1a: The writing of history; esp.: the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods. b: The principles, theory, and history of historical writing.


All scholars build on the work of those who have come before them. Historians are no exception. If you look at review articles in professional historical journals, the introductory chapters of history books (or the first chapter of many Reed history theses) you will find comprehensive overviews of the prevalent debates on a given topic. A historiographical review essay usually summarizes and analyzes the major arguments and debates about a given topic.

Most Reed history majors have already encountered such reviews. For HIST 411 (Fall 2000) recall Devra Weber's introduction to Dark Sweat, White Gold, where she summarizes how different historians have characterized class consciousness, and places her argument within those debates.

The first two paragraph's of Weber's article, "Raiz Fuerte: Oral History and Mexicana Farmworkers," are also instructive here. Notice how Weber locates her study of Mexicana farmworkers in the historical literature on the general field of capitalist agriculture then moves to her main topic, farmworkers in California. Weber then describes the specific topic of her article, the oral testimony of Mexicana farmworkers who were involved in labor disputes. This is an abbreviated form of a historiographical review, in which the author has synthesized and compressed a number of major, relevant sources in order to situate her specific topic. In the next few paragraphs, Weber goes on to outline the theoretical bases for her work, citing the historian Temma Kaplan's model of "female consciousness" as a model which helps to explain how female political activists expressed their understanding of gender and class.

Because it is still relatively early in your research process, your historiographical review essays will necessarily be approximations of the ideal. Though it is unlikely that you will be able to read everything that is pertinent to your topic in such a short time, I do expect that you will have begun to grasp the outlines of major debates, and that you will be able to recount those debates in a five to eight page essay.

By now you have begun to narrow your topic and compile your preliminary bibliography. As you expand your reading, you will start to notice patterns in the way the authors describe the literature and debates on which they draw, although they will probably disagree and argue about specific ideas in those debates. You will probably also notice that certain key works are mentioned repeatedly. Be sure to take a look at those key works for your review essay.

You may wish to conclude your essay with a page or two indicating issues that you have not yet read enough about, and books that you have not yet been able to read, but that you know from other reading should be on your agenda for the final paper.

Two copies of your historiographical review essays are due by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 6, at my office (Eliot 214A). Your assignment is to briefly restate your topic (include a tentative title), then describe in your own words (rather than in lengthy quotations), the scholarly debates you have found to be most relevant in developing your argument. The paper should be at least five pages long, and no longer than eight pages. Be sure to include a bibliography that includes the works cited, along with others that you think may be relevant to your topic.