To what extent is the knowledge we produce determined by the methodologies we use?

Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences.

Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe once said:

“Everything you look for and all that you perceive,

has a way of proving whatever you believe”

This Goethe quotation emphasizes how our preexisting views may influence how we generate

knowledge. As we shall see, our biases can have an impact on the historical research

methodologies we employ, which in turn can affect the knowledge we produce. The approaches

utilized in history and the human sciences can affect the knowledge we produce, and the

implications for the reliability of the knowledge we produce will be examined in this essay.

To frame the inquiry, knowledge is conceptualized as a representation of truth, encapsulating

valid information that contributes to our understanding of the world. The essay will examine two

opposing perspectives: 1) That the methodologies used to generate knowledge have little to no

effect on true knowledge, as knowledge that is not true cannot be proven. 2) That the

methodologies employed significantly impact the results obtained, thereby shaping our

understanding of truth.

It is difficult to disentangle one's own biases and prejudices from the choices one makes in the

interpretation of history. The mind is a labyrinthine structure, a tangled web of motivations,

desires, and unconscious impulses. And yet, it is precisely these unconscious preconceptions that

so often determine the manner in which we approach historical data. It is in this context that the

1
selection of historical methodologies takes on a particular significance. For it is the assumptions

and biases that underlie our historical inquiries that are made evident in the methods we use.

Therefore, by carefully observing these approaches, one can start to identify and lessen the

impact of their own biases and preconceptions. To understand historical events, historians

consult a number of sources. The two major factors in determining historical methodology

among these sources are primary and secondary sources. Primary sources offer concrete proof

that the events actually took place, such as genuine documents and artifacts produced during the

period under study. Conversely, secondary materials—which include historical monographs,

textbooks, and documentaries—are based on primary sources though are created after the events

they discuss.

To introduce an example which can argue that knowledge produced is determined by the

methodologies used, one can investigate the case of David Irving’s insights to the Holocaust

(Evans, Richard J). Irving identified as an unbiased historian, yet his work was marred by a lack

of rigor and an abundance of personal agenda. He cherry-picked evidence to support his

controversial claims that the Holocaust, the systematic murder of six million Jews by the Nazis,

was exaggerated or even fabricated. For instance, he did not independently examine and analyze

primary sources, but instead relied extensively on secondary sources provided by other

Holocaust denialists. Additionally, he cherry-picked quotes from primary sources, extrapolating

them from their original context to bolster his arguments while minimizing or omitting

information that went against his beliefs. Irving had a reputation for faking or manipulating

historical data to substantiate his arguments. Despite his lack of qualifications and access to

2
primary sources, he persisted in his pursuit of notoriety. The response of the academic

community was swift and unambiguous: Irving's work was thoroughly discredited for its

disregard for impartiality and objectivity. The methodology he employed was exposed as

fundamentally flawed and his interpretations of historical evidence were shown to be distorted

by his personal beliefs. This case outlines that despite a historical methodology being used, true

events of the situation still may surface.

The case of Heinrich Schliemann and his claims to have discovered ancient Troy is an intriguing

illustration of how the methodologies used in historical study may greatly affect the outcomes

and, in turn, shape our perception of reality. In the 1870s, wealthy German industrialist and

amateur archaeologist Schliemann began his first excavation of the Troy site. He declared to

have discovered King Priam's renowned treasures, including the famed "Priam's Treasure." Many

academics, meanwhile, disagreed with him and didn't think the objects he discovered were

authentic.

Schliemann's methodology was heavily criticized for its lack of scientific rigor and for his

tendency to prioritize sensationalism over accuracy. He was known for excavating without

proper stratigraphy, which is a crucial aspect of archaeological excavation that helps to determine

the relative age of artifacts. Additionally, he was known to have fabricated or altered some of the

artifacts he claimed to have found, further calling into question the validity of his discoveries.

Therefore, the case of Heinrich Schliemann demonstrates how the way in which we go about

seeking knowledge can significantly impact the results obtained, and therefore shape our

understanding of truth.

3
The principles governing the relationship between methodologies and knowledge production

hold true not only for history, but for the human sciences as well. The human sciences seek to

delve into the mysteries of human behavior and experience, utilizing various methodologies in

the process. These methodologies include: empiricism, interpretivism, structuralism,

hermeneutics, and phenomenology. Empiricism emphasizes the collection of empirical data.

Interpretivism focuses on the interpretation of meaning in human behavior. Structuralism

analyzes the relationships between parts to understand the whole. Hermeneutics delves into the

interpretation of texts and their cultural context. Phenomenology examines subjective

experience. Each methodology offers a unique window into human behavior, providing a

multifaceted understanding of the human sciences.

However it is arguable that use of these some of methodologies can limit the knowledge

produced, or result in completely false concepts and ideologies on human behavior. The

phenomenon of "Female hysteria" is a prime example of the limitations of the phenomenological

methodology. "Female hysteria" (Bart, Pauline B) was a medical diagnosis that was historically

used to describe a wide range of symptoms experienced by women, including anxiety, irritability,

sexual dysfunction, and a range of physical symptoms. The diagnosis was rooted in patriarchal

views of women's bodies and emotions and was used to pathologize and dismiss women's

experiences. The "female hysteria" diagnosis has been thoroughly discredited by the medical

establishment and serves as a vivid demonstration of the dangers of basing our understanding of

human behavior and experience on limited, culturally-biased perspectives. In this case, women's

subjective experience were analyzed to comprehend their conduct and feelings, yet the

methodology was restricted, overlooking the cultural and societal elements that led to the

4
diagnosis of "female hysteria." This begot a narrow, oversimplified view of female behavior and

emotions, clouded by cultural prejudices and preconceptions. The limitations of phenomenology

in this case highlight the importance of considering multiple methodologies in order to gain a

more comprehensive understanding of human behavior and experience. By looking at the

subjective experience of individuals, phenomenology can provide valuable insights. But it must

be paired with a broader examination of cultural and social factors in order to avoid

oversimplification and the perpetuation of harmful biases. Therefore, the case of "female

hysteria" demonstrates the danger of relying solely on phenomenology as a methodology.

A good illustration of how approaches used to generate knowledge can have little to no impact

on true knowledge is provided by Robert Klineberg's study. Early in the 20th century,

psychologist Robert Klineberg studied the intellect of various races. He thought that heredity

played a large role in determining intellect and that some races were intrinsically less intelligent

than others. Klineberg used numerous groups of individuals from varied racial backgrounds to

conduct his study by giving intelligence tests to them (Valencia, Richard R). He discovered that

IQ levels throughout the races varied significantly. Widespread acceptance of Klineberg's results

allowed for the justification of discriminatory practices and regulations. However, later research

showed that IQ tests are culturally biased and that environmental factors, such as poverty and

access to education, have a significant impact on IQ scores. This meant that Klineberg's results

were not based on true knowledge, but rather on flawed methodologies and cultural biases. This

case study highlights the importance of considering cultural biases and environmental factors

when conducting research, and of subjecting all knowledge claims to rigorous examination and

critique.

5
In conclusion, the methods employed in history and the human sciences have a big influence on

the knowledge generated. The researcher's prejudices and assumptions may influence how they

handle historical data, resulting in incorrect or skewed results, even though knowledge is thought

of as a representation of truth. Examples of this include Heinrich Schliemann's archaeological

discoveries in Troy and David Irving's studies on the Holocaust. The human sciences also face

similar limitations, with some methodologies providing limited or flawed understanding of

human behavior, as seen in the case of "Female hysteria" and in Robert Klineberg's study

Therefore, it is essential for researchers to be conscious of their biases and to use rigorous and

impartial techniques in order to provide trustworthy knowledge.

6
 Works Cited

Claus, Patricia. “The Life of Heinrich Schliemann, the Discoverer of Troy.” GreekReporter.com,

2 May 2022, greekreporter.com/2022/05/02/heinrich-schliemann-discoverer-troy/.

Evans, Richard J. Telling Lies about Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial.

Google Books, Verso, 2002,

books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qRvr_gkVG70C&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=david+i

rving+holocaust&ots=zN8nXivzLW&sig=zw6CLN1c0AQEMiW2BLLm3NbhzPo&redir

_esc=y#v=onepage&q=david%20irving%20holocaust&f=false. Accessed 6 Feb. 2023.

Traill, David A. Schliemann of Troy: Treasure and Deceit. Google Books, St. Martin’s Press,

1995,

books.google.nl/books/about/Schliemann_of_Troy.html?id=vJOfQgAACAAJ&redir_esc

=y. Accessed 6 Feb. 2023.

Valencia, Richard R., and Lisa A. Suzuki. Intelligence Testing and Minority Students:

Foundations, Performance Factors, and Assessment Issues. Google Books, SAGE, 19

Sept. 2000,

books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eIrjj2cKF7YC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Robert+K

lineberg+IQ&ots=7JNAQ1egAa&sig=7pGn-B8nmNdLgnoSkeFMJpJV15s&redir_esc=y

#v=onepage&q=Robert%20Klineberg%20IQ&f=false. Accessed 6 Feb. 2023.

7
“A Quote by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.” Www.goodreads.com,

www.goodreads.com/quotes/991527-whatever-you-think-you-can-do-or-believe-you-can.

Accessed 6 Feb. 2023.

Bart, Pauline B. “Social Structure and Vocabularies of Discomfort: What Happened to Female

Hysteria?” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 9, no. 3, 1968, pp. 188–193,

www.jstor.org/stable/2948403, https://doi.org/10.2307/2948403. Accessed 14 Oct. 2019.

8
9