Understanding Historiography and Historical Methodology

Historiography involves the study of the writing of history. It describes historical

arguments, theories, and interpretations over time, how schools of thought on particular
events change over time --- like history. With historiography, the historian looks into the
relation between evidence, inference, explanation and narrative. Moreover, it includes the
imaginative reconstruction of the past from the data derived by the process of historical
method.
Historians study history through representations of the past using historical
sources and evidences. The process of critically examining and analyzing these records,
sources, evidences and survivals of the past refers to historical method. Historical
methodology is crucial in ascertaining the credibility, relevance and authenticity of a
document used in historical research and inquiry.
History is not objective, it is subjective.

Facts cannot speak for themselves. A historian’s job is not merely to seek and
gather historical evidences but interpret these materials in their historical narratives.
Historians are, moreover, influenced by their context, background and ideology, to name a
few. A historian’s subjectivity will influence the process of the historical research in terms
of the methodology used, facts selected and deemed relevant, interpretation and the form
of writing. A student of history, hence, must raise some questions that will inform his
understanding of a historical narrative. Who is the historian/writer? What is their
background? Is the person credible? Other questions may refer to the critical
assessment of the content of the sources used. How was the historical textwritten?
What were the sources used? What were the methodologies and theories used by the
historian? These are just examples of questions raised to determine the reliability, validity
and authenticity of the document.
Source criticism is an integral part of historiography. The historian must ensure
that the sources used in the narrative and interpretation of documents are not forged or
corrupted. Originality of the source increases its reliability.

External and Internal Criticism

Primary and secondary sources are important in historical writing. These

sources, however, must go through a critical assessment. Using these sources (most
especially primary source) in historical research entail two kinds of criticism, internal and
external criticism.

External criticism examines the authenticity of the document or evidence used. It

is the practice of verifying the authenticity of evidence by examining its physical
characteristics; consistency with the historical characteristics of the time it was produced
and the materials used for the evidence. A document is examined, for example, to include
the quality of the paper, type of ink, the language and words used in the material.

Internal criticism examines the truthfulness and accuracy of the primary source
or evidence. It looks into the content of the source and examines its truthfulness and
factuality by looking into the author’s source, its context, the knowledge which informed it
and its intended purpose, among others.
 Both internal and external criticisms are central to the conduct of a rigorous
historical research.