That's a great question. I think I do because I read the secondary literature first& I often have other historians' thoughts on the matter top of mind. But I also keep a timeline/chronology right there too. "OK this was written in March 1922. What happened in February 1922 that may have shaped this"
Other historians, jump in here too. Maybe others have a better answer than I do! I guess what my thread is warning against is cherrypicking. So your thesis may need to shift and move with what you discover in the box or folder and if you find something that is surprising, it need to be discussed
That’s definitely my own experience. I typically have some research questions I’m interested, but those get refined as I go along. The inquiries are often driven by questions that pop up in previous projects that merited their own projects (some book, some article, etc).
Love this description
It’s very typical that the questions /thesis will need to be refined (sometimes significantly from the original project). And I tell my students this is perfectly ok. The idea is to follow the evidence as it lands, not pound it into place to make it fit…
🙌🙌🙌
As with other disciplines, historical inquiries absolutely can be too complex or extensive to cram into a single (quality) project. The training also should prepare the historian to use good analytical judgment in deciding parameters