Source genres in history writing
Sources need categorisation to ensure that from an overabundance of material the most relevant sources are used. Commonly, the separation between tradition and relics, or between primary and secondary sources has been used for this and was taught in history courses as well as used in bibliographies...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Routledge
2024
|
| _version_ | 1811141309063233536 |
|---|---|
| author | Sarti, C |
| author_facet | Sarti, C |
| author_sort | Sarti, C |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Sources need categorisation to ensure that from an overabundance of material the most relevant sources are used. Commonly, the separation between tradition and relics, or between primary and secondary sources has been used for this and was taught in history courses as well as used in bibliographies of historiographies. The use of these categorizations, however, are at least since the cultural turn controversially discussed, and their significance is questioned. The need for categorizations for the ever-growing stock of sources available to historical researchers has, nonetheless, not diminished. This article discusses different approaches to source genres, how and why it matters if they are categorized as tradition, relic, primary or secondary source. Furthermore, suggestions are offered on how the cultural and social historian may preselect their sources, what it means to categorise sources for the research questions and the possible results, and what alternatives to approaching and selecting sources could look like. Based on a discussion of historiographical works on the later Stuart period, this article will show how source genres can be used to further historical research after the cultural turns. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T03:58:39Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:eb65e837-b409-4f31-b2f0-e548a9d73c70 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-25T04:35:49Z |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| publisher | Routledge |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:eb65e837-b409-4f31-b2f0-e548a9d73c702024-09-19T09:39:20ZSource genres in history writingJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:eb65e837-b409-4f31-b2f0-e548a9d73c70EnglishSymplectic ElementsRoutledge2024Sarti, CSources need categorisation to ensure that from an overabundance of material the most relevant sources are used. Commonly, the separation between tradition and relics, or between primary and secondary sources has been used for this and was taught in history courses as well as used in bibliographies of historiographies. The use of these categorizations, however, are at least since the cultural turn controversially discussed, and their significance is questioned. The need for categorizations for the ever-growing stock of sources available to historical researchers has, nonetheless, not diminished. This article discusses different approaches to source genres, how and why it matters if they are categorized as tradition, relic, primary or secondary source. Furthermore, suggestions are offered on how the cultural and social historian may preselect their sources, what it means to categorise sources for the research questions and the possible results, and what alternatives to approaching and selecting sources could look like. Based on a discussion of historiographical works on the later Stuart period, this article will show how source genres can be used to further historical research after the cultural turns. |
| spellingShingle | Sarti, C Source genres in history writing |
| title | Source genres in history writing |
| title_full | Source genres in history writing |
| title_fullStr | Source genres in history writing |
| title_full_unstemmed | Source genres in history writing |
| title_short | Source genres in history writing |
| title_sort | source genres in history writing |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sartic sourcegenresinhistorywriting |