What exactly is meant by historical research? The obvious answer to this question is that historical research or historiography is an examination of elements from history. Unfortunately, this answer begs the next question – namely, What is history? Often, the term history is used synonymously with the word past and, in turn, refers conceptually to past events long ago. From a social science perspective, history is an account of some past event or a series of events. Historiography, then is a method for discovering, from records and accounts, what happened during some past period.

Notter (1972) points out that historical research extends beyond a mere collection of incidents, facts, dates, or figures. It is the study of the relationships among issues that have influenced the past, continue to influence that present, and will certainly affect the future (Glass, 1989).

Historical research allows the contemporary researcher to "slip the bonds of their own time" and descend into past. This provides access to a broader understanding of human behavior and thoughts than would be possible if we were trapped in the static isolation of our own time.

Such tragic isolation is illustrated in H. G. Wells’ classic, The Time Machine (1985). When the protagonist arrives in the distant future, a near utopia seems to exist. Yet the people of the future millennia have been actually raised as the slaves and food of a group of mutant creatures. When the protagonist tries to learn how such a situation could have developed, no one can tell him. They have no sense of their history. How things had come to be as they are and how things might be changed were concept lost on these people. They were obvious to their past, living in the isolation of a single time period – the present.

Most of the students are never formally introduced to historical methods of research and analysis. Instead, there seems to be an assumption that one can become experts at historical research through some tacit process, that mere by taking a history course or two, one can automatically gain the ability to perform historical research. This is of course, is not accurate. This is a simple reason one cannot learn how to do historical research and analysis in typical history courses: such courses present the end product of the research, not the process by which it was uncovered. Hence, many people confuse the study of history with the method of historical research.

Nonetheless, understanding the historical nature of phenomena, events, people, agencies, and even institutions is important. In many ways, it may be as important as understanding the items themselves. One cannot fully evaluate or appreciate advances made in knowledge, policy, science, or technology, without some understanding of the circumstances within which these developments occurred. There is a parallel of dating. When you go out on a first date, there is usually considerable small talk between yourself and your date. Each person attempts to get to know the other. Small talk often centers on questions about your background and the other person’s. Where were you born, raised, and educated? What do you like to do in your spare time, and do you have hobbies? What are your favorite foods, colors, and TV shows? Do you or your date have brothers or sisters, and how well do you each get along with your parents? All of this information goes into the process of getting to know each other and into decisions about whether to go home early, kiss on the first date, or even continue the relationship. Could you make the decision to continue a relationship and perhaps even to marry without knowing about the other person’s background? It is unlikely, and so it is with historical research. Knowledge of the past provides necessary information to be used in the present in order to determine how things may be in the future.

August Comte, who introduced the term sociologie, saw new discipline as the final stage in a historical development of ideas. He described evolutionary picture that took humans from a reliance on religion to metaphysics to science. He portrayed science as evolving from the development of biology and the other natural science to the development of psychology and, finally, to the development of scientific sociology.

Several have examined the historical progression of social forms from the simple to the complex, from rural – agrarian to urban – industrial societies. The U.S. anthropologist Lewis Morgan, for example, saw a progression from "savagery" to "barbarism" to "civilization". Robert Redfield, another anthropologist, has more recently written of a shift "folk society" to "urban society". Emil Durkheim saw evolution largely as a process of ever-greater division of labor. Karl Marx examined economic systems progressing historically from primitive to feudal to capitalistic forms. Looking beyond capitalism, Marx saw the development of socialism and finally capitalism.

Some social scientific readings of the historical record, in fact, point to grand cycles rather than to linear progression. No scholar better represents this view than Pitirim Sorokin. A participant in the Russian Revolution of 1917, Sorokin served as secretary to Prime Minister Kerensky. Both Kerensky and Sorokin fell from favor, however, and Sorokin began his second career – as a U. S. sociologist.

Whereas Comte read history as a progression from religion to science, Sorokin suggested that societies alternate cyclically between two points of view, which he called "ideational" and "sensate." Sorokin’s sensate point of view defines reality in terms of sense experience \s. The ideational, by contrast, places a greater emphasis on spiritual and religious factors. Sorokin’s reading of the historical record further indicated that the passage between the ideational and sensate was through a third point of view, which he called the "idealistic." This third view combined elements of the sensate and ideational in an integrated, rational view of the world.

These examples indicate some of the topics historical/comparative researchers have examined.

There is no end of data available for analysis in historical research.

Four types of historical data sources are used: oral records, artifacts and quantitative records. Primary sources are documents written by a witness to the events, whereas secondary sources are secondhand versions and therefore less accurate. Secondary sources are used as back-up data and when primary data is not available.

1. Primary sources

2. Secondary sources.

Some documents are produced for public consumption, some for personal use.

Those involved in historical research cannot create data and must work with what already exists although some of it may be unknown at the start of the research and only comes to light through the investigation. In general, quality historical research depends on sufficient primary data rather than secondhand data.

Data used in historical research have lives of their own, in that they were not created in the first place for research purposes. The data were created for someone else’s purpose or administrative function. Therefore the data may be biased, distorted and somewhat invalid when used for other purposes. Thus the researcher must evaluate the data in a critical way, establishing the authenticity of the source, including the date and author, and evaluating the accuracy and worth of the statements. The central role of the historian is the interpretation of data in the light of historical criticism. Each fact and supposition must be carefully weighted and added to the case, leading to the research conclusion. Most researchers organize either by date or by concept/issue.

Historical evidence is obtained from historical data by means of historical criticism. This can be external, or internal, criticism.

This establishes The genuineness or authenticity of the date. Is the document a forgery? We may need to establish its age by examining language usage, spelling, handwriting style. This may involve chemical tests on the ink and the paper, or on parchment, cloth, wood and paint, depending on the sort of relic. We also need to check whether the document or relic is consistent with the technology of the period.

After authenticity has been established, we still need to evaluate the accuracy and validity of the data. So although, we need to ensure that they reveal a true picture. Were the writers honest? Biased? Too antagonistic or too sympathetic? Were they sufficiently acquainted with the topic? What motives did they have to write about or record the event or person? How long after the event was the record made? Does the account agree with other accounts? What was the purpose and in what circumstances was it produced? Is it complete, edited, altered? Was the author an expert or lay person? How long after the event was the document produced? Is it liable to memory distortion? Was the author partisan – a supporter of a particular course of action?

Historical evidence, like a one-shot case study, can never be repeated. There is no control group, so one can never be sure that one event caused another. The best that can be done is to establish plausible connection between the presumed cause and the effect. Even if biased s detected, it does not mean that the document is useless. A prejudice account can reveal the pressures and political processes that were being brought to bear at the time. The principle in document analysis is that everything should be questioned.

As data collection and analysis progresses, the historical researcher synthesizes the data and writes it up. This is analogous to the creation of a review of the literature. It is a case of constantly revising, reflecting, obtaining criticism and advise from others, in order to develop the most logical organization and valid conclusions from the evidence analyzed. It is a difficult task to take seemingly disparate pieces of information and meld them into a meaningful whole.