question to history/arts students (or any student who can help!)- how do you handle primary and secondary material effectively. i am running back and forth between both types of material and and just dont think im doing it right. during my undergrad and masters, both in history, it was a simple case of reading the secondary texts written by the experts and then applying their theories to historical material.

but at phd level as you all know this is virtually impossible- mainly because i have to develop my own theory and select myself the secondary texts which back up my view. i would be interested to hear about the research and study techniques of those of you who are in a similar field/area of research (although any student's tips and suggestions are most welcome)

Hi. I'm looking at eighteenth-century sources (popular printed ephemera, etchings, natural histories, paintings).

For example, I found an aspect of a particular series of advertisements interesting - a constantly recurring feature. I checked in the secondary literature and found a broad range of theoretical stances to take, but that had not been applied to the material I found interesting. So I did that.

I would be more specific but I find it hard to give up nuggets of research online!

But seriously, I think you can't go wrong with looking at the primary stuff, picking out trends that interest you, looking at the secondary literature in that broard area, an applying it to your framework. Usually when I try and fit sources into a framework I try and see what other academics have done with similar material in different periods. That is helpful in developing theories to best intrerpret your own sources.

Writing history is something I always struggle with though. I'm crap with chronology

:-s

Chrisrolinski you deserve a star for that! I hope the powers that be take note 8-) Now, must get back to work...

You can also do it iteratively. I' guessing that you are not still fully focused on the specific subject of your research. So what you can do is check the primary data and do preliminary (very simple) analysis on how what you observed is treated by the secondary texts. This might give you some idea on how to further focus and go back to the primary data to learn more; which in turn will require more secondary texts to explain, and so on.

Unfortunately qualitative data analysis takes time, but you do not have to be rigorous in your analysis (as I said, it's preliminary) until you have found the focus you are looking for. By then you'll be managing primary and secondary sources with greater confidence; and you should have improved your look-up skills as well, which will make it a lot easier.

I hope this helps...

I am working in a similar field and I think I know what you mean. I don't know what you are working on but you don't need too much of the expert's opinion. When you studied history for so long you can be confident enough about your knowledge and know-how to go fresh for the sources... have a new view on it ( I am not an english native speaker, I hope you see what I mean). Sure you have to know the experts, but don't follow them too much. I did it like that: I reminded myself what I really love about my topic, what I wish to know and then I cleared my mind from the interpretations I've read during the years. I had a look at the sources and (pathetic expression maybe) let them speak to me. Otherwise you just make some meta-history... you write an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation.. Ad fontes! :-)

I agree with Neena. I am looking at medieval costume depicted on funeral effigies, brasses, manuscripts etc. There is work written on what people wore in medieval times but the source material is very scant and dating is very arbitrary. So I have read the scholarship so far but then I am ignoring it to use the evidence I have found to re-assess what has gone before.

thanks guys, your tips and suggestions are so useful i've written them down! i feel much much better after having read your replies. One more question- did you find your secondary texts through networking with other academics or just through searching library catalogues?

Both... But also in the bibliography of the books you read (the secondary works of course) I started to really pay attention to who is writing what in which way about my topic. Who makes references to whom and so on. When you do start this you will see soon that the references are repeating themselves. The most quoted are the most popular. So you can make a list about the leading persons of your field and see what else they wrote. You can make your one literature-canon. And decide what fits your work and your approach!