Methods of historical research. Character traits. Methodology of historical research Historical research methods and their characteristics

Methods of historical research.

Method is a means of historical research. With the help of research methods, historical knowledge is accumulated, as well as ideas about the past are clarified.

Methods of historical research are divided into:

• Especially historical ones.
• General scientific.

The following research methods are specifically historical:

1) The ideographic (descriptive - narrative) method involves not only the description of historical events and phenomena, but also reduces to it the functions of historical knowledge as a whole.

Historical knowledge begins with a description of a particular phenomenon. To reveal the individual uniqueness of the object of historical knowledge, appropriate linguistic means of expression are used. The ideographic method allows you to record the unique features of a historical phenomenon.

Description is not a random listing of information about what is depicted, but a coherent presentation that has its own logic and meaning. The logic of the image can, to one degree or another, express the true essence of what is depicted.

Description is a necessary link in the picture of historical reality, the initial stage of historical research of any event or process, an important condition and prerequisite for understanding the essence of phenomena. However, in itself it does not provide such understanding. In fact, although description is an important stage of this knowledge, it does not represent a universal method. This is just one of the historian's thinking procedures. It prepares the ground for further essential-substantive analysis.

2) The retrospective method (from the Latin retro - back and specio - look) is a consistent immersion into the past in order to identify the causes of events.

Historical processes develop in the direction “from past to present”, from the formation of the causes of a phenomenon to the emergence of the phenomenon itself. The process of historical knowledge “moves” in the opposite direction: from knowledge about events and phenomena to the determination of their causes and prerequisites. That is, it is addressed to how events developed in reality - from cause to effect. The historian goes from effect to cause. The significance of earlier historical phenomena can only be understood by taking into account later ones.

The essence of the retrospective method is to use knowledge about a higher stage of historical development to understand and evaluate the previous one. The fact is that in order to understand the essence of the event or thinking process being studied, it is necessary to trace its development from end to end. Each previous stage can be understood not only through its connection with other stages, but also in the light of the subsequent and higher stage of development as a whole, in which the essence of the entire process is most fully expressed.

The essence of the retrospective method was best expressed by K. Marx. We are talking about understanding very specific phenomena and history in general. About the way the German G. L. Maurer studied the medieval community, K. Marx wrote: “But the stamp of this “agricultural” community is so clearly expressed in the new community that Maurer, having studied the latter, could restore the first.”

In Russian historiography, the retrospective method was successfully used by I. D. Kovalchenko when studying agrarian relations in Russia in the 19th century. The essence of the method was an attempt to consider the peasant economy at different system levels: individual peasant farms (yards), a higher level - peasant communities (villages), even higher levels - volosts, counties, provinces. The system of provinces represents the highest level; it was at this level, according to the scientist, that the main features of the socio-economic system of the peasant economy were most clearly manifested. I. D. Kovalchenko believed that their knowledge is necessary to reveal the essence of structures located at a lower level. The nature of the structure at the lowest (household) level, being correlated with its essence at the highest level, shows to what extent the general trends in the functioning of the peasant economy were manifested in the individual.

The retrospective method is applicable to the study of not only individual phenomena, but also entire historical eras. This essence of the method is most clearly expressed by K. Marx. He wrote: “Bourgeois society is the most developed and most versatile historical organization of production. Therefore, the categories that express its relations, the understanding of its organization, at the same time make it possible to penetrate into the organization and relations of production of all outdated social forms, from the fragments and elements of which it is built, partly continuing to drag along the still unresolved remnants, partly developing to its full meaning , which previously was only in the form of a hint, etc. Human anatomy is the key to ape anatomy. On the contrary, hints of something higher in lower species of animals can only be understood if this itself is already known at a later date.”

3) “Method of vestiges.” In concrete historical research, the retrospective method is very closely related to the “method of vestiges,” by which historians understand the method of reconstructing objects that have passed into the past based on the remains that have survived and reached the modern historian.

The famous researcher of primitive society E. Taylor (1832-1917) wrote: “Among the evidence that helps us trace the actual course of civilization, there is a large class of facts for which I would consider it convenient to introduce the term “survival.” These are those customs, rituals, views that, being by force of habit transferred from one stage of the culture to which they were characteristic, to another, later one, remain a living testimony or monument of the past.”

In the broad sense of the word, we can include monuments and information of a relict nature as relics.

If we are talking about written sources dating back to a certain era, then data or fragments included from more ancient documents may be relicts in them. The most striking example of sources containing information from the era contemporary to their origin (recording) and remnants of more ancient eras are barbaric truths. Recording in the form of legal decrees the emergence of the state and the privileges of its officials, these sources contain a lot of information related to the rules of tribal relations, i.e. to common law.

4) The historical-systemic method consists in considering society as an integral system. The objective basis for using the systems approach is the fact that social reality does not consist of separate and isolated objects, phenomena and processes, but is a collection of interconnected and interacting objects, certain integral, systemic formations.

5) The comparative (comparative - historical) method is a comparison of historical objects in space and time. Using the comparative method, simultaneous (synchronous) and multi-temporal (diachronic) events can be compared. Comparison allows us to identify both similarities in various historical phenomena and their unique, individual characteristics.

The method of comparison has been known in science since Antiquity.

A condition for the productive use of the comparative historical method is the analysis of single-order events and processes. It is quite clear that such an analysis cannot be realized using this method as such. Until the characteristics of the events being compared are given through a detailed, possibly exhaustive identification of their features, the comparative historical method will not produce results or the result will be false. Moreover, it should be emphasized: the degree of knowledge of what is being compared should be approximately the same in each case, since insufficient knowledge of any of the events being compared can be mistaken for their insufficient development, which will inevitably lead to erroneous conclusions. Consequently, the productive use of this method is preceded by a detailed description of what is being studied as a result of using the descriptive-narrative method. Description acts as the basis for comparison.

Comparison of the phenomena being studied differs in the degree of penetration into their essence. The initial stage of comparative analysis is analogy. Judgments by analogy, whether they relate to simple events, characters or complex phenomena and processes, do not contain a decoding of their essence and are usually used as an illustration or proof of something. Analogy does not involve analysis, but the direct transfer of ideas from object to object.

The next stage of comparative analysis is to identify the essential and content characteristics of what is being studied. In this case, we are talking about a comparison of one-order phenomena as a result of regular repetition.

In the 16th century The Reformation took place in a number of Western European countries. It was caused by a number of similar reasons; it was based on the transition of society from medieval orders in all spheres of life to new, capitalist ones. This is the “earthly” roots of the Reformation, although its course in different countries had its own characteristics, including the content of the ideas put forward.

The next step in comparative historical analysis is the use of typology. The typology goes further than the content-essential analysis through comparison in the sense that types of one-order phenomena are identified.

6) The historical-typological method consists of identifying types of historical phenomena and their classification. The identification of types (classification) of single-order phenomena is based on comparative studies, but is not limited to them. The essence of the historical-typological method is to determine the characteristics (criteria) that can become the basis for classification.

7) The problem-chronological method is the study of the sequence of historical events in time. Since the historical process develops “from the past to the present,” the result of the historical reconstruction of events is the alignment of their sequence according to a chronological principle, the formation of a “chain” of “links” of history connected by cause-and-effect relationships.

8) The biographical method is one of the oldest approaches to the study of history.

Some of its features were already identified in ancient historiography. Thus, Plutarch (c. 45 - c. 127) in his work “Comparative Lives” not only presented biographies of great people, but also tried to look at their actions as history. Of course, ancient historians did not come to the conclusion that history is a product of human activity. There are still centuries before this thesis is formed, since the idea of ​​providentialism dominated in historical thinking for more than a millennium. Even G. W. F. Hegel considered people with their passions, will, and actions as puppets of the spirit.

With the development of historiography, the biographical method acquired an increasingly important role in historical writing. It is especially characteristic of various areas of so-called political historiography, where the subject itself - political history - to a certain extent contributed to highlighting the role of the individual politician as a real bearer of supreme state power.

An extreme expression of the biographical method was a variant of its interpretation associated with the theory of “heroes and crowds” by the English historian T. Carlyle. This historian outlined his understanding of the role of great personalities in history in the lecture “Heroes, the veneration of heroes and the heroic in history,” read in 1841. In a later published book, he viewed history as biographies of great personalities, and the people as a blind and silent instrument of their actions .

Among the most notable varieties of the biographical method is the method of collective biographies of the English historian L. Namier (1888-1960), which he used in the course of studying the activities of the English Parliament and which subsequently became widespread in a number of national historiographies in the West and in the USA. L. Namier addressed the average, ordinary person, although not to the person on the street, but to a member of the English Parliament. This is the novelty of his approach. In 1928, the historian began writing a history of the English Parliament, which he presented in the form of biographies of MPs. L. Namier considered each of them as a representative of a certain social institution and identified dates of life, social origin and position, education, personal and business connections, behavior in various situations, etc. The theoretical concept of the method of collective biographies is associated with the confidence that understanding the reasons for actions and explaining their nature can only be achieved through the thickness of biographical details, thus revealing not imaginary, but genuine interests of a person. The only way to this is to study all the details of his life. In accordance with this, the activities of parliament look only like the struggle of its members for power, career, and personal well-being.

Narrowing the scope of application of the biographical method in historiography of the second half of the 20th century. is connected, firstly, with the loss of political history of its former traditional role and, secondly, with the emergence of new branches of historical research in the historical science of a number of countries around the world.

Is the appearance of a great personality an accident or does it depend on the era and the conditions surrounding it? Undoubtedly, only taking into account the nature of historical conditions can one understand the actions of a historical figure, and therefore the reasons for his emergence. She owes her appearance not to herself, or rather, not only to herself, not only to her talent, will, desire for results, etc., but also to the environment. One can only imagine how many people outstanding in their personal qualities remained unknown or unfulfilled due to the fact that they were hindered by the era in which they lived, that their time had not come, etc. One of these people was the famous Russian statesman M.M. Speransky (1772-1839), whose reform projects were significantly ahead of their time. It’s paradoxical: for great commanders to appear, a war is needed. In order for a great personality to emerge, conditions are necessary, and more specifically, a situation of maturing social change. These changes bring forward the personality; against their background, the personality becomes great, exerting a large-scale influence on the course of events by realizing the desire for change of millions who have realized their need.

METHODOLOGY OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH - 1) theoretical provisions of historical science, which act as a means of discovering new historical facts or are used as a tool for knowing the past [V. V. Kosolapov]; 2) the theoretical basis of concrete historical research [N. A. Mininkov].

The methodology of historical research is a way to solve a scientific problem and achieve its goal - obtaining new historical knowledge. The methodology of historical research as a method of research activity is a system of theoretical knowledge, including goals, objectives, subject, cognitive strategy, methods and techniques for the production of historical knowledge. This system includes knowledge of two types - subject and methodological. Subject theoretical knowledge is the result of specific historical research. This is theoretical knowledge about historical reality. Methodological theoretical knowledge is the result of special scientific research, the subject of which is the research activity of historians. This is theoretical knowledge about the methods of scientific research activities.

Theoretical knowledge of subject and methodological content is included in the structure of the methodology of historical research, provided that it is internalized by the methodological consciousness of the researcher, as a result of which it becomes the design and normative basis of scientific research activities. In the structure of the methodology of historical research, such theoretical knowledge performs the function of cognitive “filters” that mediate the interaction between the subject and the subject of historical research. Such “background” or “extra-source” knowledge is sometimes called patterns, which represent a syncretic unity of the constructive and conceptual. These are “images,” on the one hand, of the subject of historical research, and on the other, of the process of its research itself.

In the structure of the methodology of historical research, the following levels can be distinguished: 1) a model of historical research as a system of normative knowledge that defines the subject area of ​​a specific scientific research, its cognitive strategy, basic principles and cognitive tools; 2) the paradigm of historical research as a model and standard for setting and solving a certain class of research problems, accepted in the scientific community to which the researcher belongs; 3) historical theories related to the subject area of ​​concrete historical research, forming its scientific thesaurus, model of the subject and used as explanatory constructs or understanding concepts; 4) methods of historical research as ways to solve individual research problems.

It is necessary to distinguish between the concept of “methodology of historical research” and the concept of methodology of history as a branch of special scientific research or a scientific discipline formed within the framework of historical science with the aim of theoretically ensuring the effectiveness of historical research conducted in it. The methodology of history as a branch of science, according to the Russian historian of the early 20th century A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, is divided into two parts: the theory of historical knowledge and the doctrine of methods of historical thinking. In the 20th century, the subject area of ​​methodology as a scientific discipline began to include the principles and methods of historical research, the laws of the process of historical knowledge, as well as such non-methodological issues as the meaning of history, the role of the masses in history, the laws of the historical process. Currently, the methodology of history is considered as a scientific discipline that ensures the organization of the research process in order to obtain new and most reliable knowledge [N. A. Mininkov]. Consequently, the subject of the methodology of history as a scientific discipline is historical research itself.

Isolating historical research as a subject of the methodology of history as a scientific discipline raises important questions: is this research expedient or is it arbitrary, what conditions determine the possibility of obtaining new historical knowledge, whether there is a logic and norms for the historian’s scientific research activity, whether its process is knowable ?

The inner world of a historian always requires a certain freedom of creativity; it is associated with inspiration, intuition, imagination and some other unique mental qualities of a scientist. Therefore, in this respect, historical research as creativity is an art. At the same time, historical research, in order to be scientific, must be carried out in accordance with certain principles and requirements that the scientist must comply with. Therefore, freedom of creativity, “flashes of insight” in historical science inevitably coexist with the scientist’s ideas about the necessary elements of purposeful cognitive activity. Therefore, historical research is not only scientific creativity, but also to a certain extent a craft, that is, a cognitive activity subject to certain normative requirements. Studying these norms, bringing them into a system of purposeful activity, and its theoretical justification makes it possible to exercise conscious control over the process of concrete historical research, constantly improve its practice, as well as transfer the experience of research skills and teach it. This is the immediate practical significance of the methodology of history as a scientific discipline.

A. V. Lubsky

The definition of the concept is quoted from the publication: Theory and methodology of historical science. Terminological dictionary. Rep. ed. A.O. Chubaryan. [M.], 2014, p. 274-277.

Literature:

Kosolapov V.V. Methodology and logic of historical research. Kiev.1977. P. 50; Lappo-Danshevsky A. S. Methodology of history. M, 2006. P. 18; Lubsky A. V. Alternative models of historical research: conceptual interpretation of cognitive practices. Saarbricken, 2010; Mipinkov N. A. Methodology of history: a guide for the beginning researcher. Rostov n / D, 2004. P. 93-94: Smolensky N. I. Theory and methodology of history: textbook. allowance 2nd ed., erased. M., 2008. P. 265.

Stage I. Selecting an object and setting a research problem.

Each historical study has its own object: an event, human activity, processes. It is beyond the power of an individual historian, or even many, to embrace the entire historical reality. Therefore, it is necessary to define a research problem aimed at solving a scientific problem. The problem highlights the unknown in the object of knowledge in the form of questions that the researcher must answer. The research problem determines not only the range of phenomena, but also the aspects and goals of the study. In the course of the historian’s work, all these components of the research task can be clarified.

The relevance of choosing a particular problem is dictated by the logic of science itself. It is also important how much it is in demand by modern society.

Two things should be kept in mind. Firstly, relevance is not necessarily periods of history close to us. Antiquity is no less relevant than modern times. Secondly, if the topic you have taken on has not been studied before, this in itself does not mean relevance: perhaps it does not need to be studied yet. We must prove that your topic will help solve serious scientific problems and shed additional light on subjects that interest us.

The most important point is taking into account the results achieved by historical science by the time scientific work began. We are talking about a historiographical review in a book or dissertation, which should substantiate the research problem, reveal the main directions and stages of research into a scientific problem, the methodology of scientific directions, the source base of their works and scientific significance. This analysis will identify unresolved problems, those aspects of the study that have not received adequate coverage or need to be corrected.

This analysis will allow you to determine the purpose and objectives of your work, and determine its place in the general stream of research. Historiographical justification is the most important stage of any research. In many ways, it determines the success of the historian’s work. It can be used to judge the degree of erudition and depth of problem posing. You need to strive for an objective assessment of the work of historians who wrote before you. There should be no nihilism towards predecessors, even if you consider their views outdated. It is necessary to look at what new things these historians gave in comparison with their predecessors, and not to find out what they do not have, based on modern positions - to observe the principle of historicism. But at the same time, we need to strive for a non-standard formulation of problems, look for new ways to solve them, taking into account the latest achievements of historical and related sciences, attract new sources, and go “breadth and depth” of the problem.

Stage II - identification of the source and information basis and selection of research methods.

Any historical problem can be solved only if there are sources containing the necessary information about the object of knowledge. The historian must use already known sources that other researchers have used before him: mastering new techniques, he can extract new information in accordance with the goals of the study and the chosen aspect of the study. In addition, the historian usually introduces new sources into scientific circulation and thereby enriches science. Of course, you need to know what sources of information existed during the period under study and you need to understand the system of existing archives and libraries in order to find the sources.

It is necessary to involve all the knowledge in the field of source studies, which studies the problems of searching, selecting, establishing the authenticity, and reliability of information from sources. You need to use the vast experience accumulated by historians and study the literature on the source study of the problem that interests you.

Sources need to be collected as many as necessary and sufficient to complete the task, to ensure qualitative and quantitative representation of specific data. What is important is not the formal number of sources, but their information richness. There is no need to clutter the study with unimportant facts. Excessive information can, of course, be used in further research, but at the moment it can complicate the achievement of the goal.

At the same time, there should be enough sources to solve the problems posed. According to I. Kovalchenko, the qualitative representativeness of the included information is determined by the extent to which it reveals the essential properties and connections of the object. The historian uses previously acquired knowledge about the object. If information from sources is not enough, the research problem must be adjusted. As for quantitative representativeness, it refers to mass sources. If there is not enough data, the study should be postponed.

Considering the claims of modern postmodernists that sources do not provide an idea of ​​historical reality, it should be emphasized that without sources there can be no serious scientific research; it is necessary to constantly improve the methodology of source analysis, to overcome the difficulties of extracting information from sources that postmodernists point out.

At this stage of the research, it is necessary to decide on the system of methods that should be used. We have already noted that extra-source knowledge and the historian’s methodological arsenal are of decisive importance both in the selection and interpretation of sources and in the choice of methods.

Based on general philosophical, general scientific and general historical methods, the characteristics of which were given above, the historian determines specific problem-solving methods of research. There are a lot of them, and they are determined by the specifics of the object of study. It is at this level that an interdisciplinary approach is used, methods of sociology, psychology, etc. are used. But the main ones are general historical methods - genetic, comparative historical, etc. Mass phenomena require quantitative methods, but if there are not enough quantitative indicators, one should limit oneself to descriptive ones methods.

Of course, this is one of the most important and difficult aspects of research: you need to choose the most effective methods. Only the erudition and experience of a historian will help here. As a rule, young researchers experience the greatest difficulties here, and the help of a supervisor or consultant is invaluable.

The third stage is Reconstruction and the empirical level of knowledge of historical reality.

After completing the preliminary stage, which was discussed above, the period of actual research into the phenomena and processes of historical reality begins. I. Kovalchenko distinguishes two levels of knowledge - empirical and theoretical. On the first, the phenomenon is cognized, on the second, the essence is revealed and theoretical knowledge is formed. The identification of these stages is very arbitrary; in the practice of a historian they are intertwined: at the first stage the historian cannot do without theory, and at the second - without empirical material. But the fact is that the historian faces two dangers: going into empiricism, collecting facts that do not lead to generalizations, or, conversely, falling into sociologization, breaking away from historical facts: both undermine the prestige of historical science.

At the empirical level, based on the set goal and the existing scientific hypothesis, the range of phenomena and ways to identify and systematize scientific facts are determined. Moreover, the facts in historical research have a self-sufficient significance, they speak “for themselves”, and are not mere material for further operations. The historian subsumes the available data under certain scientific categories. Facts characterizing the phenomena are established. Empirical facts are systematized, compared, etc. To study the object of knowledge, a system of facts is needed. It is necessary to provide a representative system of facts. Here the entire arsenal of tools comes to the rescue: logical methods of extracting hidden information, intuition, imagination, especially a lot depends on erudition, accumulated knowledge. If the facts are still not enough, you need to adjust the research problem or abandon its solution. True, sometimes incomplete data can be compensated in the process of abstract-logical analysis at the theoretical level as a result of categorical synthesis.

Fourth stage. Explanation and theoretical level of knowledge. There has been a long debate about the ultimate goal of historical research. For any science, this goal is explanation. But V. Dilthey once put forward the idea that a historian cannot explain history, or at best, understand it.

In the 20th century, more and more people came to the conclusion that the historian should not limit himself to describing events, he should explain them. K. Hempel argued that a scientific explanation of a historical event means bringing it under some kind of law. True, this will not explain a specific event in its entirety, but only a certain aspect. W. Drey argued with Hempel, who defended the model of rational motivational explanation of certain human actions.

In addition, there are other types of explanation. Cause-and-effect (casual), when the objective and subjective causes of events and the results of human activity are revealed.

A genetic explanation reveals the essence of processes in their temporal expression. Explains the genesis and origin of events and processes.

Structural explanation - the essence is revealed through the analysis of the structures of social systems, structural-forming features, elements of systems and their interrelations are identified.

A functional explanation is a type of structural explanation that allows us to understand the functioning of a system.

First, a hypothesis (theoretical scheme) is put forward. It is verified by facts, concepts and theories available to the historian. If it does not stand up to criticism, it is rejected, a new idea is put forward, a new hypothesis is born. The complete form of explanation is historical theory.

The role of theory in historical research. In explaining historical events, theory plays a decisive role. In history, theory generalizes and explains facts, connections and relationships based on concepts, ideas and laws. In theory, facts appear not in themselves, but in the form of concepts. The integrating principle is the idea. Building a theory requires creativity, a high level of cognition, and often the development of models.

Theory is involved in setting the research problem, selecting facts, and directing the research process. It performs important methodological functions. It is hardly possible to derive a theory from facts alone. Deductively, you can apply a theory to facts, but you cannot test a theory with facts alone. Logicians believe that a theory, as a complex system, can neither be completely proven nor disproved: there will always be facts for and against. Any theory explains only a certain class of phenomena and is not applicable in other cases.

There is no single axiomatic theory of the historical process that would be shared by all historians. Historians rarely develop their own theories; more often they borrow theories and models from sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc.

Historical theories come in different levels of generalization: fundamental and particular theories. Fundamental ones are theories of socio-economic formations, the theory of civilizations, cyclical theories of the historical process, the theory of modernization, etc.

Particular theories are, for example, the theory of the medieval city, imperialism, etc. Sociological theories of population mobility, conflictology and many others are used. In theory, its subjectivity, completeness, adequacy, interpretability and verifiability are valued. K. Popper believes that the author of any theory must try to refute it himself (the principle of falsifiability). And only after making sure of its suitability for analyzing facts, apply it. The result depends on the accuracy of the choice of theory; there may be mistakes: the imposition of an artificial construction on the facts, insufficient selection of facts. The discovery of new phenomena and relationships may require a change in theory.

The role of concepts and categories in explanation. Concepts are formed at the theoretical level of cognition. Historians have their own conceptual and categorical apparatus and are constantly improving it. Unlike the exact sciences, concepts are less defined, and the set of features and scope depend on the historian. Therefore, the concepts are polysemantic, constantly evolving and being refined by each researcher. According to semantics, G. Frege identifies a trinity in each concept: name, objective meaning (denotation), meaning, concept.

The historical concept is neither a fragment of reality nor a speculative construction; it is the result of the cognitive activity of the historian and, at the same time, a means of knowledge. It is woven into the fabric of historical research and can be the subject of independent logical analysis, but logical analysis cannot be separated from the objective, substantive side of knowledge.

The historical concept never coincides with reality. It summarizes the essence of the phenomena. It does not include all the features of an object, but only the essential ones. The discrepancy between concept and reality is explained by the individuality of historical events; they are repeated rarely and in various forms and almost never in their “pure” form. The concept cannot accommodate the complexity and diversity of historical reality. The asynchrony of the historical process also explains the discrepancy between concept and reality. The concept is poorer than a concrete historical event; it covers only the general logic of the event and schematizes the actual event. As soon as the historian is convinced that a concept does not correspond to the achieved level of knowledge, he seeks to clarify the concept. This is the main task of the study.

The historian needs the concept to understand specific events. It is difficult for historians to agree on an unambiguous definition of the concept. These definitions are always insufficient. Historical reality is richer than any concept. Concepts are polysemantic; if we rigidly define a concept, we will close the way to further research and stop in the process of cognition. Let us remember that the rigid definition of a nation in Russian historiography led to the fact that no historical studies on the formation of nations in Europe, or even in Russia, appeared at all. The concept should be open for further clarification and expansion of its content. The concept should be definite and stable, but should not be a universal master key. Finally, the concept cannot be divorced from reality, a specific era. The principle of historicism must not be violated, otherwise it will become meaningless.

Historical science has a certain system of developed concepts. The conceptual apparatus is constantly developing, old concepts are being clarified, and new ones are emerging. In connection with the development of an interdisciplinary approach, concepts from other sciences are used.

Concepts can be individual and general, there are specific and generic concepts, and finally, concrete and abstract. The complexity of operating concepts is due to the multifunctionality and vagueness of terms.

The language is characterized by polyvariant vocabulary. After all, the historian uses ordinary, natural, and not formalized artificial language.

Along with concepts, the historian uses categories - broad, extremely general concepts. These are generic concepts.

There are different levels of categories. Philosophical: movement, space, time, quality, quantity, contradiction, part, whole, individual, general, cause, effect, form, content and others.

Of particular note is the use of concepts and categories of related sciences, in particular, sociology, psychology, and human sciences. Using concepts from other sciences (in particular, mathematics) requires special knowledge and great care. But today, in the context of the integration of social and human sciences with history, this is necessary, although it requires additional knowledge from the researcher.

Incorrect handling of concepts leads to errors. I. Kovalchenko believes that the historian puts specific data under one category or another. This is where differences in the approach of individual historians are revealed. Different opinions are a manifestation of the activity of the cognizer. Disputes and discussions are the most important means of clarifying concepts and developing scientific research. Not a single scientific direction can lay claim to the ultimate truth.

Scientific disputes must be conducted correctly in form and have the goal of deepening knowledge, discussing new approaches, and clearly revealing the content of the concepts used. It is unacceptable to simplify or distort the views of your opponent.

The main thing is the constructive focus of discussions, and not sticking labels and humiliating opponents.

The logical structure of historical knowledge certainly deserves further development and clarification. In the book by K. Khvostova, V. Finn “Problems of historical knowledge in the light of modern interdisciplinary research” (1997), a special chapter is devoted to this problem. The authors highlight the main parts of this structure, the stages of logical constructions.

The authors emphasize the importance of a priori “prerequisite” knowledge, philosophical and worldview climate, and the state of historical science. All this is passed through the personality of the historian, who rethinks history in a broad sense.

The historian must pay special attention to the logical systematization of knowledge, formalization of his judgments, clarification of the concepts used, and formulation of the concept of his work. The logical structure of a historical work is hidden, disguised as natural language. But there is a logical structure, and attention must be paid to it. The authors identify four stages of topic analysis. The first is to create an argument for or against the inclusion of a system of statements (a priori or based on sources). The second is the analysis of cause-and-effect relationships (the logic of “discovery”). Third - situational logic (according to K. Popper). And finally, the fourth is creating a concept.

The historian masters the logic of argumentation. He uses evidence, axioms, plausible reasoning, masters rhetoric, and methods of persuasion.

The attempt of the book's authors to mathematically express the logical structure of historical research is worthy of attention, although it is difficult to understand for a historian who does not know mathematics. Perhaps this is one of the most complex and little-studied problems in the logic of historical research, although philosophers have dealt with it. But historians do not yet have such research, which negatively affects the training of young historians.

Historical concept. This is the most important final component of the study, the result of studying the material, logical constructions, testing theoretical hypotheses and formulating a generalization of factual material. The historical concept is used to evaluate the work of a historian and his contribution to science. Particular attention is paid to the logical consistency and evidence of the concept. Historians either create new concepts or clarify the old ones in some way. This is the main path of development of science.

The historical concept is embedded in the text of a historical essay; as a rule, it is briefly formulated in the conclusions or conclusion of the work. The historical concept, unlike theoretical schemes, is not abstract, but concrete. She systematizes the material and explains it. Unlike theory, the historical concept is concrete. This is the result, as noted earlier, of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

Checking the research results is the final stage of the historian’s work. We are aware of the relativity of the results obtained. But misconceptions are also relative. An erroneous result is useful for science - it shows the dead-end nature of the chosen methods and approaches. Meanwhile, every relative truth carries within itself a piece of the absolute, and the share of the latter increases: Objective truth is always concrete. The main way to check the results obtained is criticism. Historians, getting acquainted with a new work, immediately notice strengths and weaknesses. A content-logical analysis is carried out. Hypothesis testing is carried out by exclusion or inclusion in a broader problem. If the result contradicts the general system, the scientific problem needs to be adjusted. The main thing is to check the reliability of the author’s arguments and conclusions. The criteria for scientific character, in addition to reliability, include subjectivity, validity and consistency. Other historians, noticing weaknesses in the work, will write again on the same topic, using new sources and methods. The path of knowledge is endless and always thorny.

When, in ancient times, a Hellenic writer named Herodotus began to compose his famous book about the bloody Greek wars, in which he described the customs and traditions of the countries surrounding him and their inhabitants, even in his wildest dreams he could not imagine that his descendants would give him his father’s famous name great and incredibly interesting science - history. As one of the most ancient and famous disciplines, it has its own subject, methods, and sources for studying history.

What discipline is called history?

What is history? This is a fascinating science that studies the past of both an individual and the entire human society. By examining the various sources available to it, this discipline tries to establish the real sequence of certain events that occurred in the distant or near past, as well as to comprehensively study the causes of their occurrence and consequences.
Having emerged, like many other sciences, in Ancient Greece, history initially studied the lives of prominent individuals, as well as crowned families, rulers and wars. However, over time, the subject and method of studying history have changed and expanded. More precisely, over the years, history began to study the past not only of individual people who distinguished themselves in some way, but also of entire nations, various sciences, buildings, religions and much more.

Basic methods of studying history as a science

The method of historical research is a way of studying historical processes through a diverse analysis of facts, as well as acquiring new information based on these same facts.
There are two huge categories into which methods of studying history are divided. These are specific methods as well as general methods for most of the humanities.

Specific methods for studying history

1. General scientific methods.
2. Private scientific methods.
3. Methods borrowed from other sciences.

General scientific methods are of the following types:

• Theoretical, which include the famous deduction, induction, synthesis and analysis, the construction of hypotheses, modeling, generalization, inversion, abstraction, analogy and the system-structural approach.
• Practical methods for studying history: experiment, observation, measurement, comparison, description. Often this type of method is also called empirical.

Private scientific historical methods of studying history:

• Chronological method - historical data is presented in their chronological sequence, from past to present.
• The retrospective method is the study of historical facts by gradually penetrating into the past in order to discover the reasons for the event that happened.
• The concrete historical method is the recording of all events and facts.
• Comparative-historical - an event is studied in the context of similar incidents that took place earlier or later. This research method makes it possible to study a particular event in more depth from different angles.
• Historical-genetic - the study of the emergence and development of a certain event.
• Historical-typological - classification of events or objects according to their type or characteristic.

In addition to the above, quite often scientists use other methods to study history, borrowed from other related and not so related sciences, for example from statistics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, archeology and others.

General methods of research and study of history

For most humanities disciplines and history in particular, the general methods are:

1. Logical method - examines the phenomena under study at the peak of their development, since during this period their form becomes most mature, and this gives the keys to understanding the previous stages of historical development.
2. Historical method - with its help, processes and certain historical phenomena are reproduced in chronological development, taking into account unique features, patterns and details. By observing them, you can track certain patterns.

Historical sources

When researching history, scientists have to work with objects or phenomena that they most often cannot see with their own eyes, since they took place many years, centuries or even millennia ago.
Between the research of historians and the fact that actually happened in the past, there is an intermediate link - this is a historical source. The science of source studies deals with research and classification of sources for the study of history.

Types of historical sources

There are different types of classifications of historical sources. The most popular is the classification by type. According to it, 7 groups of sources are distinguished:

1. Oral (folk tales, songs, rituals).
2. Written (chronicles, books, diaries, newspapers, magazines and others).
3. Material (remains of weapons on the battlefield, ancient burials, preserved items of clothing, household items, and so on).
4. Ethnographic (materials related to the culture of a particular ethnic group, most often provided by ethnography).
5. Linguistic (names of cities, rivers, areas, food products, concepts, etc.).
6. Phonodocuments.
7. Photo and film documents.

The last two types of sources of historical research have become available to historians relatively recently, but thanks to them, conducting research has become much easier. Although, thanks to the achievements of modern technology, it has become very easy to falsify photographs, videos and audio recordings, so it will be difficult for historians of the near future to use these historical sources.

The science of history, like the history of mankind itself, interacts with a whole range of other disciplines, often using them as sources of information, as well as using their methods, principles and achievements. In turn, history also helps other disciplines. Therefore, there are a number of historical sciences that concentrate their attention on the subject of a particular discipline. Such, for example, as the history of philosophy, politics, culture, literature, music and many others. In this regard, correctly chosen methods and sources for studying history are very important, because it is on their choice and use that the establishment of facts of objective reality depends, which affects not only the “brainchild of Herodotus”, but also all other sciences related to it.

Positivists believed that scientific methods are the same for the natural and human sciences. Neo-Kantians contrasted the method of history with the method of the natural sciences. In reality, everything is more complicated: there are general scientific methods used in all sciences, and there are specific methods of a particular science or complex of sciences. I. Kovalchenko spoke most thoroughly in Russian historical literature about the application of general scientific methods in his book on methods of historical research. We will not characterize these methods in detail from a philosophical point of view, but will only show the specifics of their application in historical science.

Logical and historical method. History uses synchrony, the study of an object in space as a system, their structure and functions (logical method) and the study of objects in time - diachrony (historical method). Both methods can appear in their pure form and in unity. As a result, we study the subject in space and time. The logical method is provided by a systems approach and structural-functional analysis.

The historical method implements the principle of historicism, which was discussed above. The development process is studied through analysis of the state of the object in different time slices. First an analysis of structure and function, then a historical analysis. These two methods cannot be separated.

I. Kovalchenko gives an example. If we use only the historical method, we can conclude that semi-serf relations dominated in Russian agriculture at the beginning of the 20th century. But if we add a logical analysis - a systemic-structural one - it turns out that bourgeois relations dominated.

Ascent from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract to the concrete. I. Kovalchenko considers this method the most important and decisive. The concrete is the object of knowledge in all its richness and diversity of its inherent features. Abstraction is a mental distraction from some features and properties of the concrete, while it must reflect the essential aspects of reality.

The ascent from the concrete to the abstract is carried out in three ways. Through abstraction (certain properties are considered in isolation from other properties of the object, or a set of characteristics of the object is isolated and it is possible to build essentially substantive and formal-quantitative models).

The second technique is abstraction through identification of the non-identical: states and characteristics that it does not possess are attributed to the object. It is used for various types of classifications and typology.

The third technique is idealization - an object with certain ideal properties is formed. They are inherent in the object, but are not sufficiently expressed. This allows for deductive-integral modeling. Abstraction helps to better understand the essence of an object.

But in order to understand the essence of concrete phenomena, a second stage is necessary - the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. Specific theoretical knowledge appears in the form of scientific concepts, laws, and theories. The credit for developing this method goes to K. Marx (“Capital”). This method is complex and, according to I. Kovalchenko, is not widely used.

Systems approach and systems analysis. A system is, as already noted, an integral set of elements of reality, the interaction of which leads to the emergence of new integrative qualities that are not inherent in the elements that form it. Each system has structure, structure and functions. System components - subsystems and elements. Social systems have a complex structure, which a historian must study. The systems approach helps to understand the laws of functioning of social systems. The leading method is structural-functional analysis.

Foreign science has accumulated extensive experience in the application of systems analysis in history. Domestic researchers note the following disadvantages in the use of new methods. The interaction of the system with the environment is often ignored. The basis of all social structures are subconscious-mental structures that are highly stable; as a result, the structure turns out to be unchanged. Finally, the hierarchy of structures is denied, and society turns out to be a disordered collection of closed and unchanging structures. The tendency towards synchronous static study often leads to the rejection of dynamic diachronic analysis.

Induction - deduction. Induction is a study from the individual to the general. Deduction - from the general to the particular, the individual. The historian examines the facts and arrives at a generalized concept and, conversely, applies the concepts known to him to explain the facts. Every fact has elements of commonality. At first it is merged with a single fact, then it stands out as such. F. Bacon considered induction to be the main method, since deductive conclusions are often erroneous. Historians in the 19th century used mainly the inductive method. Some people are still suspicious of the deductive method. D. Elton believes that the use of theories from sources other than empirical material can be detrimental to science. However, this extreme point of view is not shared by most historians. To get to the essence of phenomena, you need to use concepts and theories, including those from related sciences. Induction and deduction are organically connected and complement each other.

Analysis and synthesis. Also widely used by historians. Analysis is the isolation of individual aspects of an object, the decomposition of the whole into individual elements. The historian cannot cover as a whole the period or object of study he is studying. Having studied individual aspects and factors, the historian must combine elements of knowledge obtained about individual aspects of historical reality, and the concepts obtained during the analysis are combined into a single whole. Moreover, synthesis in history is not a simple mechanical addition of individual elements; it gives a qualitative leap in understanding the object of study.

The idea of ​​“historical synthesis” was developed by A. Burr. He created the Journal of Historical Synthesis at the beginning of the 20th century and the International Center for Synthesis, which united historians, sociologists and representatives of the natural and mathematical sciences of several countries. He advocated cultural-historical synthesis, the merging of history and sociology, and the use of the achievements of psychology and anthropology. About a hundred monographs by different historians were published in the series “The Evolution of Humanity. Collective synthesis." The focus is on social and mental life. But priority is given to psychology. A. Burr, in fact, prepared the emergence of the “Annals School,” but the latter, after World War II, went further than him in search of synthesis.

Each philosophical direction offered its own basis for synthesis, but so far the factors were shuffled in a positivist spirit. Recently, the idea of ​​synthesis based on culture in the postmodern sense has emerged. We should wait for concrete historical work in this direction.

One thing is clear: analysis and synthesis are inextricably linked. Advances in analysis will not be meaningful if they are not in synthesis. Synthesis will give a new impetus to analysis, which, in turn, will lead to a new synthesis. There have been successes in achieving synthesis, but they are private and short-term in nature; sometimes material and sometimes ideal factors are put forward as determining ones, but there is no unity among historians. The larger the subject of research, the more difficult it is to obtain a synthesis.

Modeling. This is the most common form of scientific activity. All sciences use models to obtain information about the phenomenon being modeled, test hypotheses, and develop theory. Historians also use this technique. Modeling of a historical phenomenon is carried out by means of logical design - mental models of a content-functional plan are created. Modeling involves some simplification, idealization and abstraction. It allows you to check the representativeness of information from sources, the reliability of facts, and test hypotheses and theories. This method is used at all stages of the study. An example might be given of community studies. When creating its model, data from sociology, law, psychology are used, and mentality is taken into account. This already means taking an interdisciplinary approach. At the same time, we must remember that it is impossible to simply transfer a model from another discipline; it must be reconstructed taking into account conceptual constructs.

There is mathematical modeling. Methods of nonlinear dynamics, mathematical chaos theory, and catastrophe theory are used. The construction of statistical models will be discussed in the section on mathematical methods in history.

Intuition. It is well known that scientists often use intuition to solve scientific problems. This unexpected solution is then tested scientifically. In history, at the end of the 19th century, V. Dilthey, classifying history as the sciences of the spirit, considered the historian’s intuition as the main method for understanding historical events. But this point of view was not shared by many historians, since it destroyed history as a science, preaching extreme subjectivism. What kind of truth could one talk about, relying only on the intuition of historians of very different erudition and abilities? Objective research methods were needed.

But this does not mean that intuition does not play a serious role in scientific research. For a historian, it is based on deep knowledge of his subject, broad erudition, and the ability to apply one or another method in a timely manner. Without knowledge, no intuition will “work”. But, of course, talent is needed for “insight” to come. This speeds up the work of the historian and helps create outstanding works.