before from this chapter was distinguishing between popular and scholarly sources. It's kind of been in the back of my mind when I have written papers in the past, but I never gave it a second thought because I always figured that if someone actually know the subject I wanted to write about, then it must be a good source, right? Well, now I know to really fact-check and compare what I learn from one source with another to make sure I have everything accurate.
There isn't anything I really disagreed with!
The most important thing I thought about this reading was the emphasis on nonwritten primary sources. This was very intriguing to me, as it's something that I'd never thought of before. I think especially in History these are very important because History has a lot of important artifacts and such that aren't written so to speak, but are still vital to history itself such as paintings. I also think it was beneficial to read the importance of historical documents in discussion of history because as I previously stated, documents are very important to History itself.
ReplyDeleteThere wasn't anything in particular that I disagreed with.
The most important thing that I got out of reading chapter 2 was the idea of finding what is a Primary source as well as what is a secondary source. Back in high school we usually only referred to Primary sources for everything. But after reading this chapter my eyes open up. I think as a future history teacher incorporating both Primary and Secondary sources will engage the students into the history context more. They are able to get a more general idea on what is Primary and Secondary.
ReplyDeleteI think overall I have nothing to go against this chapter Rampolla was able to use effective instruction to guide the reader on how you should identify and effectively use primary and secondary resources.
I liked this second chapter. I think something that was really important was the use of critical thinking when evaluating sources. You need to use scrutiny when looking at both primary and secondary sources. Considering things like authors' credentials, biased, the question being asked and whether or not sources would be secondary or primary, etc. If you evaluate sources poorly or not at all, then your writing will suffer the consequences.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I liked and have never though of before was when Rampolla talked about how some sources could be used as either primary or secondary depending on the question you're asking. It was really interesting to think about and something I've never considered.