Historical Investigation Skills and Application

TL;DR

Learning history isn't just memorising dates; it's about acting like a detective to figure out what really happened using clues. You'll learn how to find, check, and use sources to build your own understanding of past events. This skill helps you question information and form well-supported opinions in all parts of your life.

1. The Mental Model

Think of yourself as a history detective. You're presented with a mystery (a historical event) and a bunch of clues (sources). Your job is to gather evidence, evaluate how reliable it is, and then piece together a story that makes the most sense.

2. The Core Material

When you investigate history, you're not just reading what someone else wrote; you're actively engaging with the past. This involves a few key steps:

Identifying Relevant Sources

Photo by Walls.io on Pexels

First, you need to find sources that can help you understand the event. These can be primary or secondary.
* Primary sources are direct evidence from the time period you're studying. Think of them as eyewitness accounts or original documents. Examples include letters, diaries, photographs, speeches, official records, or even tools and buildings from that era.
* Secondary sources are accounts created after the event by people who didn't directly experience it. They often analyse or interpret primary sources. Examples include history textbooks, biographies, documentaries, or articles written by historians.

Evaluating Sources (The 'CRAP' Test)

Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels

Once you have sources, you can't just take them at face value. You need to check how trustworthy they are. A good way to do this is using the 'CRAP' test:

• Content: What does the source say? What information does it provide?
• Reliability: How accurate or truthful is the source? Can you trust it?
  • Consider the origin (who created it, when, where, why?). Does the creator have a particular bias or agenda?
  • Think about the purpose (why was it created?). Was it to inform, persuade, entertain, or something else?
• Authority: Who created the source? Are they an expert or in a position to know what happened?
• Perspective: What is the viewpoint or bias of the source? Every source has one, even if subtle. Understanding the perspective helps you interpret the information.

graph LR
    A["Historical Investigation Steps"] --> B["1. Identify Sources"];
    B --> C["Primary Sources (Direct Evidence)"];
    B --> D["Secondary Sources (Interpretations)"];
    B --> E["2. Evaluate Sources (CRAP Test)"];
    E --> F["Content (What does it say?)"];
    E --> G["Reliability (Can you trust it?)"];
    G --> H["Origin (Who, when, where, why?)"];
    G --> I["Purpose (Why was it made?)"];
    E --> J["Authority (Who made it? Expert?)"];
    E --> K["Perspective (What's the viewpoint/bias?)"];
    E --> L["3. Corroborate Information"];
    L --> M["Compare multiple sources"];
    L --> N["Look for agreements and disagreements"];
    L --> O["4. Formulate an Argument"];
    O --> P["Use evidence to support your claims"];
    O --> Q["Acknowledge different interpretations"];

Corroborating Information

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels

A single source rarely tells the whole story. To get a more complete and accurate picture, you need to compare multiple sources. This is called corroboration.
* Look for information that agrees across different sources. This strengthens your confidence in that information.
* Look for disagreements. Why do sources differ? Understanding these differences can reveal different perspectives, biases, or even outright errors.

Constructing an Argument

Photo by DS stories on Pexels

Finally, you'll use all the evidence you've gathered and evaluated to build your own understanding or argument about the historical event. You'll present your findings, supported by specific examples from your sources, and acknowledge any limitations or alternative interpretations.

3. Worked Example

Let's say you're investigating "Why did Singapore separate from Malaysia in 1965?"

1. Identify Sources:

   • Primary: A speech by Lee Kuan Yew from 1965 discussing the separation; official government documents or agreements from 1963-1965; newspaper articles from The Straits Times (Singapore) and Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) from that period.
   • Secondary: A chapter on the separation in your history textbook; an academic article written by a historian specialising in Malaysian-Singaporean relations.

2. Evaluate a Source (Example: Lee Kuan Yew's 1965 speech):

   • Content: The speech describes the challenges of integration, differing political ideologies, and the eventual decision for separation. He expresses sadness but necessity.
   • Reliability: It's a primary source, so it captures his direct thoughts at the time. However, it's from a key political figure deeply involved.
   • Authority: Lee Kuan Yew was Singapore's Prime Minister; he was directly involved in the decision.
   • Perspective: His perspective is naturally pro-Singapore and reflects his political beliefs and the challenges he faced. He'd want to justify the decision to the public. You'd expect it to highlight Singapore's difficulties with the federal government rather than, say, errors made by Singapore.

3. Corroborate:

   • You'd compare Lee Kuan Yew's speech with the official government documents. Do the documents confirm the timeline and reasons he stated?
   • Then, you'd compare these with an article from a Malaysian newspaper like Utusan Melayu. Does it present the same reasons for separation, or does it emphasise different factors, perhaps blaming Singapore more?
   • Your textbook (secondary source) would likely summarise the various reasons, perhaps referencing both Singaporean and Malaysian viewpoints, helping you see the bigger picture.

By comparing these different accounts, you'd build a nuanced understanding of the separation, acknowledging different perspectives and the complexities involved.

4. Key Takeaways

• History is an active investigation, not just memorisation.
• Primary sources are direct evidence; secondary sources interpret primary ones.
• Always question sources using criteria like the 'CRAP' test.
• Cross-referencing multiple sources (corroboration) helps build a more complete picture.
• Every source has a perspective or bias; understanding this is crucial.
• Use evidence from your sources to support your arguments about the past.
• Being a history detective helps you think critically about all information you encounter.

Common Mistakes to Avoid:

• Not checking the origin or purpose of a source before using it.
• Believing one source completely without looking for others to compare.
• Only looking for evidence that supports your existing ideas, instead of considering all evidence.
• Confusing a secondary source for a primary one.

5. Now Try It

Choose a historical event you've recently studied. Find one primary source (e.g., a quote from a historical figure, a photograph, or an excerpt from a document) and one secondary source (e.g., a paragraph from your textbook or a historical website) about that event. For each source, quickly apply the 'CRAP' test mentally, especially focusing on its reliability and perspective. Then, briefly note one way these two sources either agree or disagree on a key detail.

What success looks like: You can identify the type of source, explain who created it and why, and point out a similarity or difference between the two sources regarding the event.