There are multiple positive elements of applying scientific research methodologies to historical study. However, there are also many limitations (rather than negatives).
Of the positives, the first would be the depth of knowledge and understanding and that scientific research provides. If conducting quantitative social research, the depth of data that can be gathered from parish records can be highly effective for determining broad (macro) trends within a region. Other civil records can also provide similar information. By applying scientific research methods to these data, you're able to provide a steady platform for which to argue your point. This can also, arguably, be classed as primary research/data collection, which adds to the validity and credibility of your work.
In terms of qualitative research, though it is somewhat interpretative if you're not conducting primary data collection, historical records can be analyzed in such a way that they yield high returns. This is known as a strategic search of relevant literature, and is a research method frequently employed by academics and researchers. Again, using predetermined methodologies can boost credibility and confidence in results. It will also allow any future researchers to replicate your work, which is a prerequisite for most higher-level research programs.
The limitations of historical data collection via scientific research methods is that the actual data may not exist. You will also be limited in terms of usable texts. For example, if you were conducting qualitative research into the history of North Korea, you'll find that almost all research will not be accepted within the scientific community, and therefore your work with have limited, to no credibility.
Things only get worse when attempting to conduct quantitative research on historical macro and micro trends. If there is no historical data, then research is impossible.
Essentially, the broad pros and cons are:
- Pros: guarantees credibility of your research
- Cons: if the accepted forms of data don't exist, then the research cannot be done
One positive is that one can form a hypothesis and test it. History is best studied when one looks at the motives behind a character's or group's actions. By examining this and the interactions between groups, one can get a good understanding of history and put it into a larger framework.
There are some drawbacks to this method, however. People do not consistently behave, and there are no laws that consistently govern their behavior. It is nearly impossible to apply a theory or law to them when their actions change over time given different circumstances. Also, events in history are not identical; in many cases it is hard to make exact comparisons. One can make predictions, but it is hard to find trends that are nearly one hundred percent accurate. Also, in history one cannot willingly repeat the experiment to test for accuracy. In many cases one hopes that history does not repeat, though a lot of the same events reoccur, only with different people and circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment