Special Sub-Topic: History: Tackling Research Problems Click Here To Play: History: Tackling Research Problems

You read that Elene Cornaro-Piscopia was awarded an MA and a doctorate by the University of Padua (Italian - Padova) in 1678, making her the first woman to be awarded a degree anywhere in the world. Your initial reaction is disbelief: the date strikes you as at least 150 years too early, and Padua seems an unlikely place for such an innovation. However, the claim has aroused your curiosity. If you want to have a to check on the claim, what is the best way to set about it?

By finding out more about her life. For the purposes of writing a quiz a web search "Elena Cornoro-Piscopia" will confirm the awards and the date and give further information on her remarkable life. When doing research, it's best to start by homing in what's most relevant, rather than examining background issues. In this case her life has been quite thoroughly researched. For the curious: as far as is known, Elena Cornoro-Piscopia was indeed the first woman to receive an award of any kind from a university. Her achievement is commemorated in a stained glass window at Vassar College and by a statue in the University of Padua itself. This award was made on a "one-off" basis and it wasn't till 1732 that any other woman was awarded a degree - the doctorate awarded to Laura Bassi Verati at Bologna in 1732.

One source states that the then Kingdom of Armenia converted to Christianity in 301, another give the date as 313 and yet another as "262-270 or 310-313". You feel helpless in view of the bewildering discrepancies. What is your best next step in this case?

To find out which date the Armenian Apostolic Church recognizes. In general, those most directly concerned are most reliable on matters of factual information (unless there is a good reason to assume otherwise). At the very least, one needs to find out what they have to say. In this case, a websearch of the kind "Armenia conversion" will lead you to websites about the 1,700th anniversary commemorations in 2001 of the adoption of Chistianity by Armenia in 301. If you decide to put the question in a quiz it would be sensible to word along these lines: "Which date do Armenians regard as ...?" It's possible that the Armenian Apostolic Church has chosen an "accepted date" and that the actual date cannot be established, barring some unexpected breakthrough in research. In such circumstances one has to settle for the best date available and add a note on the difficulty.

You read that "British appeasement of Germany dates from 1921". You have always assumed that appeasement was a phenomenon of the period 1935-38 (or 1933-38). What is the most important next step?

To establish a defintion of appeasement and find out if historians distinguish between "appeasement" and the background to or "roots" of appeasement. The word "appeasement" isn't value-free and doesn't mean the same as "making some revisions to the Versailles Treaty in favour of Nazi Germany." In fact, a number of important revisions were made to the treaty in the 1920s, especially in respect of reparations. The term "appeasement" almost invariably means "making concessions to a dictator". In fact, many historians distinguish between "appeasement" and the "roots of appeasement".

You want to find out the overall number of Soviet war dead (military and civilian combined) in WWII. You find figures ranging from 10 milllion to 27 million. Which course of action makes best sense?

To find recent articles that expressly discuss such discrepancies. Not suprisingly, many of the figures seem to be been manipulated for political purposes. However, some scholars believe they have been able to narrow the discrepancies.

You read in an article on economics that "Lenin approved of Keynes". The article is dogmatically opposed to any kind of government intervention in the economy, so you decide to check this claim. Which of the following would disprove the statement?

Evidence that Keynes published nothing specifically "Keynesian" during Lenin's lifetime. Always use your reasoning powers. In fact, John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) first became known internationally for his book "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" (1919) which criticizes the Versailles Treaty perceptively and very ably. The first of his "Keynesian" economic articles, arguing a case for counter-cyclical government intervention in the economy only started to appear in the mid 1920s. As Lenin died in January 1924, he quite simply didn't the have the opportunity to "approve of Keynes" in the sense suggested. Incidentally, Keynes wasn't flattering about Lenin, either.

Some kinds of areas of history are more prone to factual inaccuracy than others. In which of these would you need to be most aware of the possibility of factual inaccuracies, such as wrong dates, names and places, in secondary literature?

Hitherto neglected areas. This is not surprising. In many areas of history - those that have long been considered important - there is plenty of published research, and factual inaccuracies are much less likely, if only because they reflect badly on the author, even if they are an honest slip. Who, for example, wants to be seen to get the dates of the American Civil War or World War I wrong?

You find a copy of the "Cinq Codes" (1816) - that is, the collected version of the five Napoleonic Codes. The book begins by stating (in English translation), "The laws are enforceable throughout French territory ..." This strikes you as so obvious that it doesn't seem worth saying. What is the most likely reason for its inclusion?

Until after the French Revolution (1789) different laws applied in different parts of France. In fact before the French Revolution, Northern France had a legal system based on common law, while Southern France had a codified system based on Roman law. Moreover, many provinces, such as Brittany, the Franche-Comté and Lorraine had their own legal codes. As if that weren't complicated enough, some districts - for example, Bordeaux and the surrounding area - had their own jurisdictions. To cap it all, Roman law could sometimes be used in Northern France.

You read that in England, between about 1680 and the late 1840s, husbands sometimes sold their wives openly and publicly in a market-place on a busy market day. You are thunderstruck. What's the best next step if you want to make sense of this?

Trying to discover what the significance of "wife selling" really was. It was a form of divorce, and was roundly condemned by the Church of England. "Wife selling" required the consent of all three parties - the husband, the wife and the purchaser, and conditions of various kinds could be attached. The sum of money involved was usually only nominal - enough to celebrate the event with a few drinks and a meal. The point of the public sale wasn't to humiliate the wife but to ensure maxiumum publicity for the event at local level, so that the ex-husband couldn't be held liable for his former wife's debts, for example. Nevertheless, the practice of "wife selling" looked utterly barbaric, akin to buying and selling slaves. Not surprisingly, it didn't survive long into Victorian times.

You read that ever since the start of the Hundred Years' War in 1337 "England and France have been hereditary enemies". Why should you treat this statement within the utmost skepticism?

All of these reasons (Britain and France were last at war in 1815, Between the late Middle Ages and 1689 there was no major conflict between England and France, Britain and France were allies in the Crimean War, WWI and for much of WWII). Claims about "hereditary enmity" between nations should never be accepted without first looking for contrary evidence: for the most part they are mischievous. It is true that in the period 1689-1815 England/Britain and France fought a series of wars, and were never allies, but outside this period the picture is different.

In practice, do you need some prior knowledge of history in order to undertake effective historical research?

y. Some prior knowledge is a prerequisite for evaluating your findings (and arguably for knowing what questions to ask in the first place). This is not, however, a peculiarity of the study of history, but applies to all subjects. As your experience of research grows, you should find that the activity becomes easier, especially if you manage to develop an instinct or "feel" for it.