This classic introduction to the techniques of research and the art of expression is used widely in history courses, but is also appropriate for writing and research methods courses in other departments. Barzun and Graff thoroughly cover every aspect of research, from the selection of a topic through the gathering, analysis, writing, revision, and publication of findings p This classic introduction to the techniques of research and the art of expression is used widely in history courses, but is also appropriate for writing and research methods courses in other departments. Barzun and Graff thoroughly cover every aspect of research, from the selection of a topic through the gathering, analysis, writing, revision, and publication of findings presenting the process not as a set of rules but through actual cases that put the subtleties of research in a useful context. Part One covers the principles and methods of research; Part Two covers writing, speaking, and getting one's work published. A useful text in many respects for the graduate student.

The first chapter was especially insightful and even inspiring in its explanation of how and why we study history. It indirectly provides some particularly zesty counters for addressing and redirecting those who cling to the particularly pesky mantra of “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it,” which has always bothered me, but I’ve never before had the verbal ammunition to overcome. Perhaps the greatest flaw of this work is t A useful text in many respects for the graduate student.

The first chapter was especially insightful and even inspiring in its explanation of how and why we study history. It indirectly provides some particularly zesty counters for addressing and redirecting those who cling to the particularly pesky mantra of “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it,” which has always bothered me, but I’ve never before had the verbal ammunition to overcome. Perhaps the greatest flaw of this work is that it is now quite dated having been written in 1992.

My professors did not specify an edition, and this is the one I purchased not realizing that there is a 6th ed., if not a 7th (if not, there probably will be soon). What a difference two decades makes in the technology sector. Card catalogues (p.48) are now on the extinct species list, and there are no longer conversations needed of weighing the pros and cons between deciding whether to write by hand, typewriter, or the 'word processor' (p.348-363).

The foreboding tone of the conversation regarding the pros and cons of the 'so called 'laptop' (p.24) had me laughing aloud. To be fair, I was unaware that laptops existed in 1992, so surely this book was at the cutting edge at the time of publication. Also long since resolved, is the problem of what to do with frail and aging materials as the great digitization projects have rendered this crisis moot. Surely too, will future editions of this work dispense with large portions of Chapter 4 'Finding the Facts', as Google and internal library search systems have thankfully replaced the cumbersome and time consuming days of hunting through various indexes in order to find the desired subject matter. Technology aside, the weakest section in this work is Chapter 10 ' Plain Words.' It is a chapter of unqualified condescending drudgery, in which the authors leave the young writer to question the use and validity of every word he or she has ever committed to paper, while simultaneously managing to sound like the stereotypical 'Mean old Mr. Murphys' of the world who shake their collective canes at school children while shouting the inevitable 'You kids today.!'

What is most curious is their particular tirade 'The State of Language Today,' regarding what they feel are improper uses for the words 'cohort' and 'testament' (p. Questioning my own grasp of the English language, I picked up my dictionary to consult the entries.

The Modern Researcher Jacques Barzun, Henry Franklin Graff Snippet view - 1970. The modern researcher Jacques Barzun, Henry Franklin Graff Snippet view - 1970.

In both cases, the definition that the authors asserted was incorrect was listed as the secondary meaning of the word. What made this finding more curious is that my dictionary (American Heritage published in 1963, well before this book) was in their footnote as one of two preferred dictionaries (p.229) that they recommended. In my mind this leaves three explanations for this rant: 1) the authors' do not like secondary definitions of words (possible); 2) the authors' did not bother to re-read the definitions (highly unlikely); 3) they were well-advanced in their careers and crotchety by the time this book was made and mid-chapter they had to grade a stack of freshman papers (my favorite option). Regardless, for me the effect was to weaken my impression of the remainder of their diatribes (of which there were many) for the duration of the next two chapters. This effect is unfortunate because the book is chock full of excellent recommendations and reminders about the necessity to be hyper vigilant with one’s writing. Perhaps most useful aspect about this work is that the authors have helpfully included tables and charts which explain various aspects of historical writing and shorthand that students learn casually without really ever knowing the meanings behind the abbreviations.

The Proofreader’s Marks (p.340), Roman Numerals and Their Use (p.303) and Common Abbreviations (p.306) are all of great value and highly convenient to have in one work. My recommendation would be to get this work, with the caveat of making certain that one has purchased the most recent edition available. With some works the changes matter very little, with this work the updates are essential. The Modern Researcher was first published in 1957 and the most recent edition (#6) was published in 2001. I read the third edition (1977). The third edition examples of how to do research and how to use libraries are a little outdated especially the emphasis on the card catalogue and the lack of discussion on computers and internet usage. I don't know if the most recent edition is modernized to cover computers and the internet.

The book's greatest strength is how well it highlights the difference The Modern Researcher was first published in 1957 and the most recent edition (#6) was published in 2001. I read the third edition (1977). The third edition examples of how to do research and how to use libraries are a little outdated especially the emphasis on the card catalogue and the lack of discussion on computers and internet usage. I don't know if the most recent edition is modernized to cover computers and the internet. The book's greatest strength is how well it highlights the differences between facts and opinions and between copying and researching. True research involves verifying facts (names and dates) and adding thoughts to these facts (opinions and conclusions). The book also covers the correct way to cite sources, including common errors with names and dates.

Although I am no longer doing research in an academic setting, I still found the book both interesting and useful. I often do research for my book reviews and other blog posts. It was also a good reminder on how to spot opinion and bias in writing. I asked a history professor to recommend a book about how to do historical research, and got this.

I have to say I won't be passing the recommendation on. Here's what I liked: * Some of the sections on how to write well. There's a good reminder that although lots of words (especially verbs) can be used to mean the same thing, in fact they can be differentiated by their original meaning or by the image they are meant to evoke. If you keep this in mind you will avoid mixed metaphors and write more e I asked a history professor to recommend a book about how to do historical research, and got this.

I have to say I won't be passing the recommendation on. Here's what I liked: * Some of the sections on how to write well. There's a good reminder that although lots of words (especially verbs) can be used to mean the same thing, in fact they can be differentiated by their original meaning or by the image they are meant to evoke. If you keep this in mind you will avoid mixed metaphors and write more effectively. Of course, this is advice I had already heard and had been trying to use, so I didn't quite learn anything from this section, and I found that some of the other sections on writing style were rather too elitist for my taste.

* The advice about how to organize your handwritten notes (e.g. How to make sure you don't lose any references) and how to organize yourself so that you keep working and get things done on time.

The next time I have to write a major research paper I might borrow The Modern Researcher again just for that part. * The tips on where to find different kinds of information in your library.

Here's what I didn't like: * No notion of gender-neutral language. The first edition of this book was published in 1957, but the edition I was reading was from 2003. I think there are about two 'he or she's used and the rest of the time the Researcher or Historian is assumed to be male. Thanks very much, Professor.

I would like a book that gives instructions on academic writing to tell the reader that it's now unprofessional to use the universal male pronoun., citing works that were all published before 2003. * The reader is assumed to be in the United States and a native, or extremely fluent, English speaker. Din Next Pro Condensed Bold Free Download.

I don't think that's a dealbreaker, but I wish the authors had stated this premise at the beginning. * I was actually rather confused by the authors' idea of what history is, or what the people using this book would be trying to accomplish with their research. One of the very first things I learned about How To Think Like A Historian is that it's important to differentiate between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are things written or otherwise produced during the period you're studying. They probably don't directly answer the question you have, or summarize the situation, but they give clues and it's up to the historian to interpret them.

Secondary sources are written after the fact, and usually have a bigger-picture, retrospective view of what happened. Whereas the Declaration of Independence is a primary source to a historian studying the separation of the U.S. From Britain, a history book about the American Revolution is a secondary source. But one still has to be careful about secondary sources because their authors might have been missing important information, or might have some undisclosed bias. Shade 14 Keygens. There are also tertiary sources -- these are things like encyclopedias, whose authors don't usually rely directly on primary sources, but compile information from secondary sources into easily accessible summaries. The Modern Researcher doesn't explain the difference between primary and secondary sources until a footnote on page 81.

This bemused me! Furthermore, The Modern Researcher gives very little advice about working with primary sources, and says almost nothing about the importance of caution when absorbing information from secondary sources.

I remember one example about writing the biography of an important person. The researcher reads all existing biographical material, plus secondary sources that mention the person, plus the person's letters, then puts all of this information in order.

It's as though the authors aren't even considering the kind of work involved in researching the history of something that hasn't already been written about repeatedly -- let alone something that has little in the way of written sources. Oral history, what's that? * In fact, there's a section called 'Revisionism' that I think would have made me absolutely furious if I could have figured out what it was referring to. I think it was discussing and condemning the kind of history that uses oral history and sociological methods to add the stories of poor, illiterate, and otherwise marginalized people to history normally centered around the wealthy and powerful. My conclusion is that this section has not been revised in the slightest since 1957.

So what I think this book is really intended for is people who are writing tertiary sources -- not actually adding anything to the body of historical knowledge, but simply compiling information that is already available. I was not impressed. There are newer editions of this classic book on the practice, ethics, and philosophy of writing history, and perhaps the special voice and wit of the original authors, polymath Jacques Barzun and Henry Graff, survives in them. But this edition (Fifth Edition, 1992), published when personal computers had gained a foothold in academic research but the internet had not, and libraries were still in the process of creating their online catalogues, preserves methods that are still necessary for schol There are newer editions of this classic book on the practice, ethics, and philosophy of writing history, and perhaps the special voice and wit of the original authors, polymath Jacques Barzun and Henry Graff, survives in them. But this edition (Fifth Edition, 1992), published when personal computers had gained a foothold in academic research but the internet had not, and libraries were still in the process of creating their online catalogues, preserves methods that are still necessary for scholars who want to go off the beaten path and find the valuable stuff that is not online.

The art of verifying and evaluating sources and detecting patterns, bias, and revisionism is given more than 100 pages, and these principles are increasingly necessary in everyday life now that so much of our news comes to us directly, without the mediation of professional journalism. The literary style is far more fun than the staid title would suggest. The 'kick-off' quote begins, 'My Illustrious Friend and Joy of My Liver! The thing you ask of me is both difficult and useless...'

Just remembering my arranged marriage with this book in 1987 brought on the olfactory memory of card catalogs, bound periodical indexes, sour-faced university librarians, and the chalk-dusted Professor Briggs 'Twigs' Twyman, a savage and aggressive critic and, for me, perfect mentor. I'll never forget your backward praise of my paper on Custer's Last Stand while you were acerbically shouting down everyone else in my historiography seminar. I still haven't figured out your angry s Just remembering my arranged marriage with this book in 1987 brought on the olfactory memory of card catalogs, bound periodical indexes, sour-faced university librarians, and the chalk-dusted Professor Briggs 'Twigs' Twyman, a savage and aggressive critic and, for me, perfect mentor. I'll never forget your backward praise of my paper on Custer's Last Stand while you were acerbically shouting down everyone else in my historiography seminar. I still haven't figured out your angry scrawls about my preposition use, but you made me a better writer.