The Nature and Scope of History as a Social Science

By Rowena R. Boquiren, Ph. D.

Division of Social Sciences, UP College Baguio / 2003

INTRODUCTION

The objective of the presentation is to familiarize you with the nature of history as a social
science discipline: to understand the elements of historical research, distinguish the different
levels and sub-disciplines of historical research, and the range of techniques and tools of a
historian.

I. DEFINITION OF HISTORY

As the historian E.H. Carr puts it in his basic work entitled What Is History (1961), history is
generally defined in two ways: as a process and as a field of inquiry.

As a process, “history” includes the past as it had happened, and which is being created.
Hence you hear such phrases as “early history,” contemporary history,” “the making of history,”
or “history in the making.” History is a process which happens whether human beings are
aware of it or not, and whether records about it are consciously made or not. For example, the
evolution of man into Homo sapiens is a historical process which happened over thousands of
years.

In brief, history as a process pertains to the origin, growth and development of social
institutions, events, social movements, and other things concerning man. This, indeed,
covers a very large ground. What has to be kept in mind is that historians are interested in
explaining progress and change in historical processes.

The second definition of history is as a “social science.” It is the study on the inquiry that
the historian makes about these broad social processes in their cultural, temporal, and
spatial context. As a field of learning, history evolved from the tradition of societies that had
use for it. Therefore, its significance and practice varied from place to place. We must add to this
definition the notion of history as a systematic study, “history being a social science.” It
subscribes to a systematic method of forming conclusions based on verified or “tested”
evidence. This is the counterpart of hypothesis testing in history, although history uses
qualitative more than quantitative analytical techniques.

Most of the social sciences focus on man in stable systems, as in social structure (sociology),
use and allocation of scarce resources (economics) or of power or authority (political science).
History differs from other social science disciplines because it deals with the evolution or the
progress and change in those specific concerns through time. Because the subject (society) is
the same, the tools for data gathering in history are also similar to those used by the other
social sciences.

Other than consisting of historical narratives significant to a particular people, history is

therefore also viewed as a discipline with a defined methodology. Yet, it was only in the 19th
century when history as a discipline in Europe started to assume a much-debated

1
methodology from data gathering to analysis and interpretation, as in the other disciplines.
Today, even in the Philippines, historians think of history as a field of learning evolved from
the tradition of societies that had use for it. Therefore, its significance and practice varied
from place to place.

We use the word KASAYSAYAN for history in the Philippines. This word has a unique
linguistic and cultural significance to Filipinos. Let us spend some time clarifying this.

According to Filipino historian Dr. Zeus Salazar in his article “Kasaysayan ng Kasaysayan
Bilang Disiplina sa Pilipinas” (from Navarro, Rodriguez, and Villalin, eds., 1997)
"kasaysayan" comes from the root word "saysay." History is referred to in Filipino as
“karanasang may saysay sa isang grupo ng tao.”

"Kasaysayan" includes the traditions of the people -- ways of doing and expressing things
which are shared through time, including those orally transmitted from generation to
generation such as epics, genealogies, and other forms of folk tradition.

If you are not very familiar with the history of history in the Philippines, we encourage you to
go through Fig. 1 below.

Source : Navarro, Rodriguez, and Villan, eds., 1997

Fig. 1. The History of History as a Discipline in the Philippines

2
One will surely derive from this summary very useful and novel insights about history as a
branch of human knowledge which have bearing on how we teach the social sciences in the
Philippines.

“Kasaysayan" differs from history as historia (Greek) which simply means "to report" or "give
an oral account." If you remember your world history, this was how history was
reconstructed up to the 3rd c. BC when the oral accounts of battles among the Greek
states constituted the history of Thucydides and Herodotus. In the French
tradition, "histoire" was merely "a story" up to the 18th c.

Historia : a report, an oral account

Indeed, Europe's understanding of history differs from the way Filipinos understand and value
"kasaysayan." To the Filipino, "kasaysayan" has always carried a meaning shared by the
people as part of their common tradition. Not all accounts, whether oral or written, have a
significance to all people. In historia or histoire, the oral reports were significant only to the
philosophers and historians of the Greek city-states. In the Philippine tradition, the chronicles
(kronika) of the friars which dealt mainly with how the villages were Christianized, are
significant only to the colonialists and colonized, and not necessarily to communities who
were not controlled by Spanish colonialism. In the same way, the epic of one region may be
significant only to that region, and not to another as well.

Other than consisting of historical narratives significant to a particular people, history is now
also viewed as a discipline with a defined methodology. Yet, it was only in the 19th century
when history as a discipline in Europe started to assume a much-debated methodology from
data gathering to analysis and interpretation, as in the other disciplines. Today, even in the
Philippines, historians think of history already as a branch of human knowledge that has a
distinct methodology.

II. THE NATURE OF HISTORY AS A SOCIAL SCIENCE DISCIPLINE

The historian conducts research guided by dynamic and continuous exchange that happens
between a historical problem s/he is interested in answering and the sources of data that are
employed to answer such problem. As the topical focus of the historian‟s research, the
historical problem (or idea) is derived from a need to derive any of the following:
(a) knowledge of a topic not yet previously studied, or (b) additional insights to, if not
reinterpretations of, previously formed conclusions articulated in available sources, whether
based on the same data or new findings and even new techniques.

The historian decides on the historical problem based on a review of gaps in what is already
known in terms of the following;
(a) geographic scope (will your study cover a province, a town, or just a small portion
of a particular area?)
(b) substantive focus (will the historical investigation tackle social movements, or the
impact of colonial policies, or the evolution of decision making in the political
structure, or the formation of settlements?)
(c) time frame (will the study cover the prehistoric period, or three decades, or a very
short and specific period?)
(d) size of population to be covered (will the study include the entire population of a
town, or just the peasants, or women?)

3
Indeed, what is interesting and feasible as a research problem in history can be defined
according to one‟s assessment of existing sources, of what has not yet been studied, or what
needs to be reinterpreted. Sources can help the historian identify a topic worth studying.

Now, what are sources of history? These are the sources of evidence, whether they are
primary or secondary in origin, printed or orally transmitted, or are material evidences of
cultural life. Just as historical sources help determine a research problem, the choice of a
historical problem also influences the range of sources utilized by the historian, as well as the
techniques and tools to be adopted.

With a historical problem and a set of sources of evidence to study, the historian proceeds
to work in a manner informed by a procedure, a set of knowledge and a particular theory of
history. These three elements constitute the methodology of history, as illustrated in Fig. 2.

HISTORIAN

HISTORICAL PROBLEM SOURCES

core elements of
historical methodology :

HISTORICAL HISTORICAL PHILOSOPHY

METHOD KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY

heuristic phase
historical criticism
hermeneutic phase

Fig. 2. The Nature of History as a Social Science Discipline

The concepts as listed in Fig. 2 which are associated with history as a social
science allow us to understand the work of a historian. Let us explain each of these
concepts. A. THE HISTORIAN AS LINK TO THE HISTORICAL

A. The historian as link to the historical problem and sources of history

 The Historian

It is the historian who defines a historical problem worth studying, and looks for sources of
evidence that will answer the problem. The historian is, therefore, the link between the
historical problem and the sources of history. In a similar way, it is the historian who links the
present (a historical problem meaningful to the present period) and the past (the events which
happened before, as recorded in the past in the form of sources still available in the present).
The historian is not someone who simply picks up a pen and starts to reconstruct an event

4
 that catches his/her interest, because the event is a controversial one, or because it illumines
another controversial happening, or can make or unmake another person‟s effort toward
gaining public recognition.

What makes one a historian (and a historian is a social scientist) is the particular training he or
she goes through in using the scientific method and forming research insights. The historical
investigation follows certain principles and stages of social science inquiry. During the
research stage, the historian collects data methodically, analyzes these systematically, and
tests the sources and data for authenticity and credibility. During the stage of analysis and
interpretation the historian looks for an inner logic in the gathered data (evidence), and
subjects these to a rigorous procedure of testing to determine whether his “hypothesis” and
generalizations (his explanation of the historical events) should be accepted or rejected. The
results of historical inquiry are then related in a coherent and meaningful narrative,
contributing to knowledge and the verification of historical evidence.

Someone who simply documents an event, or who gathers data on practices, beliefs, and the
like, is not a historian but an ethnographer. The historian does not only tell us what happened
in the past. He must also be able to explain and interpret those past events. Historians are
trained to reconstruct AND interpret the past, or explain the present through a study of its
past, according to a systematic method, and for a purpose. The objective is to understand
the origin and process of growth as well as the development of societal aspects related to
man and his environment (human and non-human).

Some historical writing may contain a large bulk of descriptive (ethnographic) text, but when
analysis and interpretation is involved, the historian must follow the rigor of scientific
reasoning, as in the other social sciences.

Creativity and imaginativeness are important elements in historical reconstruction or

historiography, but they do not constitute history the way they form the basic ingredients of
literary writing. History is not creative writing alone. It is also not enough that events are
explained merely for their uniqueness, without being related to general knowledge. The
methodology of history observes scientific tenets and procedures like the methodology of
other social sciences although the character of historical analysis is more qualitative than
quantitative.

 THE HISTORICAL PROBLEM

The choice of a focus and scope in historical inquiry (or the choice of a historical problem) is
itself reflective of the historian's procedure and training as a social scientist. The historical
problem may be drawn from what is not yet known, or not sufficiently known, or even falsely
known. The need to present new evidence (supportive or contrary), however, is directed
toward re-interpretation (re-analysis, for greater understanding), not mere description in a
narrative form using the so-called "facts of history."

As a reconstruction of the past, history is a continuing process of re-interpretation which

produces different historical accounts. The changing challenges of our times and the ever-
expanding frontiers of human knowledge (even the methods, techniques and tools for
knowing) require periodic historical reinterpretation of the past so that it becomes meaningful
to a society. Even the improvements in techniques and tools of collecting and verifying
sources require constant reinterpretations of the past, and may therefore influence the

5
choice of a historical problem. This is why history is also appreciated as a reinterpretation of
the past.

History can be approached either as a generalist or specializing discipline. The range of

specific foci in historical inquiry is too broad and complicated to be tackled by a single expert
or historical work. Hence, individual historians ultimately define the focus (by topic, by period,
or according to aspects of societal life, as in economic history, cultural history, socio-
economic history, etc.). The over-riding objective is still to ascertain generalities and
particularities in human situations in a temporal context.

Levels and sub-disciplines of history

Because of the generalist nature of history as a field of study, it is approached in a hierarchy

of geographic or physical settings (even population) as well as with a focus on the more
specific aspects of social life. This is pursued by the historian using his or her own disciplinal
training in collaboration with techniques and approaches developed by other social science
disciplines.

The levels of historical writing and its different sub-fields or areas are illustrated in Fig. 3.

Local history refers to the history of a specific place, such as a village or a town or a
province. Regional and national histories, meanwhile, would refer to larger territorial or It is
also important to outline the content or focus of the different sub-disciplines or fields of
history, although it must be stressed that a disciplinal approach is only a conceptual tool. In
reality, people do not perceive of their historical experiences in a way that separates the
political from the social or economic or the cultural.

Fig. 3. The levels and sub-fields of history

6
Political history, by which much of history has come to be known (although quite
inaccurately), is concerned with authority or power and their institutions. It is often
conceived that political history is as history of the nation state. In a broader sense, though,
the interest of political history is in the ways in which humans have come together in
society, under governmental or administrative machinery, organized and maintained
social institutions, and interacted with other social units. Some areas of topics in political
history are: the nature, forms or types, structures and functions of government; political
participation (political strata, elite, group politics and movements); colonialism/
imperialism; nationalism; and revolution.

Social History, meanwhile, is commonly defined as the history of a people with

politics left out. More specifically, it has been pursued at three levels as the history of
(a) manners, customs, everyday life (in the ethnographic sense), (b) social processes
and institutions linked with the economic (hence, socio-economic history), and (c)
social (particularly protest) movements of the lower classes. A recent trend in history
is historical demography, which looks into the changing patterns in population
characteristics and mobility. This particular sub-field is a special interest among social
historians.

The study of a people‟s “way of life” as learned, shared, and transmitted from generation
to generation by means of language and symbols is the concern of cultural history,
which links the concern of the historian with that of the anthropologist. Topical interests
under cultural history may include changes over time in the aspects of the material
culture (tools, implements, technology, dress and adornment); ideas or beliefs and
practices; rituals and ceremonies, and language. Under cultural history, more specific
interests are church history, art history, the history of costumes, and the like.

Economic history, on the other hand, is defined as the historical study of man‟s effort
to provide himself with goods and services, of the institutions and relationships which
resulted from these efforts, of the changing techniques and outlooks associated with
economic endeavors and of the results (in social as well as economic terms) of his
efforts. Its concerns include showing how different societies define the fundamental
problems in economic life, what institutions and arrangements have been developed
for resolving problems, how and why the character of such problems have continually
changed and how such changes have affected the other aspects of societal life.
Hence, the changes in economic structures as well changes in economic thinking are
more specific interests in economic history, and so are those which explain the impacts
of certain economic policies or programs.

At present, the concern over human impacts on the environment is the main impetus for
the emergence of environmental history as another sub-field of history. As its „hybrid‟
name implies, environmental history takes off from an interest in the physical and
cultural landscapes of the past, the processes that have created them, the inter-
relationship between inanimate and animate life forms, as well as with human impacts
on the environment. For instance, one example of a study in environmental history is

7
 how human activities had transformed the vegetation or land uses in a particular area,
as to cause out-migration, for instance, or further encroachment into forested zones.
While relatively new as a sub-discipline, environmental history actually has its roots in
geography and dates back to the debate between geographers and anthropologists
since the 19th century in terms of whether it is the physical environment or culture which
determines historical directions.

From these different sub-fields of historical writing, perhaps you now have an idea why
historians find it difficult to write general histories. Many historians can only provide
historical explanation for very specific aspects of societal life. Other terms for general
history are ”universal” and “comprehensive” histories.

The types of historical writing vary only in terms of functional areas that serve as their focus.
It must be stressed that the lines of demarcation which distinguish one field from the rest,
as is true generally in the social sciences, exist only as conceptual boundaries. In fact, an
economic historian shares the same concern with the social historian, with differences only
in focus. For instance, an economic historian may look into the structure and forms of
exchange in a Philippine town in the 19th century, but a social historian may dwell on the
changes in social organization as a result of trade. In both cases, a study on 19th century
trade has to be done as common staring point.

STARTING history of trade in the town of Dagupan

POINT in the 19th c

DISCIPLINAL structure and forms changes in social

FOCUS of exchange organization

SUB-DISCIPLINE Economic history Social history

The crossing of disciplinal boundaries happens more often in historical research because the
study of one society in a particular period starts in a generalist manner, and takes in the
concepts and tools of the various social science disciplines. This would explain why inter-
disciplinarity or multi-disciplinarity is essential in historical inquiry. Along the same line of
reasoning, this would explain why general and local histories must be viewed as
complementary types.

8
  Sources

Not all sources of history are written or documented. The sources are also not confined to
institutional holders of tradition, be they the ruling class or the elite (educated and/or
propertied), the state and its instrumentalities (the law, military, and other cultural
institutions), and the church or its representatives (the officialdom, the priest or shaman)
among others. Mentalities of a period or group (or the common-place thoughts, ideas, beliefs
and consciousness characteristic of a prevailing socio-cultural setting), the collective
memory of a people, the practices and beliefs of a community, as well as elements of the
material culture -- all of these also constitute sources of history.

Sources are generally classified as PRIMARY or SECONDARY, depending on whether the

recording was done contemporaneously with the witnessing of the event. A witness to the
actual event is a primary source. That person's recordings of the event ( diary, memorandum)
are primary sources or evidence. If told to another person who is not an eyewitness to the
event, the recordings of that second person are now considered secondary sources. A
scholar's biographical writings of a known official based on the documents provided by the
same official count as a secondary source, although that historian may be using primary
sources. In contrast, an autobiography is a primary source.

Another way of classifying sources is to group them according to whether they are WRITTEN or
NON-WRITTEN FORMS. The oral traditions in a place (folk stories, genealogies, family histories,
chanted prayers, and songs) form a primary source. Documented practices and ceremonies
are also primary sources. Artifacts in the form of heirloom, ceremonial or ritual items like burial
jars and baskets, farming areas, and language, are other examples of primary sources.
Replications or reproductions of these artifacts especially when done during a period different
from that of the original are no longer considered primary sources.

Each of these sources of evidence has varying degrees of reliability, depending on the
historical problem. A trained historian will know how to perform authentication and credibility
tests on each source before its usefulness is accepted. Some of the procedures which the
historian uses are to verify the authenticity of the source material first by checking if the
content is original, already edited or corrected, or is a forgery. The style of the document is
checked against the author‟s style in his or her other works to find out if the material is
authentic. The date and place of composition indicated in a material is scrutinized for any
inaccuracies relative to the occurrence of the event.

To test the authenticity of evidences, the historian uses the related tools and techniques of
other sciences. For example, the tools of historical linguistics are important to trace the
relationships and origins of languages. Paleography can help establish the period for a
style of writing. Paleontology is useful for dating fossilized evidences. Many specialized
fields relate history with the physical and exact sciences. For example, in estimating the
date when a physical evidence like an artifact (e.g., pottery) may have existed, carbon
dating is now used.

Qualitative sciences are also tapped, like the use of anthropological methods
of genealogies and case studies in ethno-history which entail crosschecks in
9
key informant interviews. The data from any of these techniques are then
used as primary or supplemental evidence to what written sources may provide.

Only after the tests on authenticity (or external criticism) can the historian evaluate the
credibility and reliability of the work of an author, in terns of the criteria of willingness
and ability to tell the truth. Historical explanation can be pursued using the data from
historical sources (using internal criticism) in the light of reviewing the author‟s interest,
biases, perspectives, and the like.

Indeed, the choice of certain types of sources is largely determined by the historical
problem, the orientation (philosophy of history), as well as extent of knowledge of the
historian as demonstrated in the use of techniques and tools from other disciplines.

B. Core elements of historical methodology : historical method, historical

knowledge, and theory of history

 Historical method

This refers to the historian's scholarship, or the ability to gather and systematize data
(evidence) competently. This involves identifying and scrutinizing sources (the
heuristic phase) and subjecting these sources (through tests for external and internal
criticism) for authenticity. Lastly, the data are analyzed in terms of their significance to
the historical problem (the hermeneutic phase)

Often, the authenticity of written sources with questionable authorship or

documentation is immediately doubted. The data reflected in these sources,
meanwhile, are tested for their credibility and validity or accuracy. One has to check
if the author has any self-serving interests or bias in the account he or she makes, by
looking for information about the background both of the author and the account. A
source where the author may be placed at greater risk is often more credible. An
example of such source is a testimony that may put the author‟s position in question
or criticism. It is also possible that the author may be willing to tell the truth in the
account, but lacks the expertise or ability to provide an accurate rendering. For
instance, the witness to a murder might not have actually seen the incident, because
he happens to be blind although he heard noises. Or a street vendor who was a
witness to a bank robbery might have been busy selling at the time of the robbery so
that he would not be competent to give a full account of the robbery. All of these have
to be considered in determining if a source is credible or reliable.

 Historical knowledge

The capacity of the researcher to integrate a variety of historical facts, build a clear framework
for analysis, and provide an interpretation, constitutes the domain of historical knowledge.
This is crucial to the hermeneutic phase in the historical method. It entails familiarity with the
pertinent concepts, techniques and tools of related disciplines (of human knowledge) which
the historian should know so that he or she can make the necessary and correct connections
with the other concerns of human experience.
10
For instance, in the case of the historian doing a study on the effects of trade on the social
organization (see page 16), it is imperative for this historian to be knowledgeable first about
the concept of status, roles and social class, as well as the techniques of getting and
analyzing the data on these aspects of social organization. In the same way, a local
historian studying pre-colonial culture must know the tools of physical if artifacts are
encountered , or comparative linguistics if similarities in language of a community with other
communities will be used to show cultural relationships between these communities. All the
information directly and indirectly obtained as a result of the procedures of the scientific
disciplines are then analyzed and interpreted.

Historical explanation is not imaginative thinking. The explanation must be intelligible,

supported with sufficient evidence, and accurate. If his historical knowledge is inadequate,
the historian will have difficulty explaining the depth and breadth of human experiences.

 Theory of history

The particular perspective from which a historian pursues the historical investigation, and for
which history is being written, is what we call THEORY or PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. This may
include one's world outlook, or even ideology; in short, how the historian sees realities,
patterns, and processes relative to his purpose in historical writing. History is being written for
whom ? The answer to this question reflects the historian's basic notions of how the historical
process unfolds (or is created). It also leads to the kind of learning that can serve as guide to
certain directions of action, as interpreted by the historian in his or her explanation.

For example, Prof. R. Ileto made a reinterpretation of the participation of the peasants or the
common tao in the Philippine Revolution of 1896 in his Pasyon at Rebolusyon (1979 ). In his
version, he looked into the psychological motivations and innermost thoughts of those who
joined the Revolution. He did this by analyzing a popular form of literature (the pasyon), the
symbolisms in the related rituals practiced by peasant groups and by Bonifacio, and other
documentary evidences which were indicative of some commonalities in Bonifacio‟s and the
Katipunan‟s rituals and revolutionary propaganda. These commonalities were used by the
author to explain why many lowly Filipinos supported the Katipunan-led struggle especially
under the leadership of Bonifacio. Ileto‟s approach reflects his commitment to a history
written from below. This particular theory of history required, logically, sources of evidence not
from among the educated and literate circles who had written documents, but from the beliefs
and thought process of ordinary people whose history he was writing about and which, he
believed, are examples of “suppressed discourses in Philippine politics” (Ileto, ibid., xi.).

Just as a historian's knowledge requires that insights be linked to other kinds of evidence
(including those which require the use of techniques and tools of other disciplines), the
appreciation of philosophies of history should allow one to connect a set of conclusions to
broader theories or hypotheses of general history.

Various interpretations of history may be classified into those with progress as core idea
(whether secular or religious), and those which negate progress. Among the secular
philosophies of progress are the following : (1). the popular or primitive views reflected in most
textbooks, (2) the approach of dialectical and historical materialism, and (3) those which
11
stress technological progress as a neutral arena of the stories on human advancements. The
religious philosophies of history as progress, meanwhile, include that of (i) St. Augustine, (ii)
Toynbee, and (iii) the Bible itself. Lastly, there are also theories that negate the idea of
progress are the philosophies of doom and those where destiny is the central concept. A
more detailed discussion of these various theories of history is presented in Unit Two.

Historical scholarship or method, historical knowledge, and theory of history -- these are the
three interacting elements of the historian's work. A historian cannot have a high degree of
scholarship without being able to connect the collected voluminous data with the concepts and
tools of other branches of human knowledge. No historian can competently and faithfully
reconstruct all aspects of society without being inclined to the concerns of a particular
discipline. In a similar fashion, a historian writes from a particular orientation which reflects a
set of values and opinions he upholds or shares. He therefore cannot write using an all-
embracing and value-free framework which will be acceptable to all kinds of readers. Even the
period of time the historian belongs to (the historian's PRESENT) is characterized by political,
economic and cultural situations (or prevailing social theories and movements) which influence
how the historian selects a historical problem, defines possible sources of data for that
historical problem, or handles such data.

A good assessment of a historian's work, therefore, proceeds from an appreciation of how

and to what extent these three elements bear on each other to produce a credible and truly
enlightening historical research.

C. Trends in historiography

Because the historian is the product of a particular social milieu, the writing of history has
also been highly influenced by shifts in historiography from one period to the next.
For a long while, the tradition of logico-positivism dominated historiography. This tradition
stressed the primacy of documents as source of data. Hence, the characterization of a
particular orientation called Traditional History. In the Philippines, Spanish colonizers brought
on this tradition largely through the religious missionaries who wrote chronicles (kronika), as
summarized in Fig. 1.

Religious chronicles were the missionary‟s documentation of his experiences in the course of
spreading Christianity in other lands. These accounts included the missionary‟s objective and
subjective observations about the material and cultural conditions of the communities visited,
as well as his impressions and reflections about the process of conversion itself. Because
chronicles were the written sources of evidence which survived over centuries, they became
the only type of source available to historians in a later period when no other techniques had
as yet been developed. Which was why many Filipino historians have stressed the use of
documents in historical studies for sometime.

Histories written using the kronika as basic source of data, however, are mostly concerned
with colonial experiences viewed from the perspective of colonial authorities who made the
records. Such histories, therefore, are also referred to as history from above, or the history of
the articulate. According to critics of positivist historiography, the common people are usually
neglected in such works, while their version of history (the history of the inarticulate), remains
neglected. Despite the noted weaknesses of the orientation, particularly vis-à-vis the "history
12
of the inarticulate" or the "other" or "history from below," traditional history continues as a
historiographic orientation up to the present.

New historiography, meanwhile, and its sustained enrichments, counter the stress on
documents. The entire issue of sources in historical research has been turned upside down in
the new historiography, with its paramount interest in non- conventional sources or unwritten
evidence, and closer links with other disciplines : elements of daily life of ordinary people,
socio- and psycho-linguistics, folkloristics, mentalities or socio-cultural milieu, the use of
quantitative techniques, oral tradition, and the like.

Emerging trends, therefore, point to greater inter-disciplinarity and a systems-view as

approach to historical research. To the new historians, regardless of whether a particular
historian is a generalist or a specialist (one may have claims to either), history as a discipline
is all the more healthy and more valid if its practitioners are familiar with the approaches,
techniques, and tools of the other disciplines. A historian who can appreciate the insights of
the rest of the social sciences can write a stronger interpretation that, at one level, the rest of
the scientific community can accept. Such history, at another level, will also be more
meaningful and valid to the greater part of society whose world is not segmented into parts but
appreciated as a whole.

13
 SUMMARY

 History is defined in two ways, as an objective process, and as a field of study.

 As a field of study, history is pursued at either a general (universal or national

histories) or particular level (local or regional histories). In addition, there are different
sub-disciplines in history according to more specialized substantive interests, like
political history, social history, cultural history, economic history and, recently,
environmental history and historical demography.

 As a social science, history follows the procedure and requirements of science,

although it uses qualitative data analysis techniques. Its core elements, which interact
with each other, include historical scholarship, historical knowledge and a theory or
philosophy of history. These three elements of historical methodology influence the
way the historian works on a particular problem, based on sources or evidence.

 As a link between the historical problem and sources of evidence, as well as

between the past and the present, the historian must possess certain qualities so
that his reconstruction of the past will not be merely descriptive but will be
explanatory instead.

 Historical sources are classified into primary or secondary, as well as into written or
non-written forms. For sometime, the use of documentary evidence dominated
much of historical writing, an influence of positivism in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 Historiography since the 19th century has been moving toward greater inter-
disciplinarity, and the use of varied types of sources beyond documents.
Increasingly, traditional historiography which stresses the use of documents is being
surpassed by the more dynamic and open techniques of new historiography.

LIST OF REFERENCES
E. H. Carr. What is History. New York : Vintage Books, 1961.

Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History. New York : Alfred Knopf, 1969. Reynald Ileto.

Pasyon and Revolution, Popular Movements in the Philippines

1840-1910. Quezon City : Ateneo De Manila University Press, 1979.

Zeus Salazar “Ang Kasaysayan ng Kasaysayan sa Pilipinas “ In Pantayong Pananaw

: Ugat at Kabuluhan, Atoy Navarro, Mary Jane Rodriguez and Vicente Villan
(eds.). Mandaluyong : Palimbagang Kalawakan, 1997.

14