There are seven ways to study history.

Historical research method is a method to study past events in the order of historical development by using historical materials. Also called longitudinal research method, it is a form of comparative research method. In the field of political science, it focuses on the study of previous political systems, political thoughts and political culture.

Political scientists generally realize the importance and value of historical research. The attitude and method of acknowledging history is an indispensable basis for political research. Historical research method was once the most important research method in political science. In ancient China, many works about political system were written by historians. In the west, influential scholars who adopt historical research methods are Montesquieu of France, Chavigny of Germany and Main of England. The purpose of historical research is to solve the present situation and evolution trend of political system. But we don't analyze the current situation of political systems out of context, but systematically study the reasons for their past development and changes. The historical research method is mainly to study the development history of the political system, look for causal clues from the relationship of various events, infer the reasons for the current situation of the system, and speculate on the future changes of the system.

Chinese name

Historical research methods

Foreign name

Historical research methods

nature

research method

Is also called

Longitudinal research method

quick

navigate by water/air

Introduce the summary of research records.

develop

After the rise of behaviorism politics, historical research methods have been criticized. Some scholars believe that this method is easily influenced by the religious belief, political party, racial prejudice or philosophical theory of historical researchers, and it is easy to take personal factors or accidental events as the main factors to change the historical trend, thus affecting the scientific nature of research. At the same time, modern political scholars have shifted their research focus from political system to political behavior, and increasingly adopted the principles, methods and materials of psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology and other disciplines, greatly reducing the dependence of modern political research on historical research methods.

introduce

Almost everyone has a natural curiosity about what happened in the past. The so-called history in the broadest sense is everything that happened in the past. But the historical research method does not study everything, whether it is important or not. Therefore, historical research methods also have their specific research objects and scope. According to the interpretation of Ci Hai, history in a broad sense "refers to the development process of everything, including natural history and social history": generally speaking, the description and explanation of history is also called history. From this definition, the scope of history is very extensive. Therefore, the application scope of historical research methods is also very wide. It is not only used in social science, but also in natural science, such as biological research, geographical research (studying the history of the earth) and so on. As long as we trace the source, trace the development track of things and explore some regular things in the development track, it belongs to the scope of historical research, and it is inevitable to use historical research methods. ; In short, historical research is a study centered on the past. It looks for facts through in-depth study of existing data, and then uses this information to describe, analyze and explain the past process, and at the same time reveals some current concerns or predicts the future. ; Historical research can be qualitative or quantitative. Like other qualitative studies, it focuses on natural behavior in real situations, and it focuses on explaining the meaning of behavior in a specific background. But the difference between historical research and other studies is that historical research itself does not create data or facts, but tries to find data or facts in some form. ; Historical research is a valuable research method. First of all, a large number of historical facts obtained through historical research can provide information for practical decision-making and help to understand practical problems. This is the meaning of "taking history as a mirror". Historical research is also very useful for predicting future trends. It can predict what is possible and what is impossible. "Whoever does not understand the mistakes in history is doomed to repeat them". Historical research can provide us with information to avoid repeating the same mistakes. Lenin also said: "Forgetting history means betrayal." Therefore, historical research is very meaningful. Some people sum up the contribution of historical research into four words "expectation" and "prevention", which makes sense. ; The difference between historical research and other research methods is that it explores materials rather than means of production. Because the changes in the past have taken place, people can't change and manipulate history. Therefore, the sources of historical research also have their own characteristics.

Research record

Records of historical research usually come from two aspects. One is written records, such as books, newspapers, periodicals, diaries, letters, manuscripts, meeting minutes, etc. The second is relics, sites or relics. Such as pottery, coins, pots, tomahawks, boundary markers, tools and utensils. The former is a record that people (people in history) consciously choose to pass on to future generations, which is realized by means of stones, pieces of paper and glass. The latter are unconscious, and they may exist in caves and graves. ; Historical records can be official or unofficial. From the perspective of authenticity and effectiveness, the value of official history is higher than that of unofficial history. But this is not necessarily the case, because the ruling class in history will distort the facts for its own ruling needs. Scientific research cannot be based only on sites, because the information it provides about historical activities is usually unsystematic and incomplete, although some of them are extremely valuable. Generally speaking, history refers to written records. Before it was recorded in writing, it was prehistoric, and the sources of data for studying prehistoric times were different. ; Historical research materials are usually divided into primary and secondary materials. First-hand information is the original or first record of an event (or activity), which is experienced by the actual witnesses or participants of the event. Second-hand information is a narrative about an event that has been quoted at least once. If the court hears a case, the trial record at that time is the first-hand information, while the newspaper's comments on the case and its trial are the second-hand information. From the perspective of informatics, information filtering will occur in the process of transforming primary data into secondary data, so there is information distortion. Therefore, it is best to master first-hand information in historical research with history as the research object, which is the basic principle of historical research. The second information should be regarded as background knowledge, opinions or ways to get familiar with the field. Obtaining first-hand information is very important for any kind of research. ; How to judge whether information is primary or secondary? This requires analysis of the data. This process is called historical criticism, and some people call it "historical criticism". Historical criticism can be divided into external criticism and internal criticism. ; The so-called external criticism is the answer: are these materials true and reliable? How did they come from? Who recorded it? Does the time and place of the materials match the reality? ; Internal criticism should solve the problem of the meaning and credibility of the material and emphasize the value of the content itself. Of course. There are overlapping and overlapping parts between internal and external criticism. But internal criticism emphasizes the content itself, while external criticism emphasizes the source of information. ; The two are actually inseparable.