History (and related) Podcasts!

• BackStory with the American History Guys
• Ben Franklin's World
• History of English Podcast
• History Extra
• Myths and Legends
• New Books in American Studies
• New Books in Anthropology
• New Books in Biography
• New Books in Critical Theory
• New Books in Gender Studies
• New Books in History
• New Books in Intellectual History
• New Books in Native American Studies
• Office Hours
• Philosophize This!
• Stuff You Missed in History Class
• The Bowery Boys: NYC History
• The History Chicks
• The Pamphlet
• The Way of Improvement Leads Home
• Who Makes Cents | A History of Capitalism Podcast

Okay, but what the heck do I do with all these research notes?!?!

- me, for months.

I've tried a wiki, which, though it doesn't quite work for the note taking/collecting stage that I'm currently struggling with, I do generally like and will still probably be using further down my workflow pipeline (that is, unless I find a Heurist database more helpful than a straight up wiki for that stage, as this week I've been experimenting with that).

After realizing that it wasn't quite the thing for this stage of the research, I shifted over to Scrivener, where I first basically copied the format of a wiki page with each section getting it's own text (page/note), but allowing for more unstructured info and quotes, etc. But that still wasn't quite what I needed (duh, I say retrospectively.)

Then I found the idea of conceptual matrices (yes I spelled it wrong in Scrivener) that seem to work so well for things that aren't biographical research... I tried those, continuously having to break them down so each page wasn't getting so unwieldy, and so here I am now, with this total mess:

 

#REGRET

So, I've spent waaaay too much time the last couple of days trying to figure out what to do, looking into various possibilities (I do NOT understand how people use Evernote for this, I would simply DIE of overwhelm) (and TiddlyWiki sounded promising, but was super confusing and I gave up on that, too.)

Sooooo, what did I end up with after all this searching?

Why, the very system I was trying so hard to find a digital alternative for, of course!

Index Cards.

Credit goes to Ryan Holiday's Thought Catalog article The Notecard System: The Key For Remembering, Organizing And Using Everything You Read, in which he explains that index cards were:

"... responsible for helping me publish three books in three years, (along with other books I’ve had the privilege of contributing to), write countless articles published in newspapers and websites, send out my reading recommendations every month, and make all sorts of other work and personal successes possible."

Uh, yes please. I would like to have anything approaching that level of productivity!
Okay, okay. I should use the notecard system. But of course I then spent half a day trying to find an explicitly digital-index-card system (Scrivener's not counting bc I need a bazillion cards) because, trees! Hand cramping! Supply costs! Travel! Etc!

NoodleTools, though aimed at k-12 students, seemed pretty close, but then I just gave up. I don't want all my notes in such a closed system, anyway. I should just use the actual, physical cards.

So, I can't afford a printer to just print & paste things onto the cards, and my hand is already aching at the thought of what's to come, but I  know darn well that this is the best possible system that currently exists that works best for my brain.

My brain is weird, you see (I have severe ADHD..) and I really do work better with physical copies of things, though my millennial self generally prefers that which is digital and techie. But, ADHD brains in particular really do need things, especially information, to be "externalized" and physically manipulatable (our working memory is crap).

In fact, I thought to write this post after reading this article by fellow ADHDer Aimée Morrison at Hook & Eye this morning, in which she describes why she uses paper for research notes, which is the same reason physical copies work best for me, too:

For me, paper is visible in very important ways: scale, scope, the gist. How much progress I’m making, how much I have left. Where the holes are, sometimes literally. Paper is a massive memory aid, an externalization of my working memory, all the more crucial the larger or more complex a task becomes. Colour coded sticky notes and pens and paper clips and highlighting–I scan it from above and easily zoom down to what I need.

For me, electronic text is inscrutable and frustrating, like trying to watch a movie in the front row of the cinema with a pinhole camera: I can’t get any sense of scale or make sense of anything, and I get dizzy, to boot. There’s no way I could follow any kind of narrative and it’s a challenge not to barf. All the blue light, not enough screen, too many tabs and open windows and nothing findable. Stress nap!

I found this article to be super validating for me, especially since a few days ago I had already gone ahead and ordered some supplies! Thanks, Aimée! :)


Woops this post turned out way longer than intended, but I realized I should make a record of all the things I looked into first, so I don't forget and do this whole thing over again next year!

Annotated Bibliography, Chicago Style

when it includes manuscript sources, archival collections, or other materials that do not fit into a straight alphabetical listSo yesterday I took some notes on how to research better, and one of the sources I used was “The Annotated Bibliography Exercise” by Dr. Steven D. Krause from The Process of Research Writing.

It made good points about the usefulness of making an annotated bib. so I've decided to start gathering what sources I've used so far into a few of them (I have a few concurrent projects under the same general umbrella of utopia/etc). I'm going to have them here on the blog (on pages, instead of posts) but may not share them for a while.

But, before I start on that, I need to check out the specifics of how to do this in the Chicago Style. So, I figured I'd make a post on this, too, at the least for my own easy reference.

Annotated Bibliography in Chicago Style

Since I cannot afford access to the full Chicago style manual, I'm using these pages for reference:

• "Annotated Bibliography Samples" The Purdue Owl
• "Creating an annotated bibliography in Chicago style" Eastern Nazarene College 
• "Citation & Style Guide" Middlebury Libraries

According to these sites, an annotated bibliography entry done in Chicago style has:

• one summary paragraph describing the source and it's major features
• summaries can be descriptive or 'can evaluate the quality of scholarship in a book or article
• Another accepted method of making an annotated bib in Chicago & Turbian style is to have the proper citation and then the next line (indented) contain a very brief descriptive phrase in brackets, i.e. (from Middlebury Libraries): " [a seminal text describing argument in nonsymbolic language]

• The first line of each summary paragraph should be indented, but the rest of the paragraph does not need to be.
• The first line of the entry's citation must NOT be indented ("Hanging indent"), but if it spills over into subsequent lines of text, those SHOULD be indented.
• Text should be double-spaced, with 1" margins on all sides

.... Okay, well, the pages contradict each other on whether or not the whole summary (not just the first line) should be indented, so I went ahead and got a 30 day free trial for access to The Chicago Manual of Style Online (CMOS 17) (and... there isn't just a simple entry for how to format an annotated bibliography. ...?!?! Sigh. So, looks like I'm going to have to dig a little...

Building the entry:

• Author's names should be listed exactly as they are in the source, excepting when:
• there are different people using the same name & initials, a full name may be given. (15.12)
• If multiple authors have the same first and last name, middle initials can be added to clarify if they are known (14.73)
• A single author uses both their full name and initials in different works, the author should be listed by the same format of name for all their works (preferably the full name). (14.73)
• If an author is well known by both their full names & with their initials, the rest of the name may be added in brackets, i.e., (R.S. Crane + R[onald] S. Crane.(14.74)
• If an author always uses their initials, they should be listed with the initials, not their full names
• If the author or editor is unknown:
• Initial articles should be ignored (but included) and the entry should begin with the title. (14.79) 
• 'Anonymous' should generally only be listed if the work was explicitly attributed to "Anonymous" (i.e. on the title page, etc) (14.79) 
• If the author was not listed in the work but is known or guessed, the name should be included within brackets (and with a question mark when the identity is guessed but not known for certain) i.e., " [Hawkes, James?]. "  (14.79)
• If a Pseudonym / Pen name is used:
• Between the name and the period [pseud.] can be given. (14.80)
• If 'widely used', the pen name is treated like real names, i.e. Mark Twain or George Eliot
• If the real name is 'of interest to readers,' it can be included after the name (and before the period) in brackets. (14.80)
• 'If the author's real name is better known than the pseudonym, the real name should be used. If needed, the pseudonym may be included in brackets, followed by pseud.' i.e. you could list ' Brontë, Charlotte. ' or ' Brontë, Charlotte [Currer Bell, pseud.]. ' as the author of Jane Eyre. (14.80)
• If an author has published under different versions of their real name (as in married names, etc), a source should be listed under the name used in that work, but a cross reference note can be included, i.e. "Doniger, Wendy." and "---. See also O'Flaherty, Wendy Doniger."

Order of entries:

• Entries should be alphabetized by the last name of the author. CMOS recommends letter-by-letter alphabetizing, but word-by-word is also acceptable. (14.65)
• Hyphenated last names should be treated as one word, and unhypened names should be checked in reference sources, but for 'unhyphenated compound names of lesser-known persons for whom proper usage cannot be determined, use only the last element (including any particle[s])' i.e. Websters says that Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's last name is 'Mies van der Rohe', but Charlotte Perkins Gilman should be listed as Gilman  (8.6)
• Unusual name formats:
• Names starting with O' are treated as if there were no apostrophe (16.73)
• Names with particles (d', di, la, van, etc) can vary. Merriam-Webster's biographical entries are authoritative for the historical figures they include. Otherwise, personal preference of the author, and cross referencing of other sources (LoC, Websters, Encyclopedias, etc) should be done and one method decided on for that particular name. (16.71)
• Last names including Saint, San or St. should be listed as the family spells their name, but cross-referencing may be helpful (16.74)
• Titles such as Saint or King or place identifiers ("of England") are left out. (14.83)
• If a letter is accented, it is treated in this context as unaccented. (16.67)
• "Authors usually should not use the 3-em dash for repeated names in their manuscripts." (i.e., using '---' in a list of bibliography entries under the same author. Some publishers/editors might use them, though. (14.67)
• In bibliography (excluding bibs. of the works of a single author), 'titles by the same author' are usually listed alphabetically, with the initial 'the, a, or an' left out. (14.71)
• An entry with only one name should be listed before an entry starting with the same name but also including other authors. If multiple such multi-authored entries, they should be alphabetized by the next author's last name (though only the first author's name should be inverted) (14.66)
• If an Organization, corporation, association, etc, published something and there is no personal author listed, the group name should be listed as the author, no word inversion. (14.84)

Format:

• In the example image of an annotated bib. entry, the first line of the citation is a "hanging indent" but ALL the rest of the text is indented. (Figure 14.10)
• All formats of sources should be included in the same alphabetized bibliography, unless dividing it into sections would make it significantly easier for readers. Bib. lists might appropriately have divided lists when: (14.62)
• 'it includes manuscript sources, archival collections, or other materials that do not fit into a straight alphabetical list'
• 'readers need to see at a glance the distinction between different kinds of works—for example, in a study of one writer, between works by the writer and those about him or her'
• 'the bibliography is intended primarily as a guide to further reading'
• When a list is divided, 'a headnote should appear at the beginning of the bibliography, and each section should be introduced by an explanatory subhead.' Each source should only be included in ONLY one section. (14.63)

METHODS: Citing Your Sources-- Avoiding Plagiarism - Safe Practices - 2.4 Historical Methodology, saylor.org

Reading: Dr. Steven Kreis’s The History Guide: A Student’s Guide to the Study of History: I've just started working my way through Saylor.org's HIST104: Historical Methodology - The Art and Craft of the Historian, and I'm now on Unit 2: Basic Historical Research Skills. 

In lieu of me actually being in a class where things are discussed, I'll just write my thoughts about the materials here.

2.4 Producing a Finished Product

2.4.3 Citing Your Sources—Avoiding Plagiarism

Reading: Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab: Karl Stolley’s and Allen Brizee’s 

“Avoiding Plagiarism”: “Is It Plagiarism Yet?,” and “Safe Practices”

in "Is It Plagiarism Yet?" the author's reiterate that citation is needed for all words, ideas, visuals, and media that originate from any person, 'magazine, book, newspaper, song, TV program, movie, Web page, computer program, letter, advertisement, or any other medium'.

Citations are NOT needed for "common knowledge" ('folklore, common sense observations, myths, urban legends, and historical events'), 'generally-accepted facts' (including 'facts that are accepted within particular discourse communities'), your own thoughts, observations, conclusions, experiment results, or art (of any format).

According to the authors, a fact can (generally) be considered common knowledge if you can find it documented 'in at least five credible sources/' When in doubt, cite, and an editor or teacher can let you know what is superfluous.

 "Safe Practices" gives a number of suggestions of how researchers can avoid accidental plagairism down the line. This includes labeling 'someone else's words with a big Q' or use "big quotation marks." For ideas, you can label those from the source with a big S, and those from yourself with ME. And of course, always make sure the citation for your source is written with the notes.

 The author's instructions for paraphrases or summaries (whole list is a direct quotation)

•  Use a statement that credits the source somewhere in the paraphrase or summary, e.g., According to Jonathan Kozol, ...).

• If you're having trouble summarizing, try writing your paraphrase or summary of a text without looking at the original, relying only on your memory and notes
• Check your paraphrase or summary against the original text; correct any errors in content accuracy, and be sure to use quotation marks to set off any exact phrases from the original text
• Check your paraphrase or summary against sentence and paragraph structure, as copying those is also considered plagiarism.
• Put quotation marks around any unique words or phrases that you cannot or do not want to change: e.g., "savage inequalities" exist throughout our educational system (Kozol).

 For direct quotes, the author's recommendations include keeping the 'source author's name in the same sentence as the quote,' correctly use quotation marks &/or block-text format, according to the style, and to quote only the material necessesary (both in selections & amount of text within that selection.)

Ellipsis (...) can be used to remove excess information and thus shorten the quotation, but 'terminal puncutuation' should be maintained between the ellipses. Context or other slight changes to a quote can be done with brackets ( [ ] ) but one must 'be careful not to editorialize or make any additions that skew the original meaning' 

Writers should 'proofread and cross-check' with your notes and sources' to make sure all outside words, ideas, etc are properly credited.

METHODS: Citing Your Sources-- Avoiding Plagiarism - Quoting & Paraphrasing - 2.4, Historical Methodology, saylor.org

Reading: Dr. Steven Kreis’s The History Guide: A Student’s Guide to the Study of History: I've just started working my way through Saylor.org's HIST104: Historical Methodology - The Art and Craft of the Historian, and I'm now on Unit 2: Basic Historical Research Skills. 

In lieu of me actually being in a class where things are discussed, I'll just write my thoughts about the materials here.

2.4 Producing a Finished Product

2.4.3 Citing Your Sources—Avoiding Plagiarism

Reading: Dr. Steven D. Krause’s The Process of Research Writing: 

“Chapter Three: Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Avoiding Plagiarism” (PDF)

The author says that it can be hard to 'effectively quote and paraphrase research', and that it takes practice. This chapter's goal is to introduce the reader some basic strategies. He reiterates the basic guidelines from the annotated bibliography chapter:

• Stay neutral. Summaries should be "just the facts"
• Don't quote the thing you're summarizing  
• Don't cut and paste from abstracts!

"The general rule of thumb is any time you use three or more words as they appeared in the original source, you should treat it as a quote."

 Both quotes & paraphrases should:

•  be "introduced," especially the first time a certain source is mentioned
• 'include an explanation of why that piece of evidence is important 
• 'include a proper citation of the source' 

 The author says that there's an art to the effective use of quotes and paraphrases. He says that it's generally best to use a quote when:

•  The exact wording is important to your point
• 'You want to highlight your agreement with the author's words'
• 'You want to highlight your disagreement with the author's words'

And paraphrasing is best used when: 

•  'There is no good reason to use a quote to refer to your evidence' (i.e. if the exact wording is not important to your point)
•  You're explaining a particular bit of evidence in order to explain, analyze, or interpret it in detail
• 'You need to balance a direct quote in your writing', as you need to be careful about quoting too much, as it makes your paper,etc harder and more awkward to read 

 The author gives this example as a decent way to include a quote:

'In her Pharmaceutical Executive article available through the Wilson Select Internet database, Jill Wechsler writes about one of the positive effects of advertising prescription drugs on television. “African-American physicians regard direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines as one way to educate minority patients about needed treatment and healthcare options.”'

 He also includes this bad/good example of how to paraphrase (using MLA):

The next section of this chapter is on avoiding plagiarism. It tells us that plagiarism is theft, and academia has strict rules and serious punishments for those who plagiarize.

The author reminds us that not only is there purposeful plagiarism, but the biggest problem in academia is what he calls 'accidental plagiarism.' That is the 'result of improperly paraphrasing, summarizing, quoting, or citing your evidence in your academic wiring.' He created a useful example of what accidental plagairism might look like using this original exerpt:

Those who denounce cyberculture today strangely resemble those who
criticized rock music during the fifties and sixties. Rock started out as an
Anglo-American phenomenon and has become an industry. Nonetheless,
it was able to capture the hopes of young people around the world and
provided enjoyment to those of us who listened to or played rock. Sixties
pop was the conscience of one or two generations that helped bring the
war in Vietnam to a close. Obviously, neither rock nor pop has solved
global poverty or hunger. But is this a reason to be “against” them? (ix).
(Lévy, Pierre. Cyberculture. Trans. Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2001.)

His example of accidental plagairism: 

The same kind of people who criticize cyberculture are the same kind of people who criticized rock and roll music back in the fifties and sixties. But both cyberculture and rock music inspire and entertain young people.

 Despite not using the exact words from the original, the author states that they 'are certainly close enough to constitute a form of plagiarism.' He points out that it's easy to change a plagiarized paragraph into an acceptable one, simply by properly citing the source. His corrected paraphrase:

Pierre Lévy suggests that the same kind of people who criticize cyberculture are the same kind of people who criticized rock and roll music back in the fifties and sixties. But both cyberculture and rock music inspire and entertain young people (ix).

 The "golden rule" to avoid plagairism is to "Always cite your sources." and when in doubt of when you should cite... "you should probably cite your source."

METHODS: Citing Your Sources-- Avoiding Plagiarism - Footnotes - 2.4, Historical Methodology, saylor.org

Reading: Dr. Steven Kreis’s The History Guide: A Student’s Guide to the Study of History: I've just started working my way through Saylor.org's HIST104: Historical Methodology - The Art and Craft of the Historian, and I'm now on Unit 2: Basic Historical Research Skills. 

In lieu of me actually being in a class where things are discussed, I'll just write my thoughts about the materials here.

2.4 Producing a Finished Product

2.4.3 Citing Your Sources—Avoiding Plagiarism

Reading: Dr. Steven Kreis’s The History Guide: A Student’s Guide to the Study of History: 

“Section 4.11: The Research Essay—Footnotes”

In this section, which is written specifically for students of history, explains how to properly use footnotes in a paper. Footnotes (or endnotes) MUST be used:

• to cite every direct quote used
• when a controversial fact or opinion is given
• on the statements that are the main points of your paper

They can also be used: 

•  to include your own thoughts/statements about something that doesn't fit into the outline/flow of the paper

The author points out that if you have a string of pages with few (or no) footnotes, you are probably not citing things that you should be, but also 'if you insert a footnote every other sentence, then you may be overdoing it.

A single footnote at the beginning or end of the paragraph can be used instead of a string of footnotes all citing the exact same thing, but this is acceptably ONLY 'if and only if the note refers to the information in the paragraph as a whole.'

 Footnotes should be at the end of a sentence or quote, in superscript. It is okay if two notes are needed in the same sentence, though. The appropriate style manual should be consulted for the details of how to format footnotes.

METHODS: Conducting Research and Organizing Information - Preparing to Write - 2.3, Historical Methodology, saylor.org

I've just started working my way through Saylor.org's HIST104: Historical Methodology - The Art and Craft of the Historian, and I'm now on Unit 2: Basic Historical Research Skills. 

In lieu of me actually being in a class where things are discussed, I'll just write my thoughts about the materials here.

2.3 Conducting Research and Organizing Information

2.3.5 Preparing to Write an Essay

Reading: Purdue University’s Online Writing Labs: Stacy Weida’s and Karl Stolley’s 

“Invention: Starting the Writing Process”

This page discusses the use of rhetorical elements to help orient you as you begin to write. They include the follow questions to ask yourself:

• Who is the audience for your writing?

• Do you think your audience is interested in the topic? Why or why not?

• Why should your audience be interested in this topic?

• What does your audience already know about this topic?

• What does your audience need to know about this topic?

• What experiences has your audience had that would influence them on this topic?

• What do you hope the audience will gain from your text? 

 They also include a list of some of the different purposes writing can have, as it's important to know what you are trying to do before you start to write. One paper can use multiple strategies at different points.

• Summarizing: Presenting the main points or essence of another text in a condensed form

• Arguing/Persuading: Expressing a viewpoint on an issue or topic in an effort to convince others that your viewpoint is correct

• Narrating: Telling a story or giving an account of events

• Evaluating: Examining something in order to determine its value or worth based on a set of criteria.

• Analyzing: Breaking a topic down into its component parts in order to examine the relationships between the parts.

• Responding: Writing that is in a direct dialogue with another text.

• Examining/Investigating: Systematically questioning a topic to discover or uncover facts that are not widely known or accepted, in a way that strives to be as neutral and objective as possible.

• Observing: Helping the reader see and understand a person, place, object, image or event that you have directly watched or experienced through detailed sensory descriptions.

 Once a thesis has been made and the aforementioned things have been taken into consideration, the authors instruct us to "just start writing!", ignoring issues of formatting, grammar, complete sentences-- i.e., brainstorm as much as you can think of that relates to your thesis. Then you can re-read and evaluate, and cut that which doesn't fit. From there you can go on to build an outline structure for your paper.

METHODS: Conducting Research and Organizing Information - Taking Notes - 2.3, Historical Methodology, saylor.org

I've just started working my way through Saylor.org's HIST104: Historical Methodology - The Art and Craft of the Historian, and I'm now on Unit 2: Basic Historical Research Skills. 

In lieu of me actually being in a class where things are discussed, I'll just write my thoughts about the materials here.

2.3 Conducting Research and Organizing Information

2.3.4 Taking Notes on Sources

Reading: Dr. Steven Kreis’s The History Guide: A Student’s Guide to the Study of History: 

“Section 4.7: The Research Essay—Taking Notes”  

In 4.7 the author reminds us of the importance of knowing what you're looking for when you are researching when it comes to writing good notes.  

When reading material that we want to use in our research, we should make notes of what the author is trying to say, what interpretation they are pressing, what sources do they use? How is the material useful to your research? etc. 

We also must have a 'clear understanding and grasp of your topic.' I found these lines notably important: "In other words, it's not enough to say you want to write about such and such a topic. You need to ask yourself why." 

He goes on to talk about how to use quotes. Historians must use direct quotes, but also must be sure to not over-use them. With any quote you have to explain why that quote is significant/relevant, and "when in doubt, leave it out." 

An important part of being able to use quotations effectively is being able to paraphrase the arguments of the author so that it can be blended with your own. He tells us to first in our minds, then on paper, paraphrase whatever passage/section/chapter you are reading at the time. And then, 'Try to explain things in your own words first, and then retrieve a quotation or series of short quotations to give force to what you just said.' 

He also points out that if an author quotes another author, you can use that, but you need to also locate the original source (often a footnote), or, if you can't find it, to make note of that, too (often also in a footnote) 

He also details how best to use note cards to take notes.

METHODS: Conducting Research and Organizing Information - Annotated Bibliography - 2.3, Historical Methodology, saylor.org

I've just started working my way through Saylor.org's HIST104: Historical Methodology - The Art and Craft of the Historian, and I'm now on Unit 2: Basic Historical Research Skills. 

In lieu of me actually being in a class where things are discussed, I'll just write my thoughts about the materials here.

2.3 Conducting Research and Organizing Information

2.3.1 Developing an Annotated Bibliography 

Reading: Dr. Steven D. Krause’s The Process of Research Writing: 

“Chapter 6: The Annotated Bibliography Exercise” (PDF)

This chapter explains what an Annotated Bibliography is (a list of sources on a particular topic with a brief summary of each that you will be "building" throughout your research), how to make one, and why it's an important thing for researchers to do (it's a system to keep track of evidence that you collect in your research).

 Annotated bib. entries have two parts: the top is the citation (which varies according to style), and the second is the summary. The summary should be 'a sentence or two' to remind you, and to show other researchers, what a certain piece of research is about. It should be neutral and devoid of personal opinions or direct quotes. It should be written to help others interested in the same topic be able to assess what sources they themselves should check out. 

The author concedes  that summaries can be hard to write, especially if the source is long and/or complicated, but these guidelines should be kept in mind while writing them. He also warns against cutting & pasting lines from abstracts into the summary. That is both plagerism, and defeats one of the purposes of the annotated bib-- to help the researcher understand and explain what they are reading and how it may fit in to the overall project.

Two of the examples the author gives are:

METHODS:Locating Historical Sources - 2.2, Historical Methodology, saylor.org

I've just started working my way through Saylor.org's HIST104: Historical Methodology - The Art and Craft of the Historian, and I'm now on Unit 2: Basic Historical Research Skills. 

In lieu of me actually being in a class where things are discussed, I'll just write my thoughts about the materials here.

I'm skipping around a bit, so I'm starting with 2.2

2.2 Locating Historical Sources

2.2.1 Secondary Sources    
Reading: Dr. Steven Kreis’s The History Guide: A Student’s Guide to the Study of History:
“Section 4.4: The Research Essay—Off to the Library” 

Section 4.4 talks about how to go to the library and find books about your subject. 

First recommendation is to find one, copy down its bibliography, hunt down those books! 

Next is to buy 100 index cards & carry them with you, and every time you find a relevant book or a mention of one you want/need to find later, copy the bibliographic information exactly and in full on a new note card. Eventually you will split the cards into two stacks- one for sources you'll use in your research, and the other for those you will not. 

The author also reminds us to "have keywords in mind." In his example of researching William Godwin, he says that we should search not only his name, but also terms like "History, England, 18th Century or History, France, 18th Century, French Revolution, Radicalism."

“Section 4.6: The Research Essay—How to Choose the Right Books”

In Section 4.6 the author talks about how to choose which books to use in our research. 

During the initial source-collection phase, he tells us to write down any and all possible sources we come across that 'seem remotely useful' in a notebook. He reminds us also consult reference books.  

As for choosing which books to read in-depth, he recommends that if there are (for example) two books on a subject, written many years apart, for undergraduate work he recommends choosing the most recent one, as that author will likely be familiar with the arguments made in the first, but obviously the reverse would not be true. But he says that both texts need to be consulted for graduate level research. 

There are two methods of approaching a large collection of possible sources, one is to "over-read" and "over-research," which the author himself does because ' the more you read about one topic, the more you become familiar with common names, events, people, places, ideas and so on. I bombarded myself with information and after a while, things just begin to sink in.'  

The other method would to be to strategically select just a few sources, but read and "study" them in depth.  

Because many topics have far more material than any individual would ever have time to spend on them, he presents these guidelines for choosing what to read:

• Find books that match your topic as exactly as possible

• Once you have those books, check the table of Contents and indexes to see what parts of the book relate to the topic (a chapter? a reference? a footnote?)

• Go through the books' bibliographies and look for more relevant sources

• Pay attention to the when and where the book is published, and how may that shape the perspective the authors have on the topic?

• Read the preface, or the introduction (if it's  not too long)

• If the book is cited frequently by other books on your topic, you should read it, too.

He concludes with saying that how much you need to read depends on the topic. If there is "little secondary literature', then you'll probably  have to read it all, but if there is large amount of literature, you will have to refine your topic considerably. You must learn how to avoid the texts that just repeat material that has already been covered in other sources, which is why he suggests that the more recent the work, the better, as 'the author has already done some of the research for you.'

I'm a Hang Glider of Academic Writing!

I'm definitely not at the writing stage of my projects yet, but I just stumbled upon The Writing BASE quiz on The Writer's Diet and couldn't resist taking it. I might have to check out this book when it's time!

Research Tool: Time.Graphics!

My current research involves not only a whole bunch of short-lived utopian communities spread across ~100 years, but also a ton of not-very-extensively-studied individuals from the same time period.

So, I have a lot of dates to deal with, and a lot of conflicting dates to try to make sense of.

After first trying to learn how to make a graphic timeline on my new Wiki (confusing, and definitely not good for a ton of info), I gave up and went hunting for a free site that would let me visualize (& color code!) the information in a useful way.

ENTER: time.graphics! (who knew .graphics was a TLD/domain ending??)

I'm quite impressed with it so far, particularly as a free site. Being able to see all the communities I'm looking at in this way has been super helpful in understanding the context of everything I'm researching.

I also have a similar timeline with the lives of each person I'm looking at, and I'm starting to build individual timelines for each person as well. It's helped me catch a number of date contradictions from my sources!

There are a lot of features of this particular site that I haven't used, like the integration into Youtube, Google Calendar/Spreadsheet/Analytics/Maps and other things, so I can't really speak to those, but they're there!

That's it, really. I just wanted to share this since I've been finding it so useful!