This is our first of many discussions about different interpretive approaches to History. Your goal is to understand them all by the end of the course so that you can use them in later research projects. They will come up again in major assignments, notably the Final Exam paper, so use the discussions to make sure you understand them all by the end of Week 7. You will need to understand all of the approaches to History and how they relate to each other to successfully do the final exam. Here are some tips to navigate the readings: 1. The different readings will explain the general historical approaches in a straight forward way, but if you have questions, please go over the readings again as it sometimes takes more than one reading to get the key points. 2. You should also take some notes on the readings, either in the margins of the article (if you are printing them out) or in paper or electronic form (especially if you are using an e-reader). Note taking is especially important since students may be asked in our weekly discussions to elaborate on points made in the readings. Likewise, taking notes throughout the course will help you in the Final Assessment Paper. You should develop your own study system to help you remember the main points of each reading. To proceed with this discussion: 1. Make sure you have read the weekly introduction, along with the following assigned readings: What Ranke Meant (Gilbert); How History Can Be Made A Science (Cheney) 2. Once you have read and reflected on the readings listed above about Empiricism, answer the following questions in your initial post. -What is Empiricism about as a historical approach? What are its key characteristics? -Since all historical approaches are a response to earlier approaches, what was History like before the Empiricists, and why did the Empiricist historians want to change the way History was done? -Ranke argued that history as a discipline is like the natural sciences in how research is conducted and knowledge is gained – that it is a “science”. Does Cheney agree with this? What limitations does history have – why can’t we approach the historical past in the same way we approach an understanding of the physical world? -What strengths or weaknesses do you see in the use of the Empiricist approach? What does the modern discipline of History owe Empiricism that is, what aspects of Empiricism do we still employ?
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]