In the previous modules, we have developed a working question for a digital local history project, built a collection of primary sources, and contextualized and analyzed primary and secondary sources relating to our research question. Now we will put these pieces together to develop a narrative answer to that question.
Estimated time to complete this section: 2.5 hours
Readings
- Sheila Brennan, Sharon Leon, et al. “Explorations” in Building Histories of the National Mall: A Guide to Creating a Digital Public History Project, 2015. (Estimated Read Time = 10 minutes)
- Larry Borowsky, “Telling a Story in 100 Words: Effective Label Copy.” AASLH Technical Leaflet, 2007. (Estimated Read Time = 15 minutes)
The practice of history is, ultimately, the act of making a narrative about the past. People engaged in historical work bring together primary and secondary sources which illustrate and support their narratives. At this point, if you have worked through the previous modules, you have a collection of primary and secondary sources related to the research question you posed in the early modules. Using these sources, you will craft an answer to the research question, which you will present in digital form in an Omeka exhibit.
A narrative has a structure (it is organized) and it has a purpose (to communicate a point or points to an audience). It can also be made up of smaller parts (questions, evidence, and conclusions), that are linked together, each of which is connected to a larger overarching idea or question.
Before you can begin to craft your overall narrative answer, you should understand how the smaller parts – your primary and secondary sources – contribute to the narrative as a whole.
Think about what answers each source provides for your overall research question. For example, the Explorations on Histories of the National Mall first provide an overall answer to the question, and then use individual items and their contexts to answer specific pieces of the question. Using this framework as an example, consider whether any of your primary sources could be interpreted as answering the question in different ways, even if those differences are more about approach than outcome.
You can do this analysis in a list, a mind map, a text document, or a spreadsheet. For example, this table includes the steps for assessing a source’s relationship to the research question and the narrative:
|
Compare |
Bring together your primary and secondary sources Look for gaps in evidence and identify contradictions or similarities. |
|
Synthesize |
What conclusions can you draw from the evidence? |
|
Interpret |
What does the evidence suggest is the answer to your question? How does this contribute to the narrative? |
Activity 5.1: Answering your question (putting primary and secondary sources together):
Begin crafting an answer to your question. For each part of the answer, explain the sources for that information, both primary and secondary. Refer back to your framing documents from Module 4 to help you create the connections between your sources. You can craft these answers as an outline, a document, or using the table in the example above.
- Compare sources to one another (both primary and secondary)
- This practice is known as corroboration
- Look for gaps in evidence and identify contradictions or similarities.
- Look further, confirm the credibility of the source
- What additional information is needed?
- This practice is known as corroboration
- Synthesize evidence
- What conclusions can you draw from the evidence you’ve found?
- Interpretation
- Return to the question you created in Module 1 – what does the evidence suggest is the answer to this question?
- Note, interpretation means more than just summarizing evidence. You should be combining the evidence to craft a narrative that answers questions about meaning (like why and how, rather than who, when, and where).
Example of comparison, synthesis, and interpretation for a primary source.