With the topic of Primary and Secondary sources in history and how to evaluate them, how do you see this issue in new lights after learning about the theories and perspectives in; (the craft and profession of the historian), (philosophical approaches to postmodernist/post-structuralist challenges in history), (genealogy and history), (history, nature, knowledge), and (narratives and memories)? Some questions you may consider are: What distinguishes primary and secondary sources, and to what extent is such distinction instrumental or legible? How do we decide who is more convincing in an academic debate in history? What is considered legitimate history scholarship? What constitutes historiography and to what extent should we follow or challenge it in our field?
5-7 pages, including a one-page abstract, times new roman, 12 pt., double-spaced. Include specific quotations and a central thesis in the introduction paragraph. APA style.
Use the files provided for citations.
(The file for Breaking Up Time only requires p. 176-196)
(The file for Knowledge of Nature only requires p. 12-27)
(The file for Narration and Knowledge only requires p.xix-xixx and Chaper 8)
