1. Classes. An enhanced copy of this syllabus is available at http://ux1.eiu.edu/~nekey/syllabi/historiography.htm and I invite you to use it. Any revisions to the syllabus or this schedule will be limited, will be for pedagogical reasons (changes in due dates, readings), and will be announced in class in advance and posted on the web. (Anyone with a documented disability should let me know by the second week of class so that we can make appropriate accommodations.) Ask me for clarifications. I will talk about history virtually anytime.
  2. Papers: Response Essays. For response essays* (typed double-spaced; 450 words minimum, 600 words maximum) respond to the readings provided for that week by a guest professor (most professors will provide you with a question or set of questions on which you should focus your answer) and bring your response to class for discussion. I will grade all position papers, but no late papers are allowed. (If you don't finish it on time, keep it, and do the next one. Unless otherwise noted each response essay should: (1) discuss and position at least two historians; (2) express a point of view (that is position yourself), and use at least one piece of evidence to back your position; (3) suggest the type of evidence that might be investigated to substantiate your position further.
  3. Papers: Historiographical Critical Review. The long paper (12-18 pp.) will be a critical review of the historiography on one problem or period presented during the semester (or a related field, as approved by me). You will be advised in preparing a bibliography for this paper by one of the professors in the department with the relevant specialization, but papers will be submitted to me for grading. Essays should be typed, double-spaced, and use a clear and consistent form of referencing (see preferred citation guide at http://ux1.eiu.edu/~nekey/citate.htm on the web).
    1. Greetings. Grad students in His 5000 are writing historiography papers about general questions or issues (as above). I have met with each to hash out some parameters (some these–U.S. in Central America, the Frontier–are still quite broad). I have suggested that they contact a professor or two (listed) with specific expertise in the area to help them refine their focus, understand the issues, and provide some direction on a crucial bibliography.(My general rule: if they don't have historians debating/disagreeing, they don't have a historiography paper or subject. These are historiography, not research papers, so there has to be a full literature on the subject.)

    2. I am asking them to do the following in their papers: define a subject or question, suggest the major approaches to the question (schools of thought) with specific examples (quotations by historians showing argument or method), position themselves by evaluating relative merits of what is argued in a few key works, and search and provide a bibliography of further works about this.

    3. I have suggested that they consult/analyze at least one historiographical review essay, two key books, four articles, and six book reviews, and append ten additional works that they have not consulted or consulted only briefly, but which they know through reviews, other articles–to be relevant to their argument.

    4. Any pointers, direction, helpful summations you might give them will be much appreciated.

  4. Participation. Grading is based on participation (30%), three response essays* (30%), and a historiographical critical review paper (40%). Reading is extensive and intensive. Take notes. I expect your informed contribution to discussion each week. Such participation, your presentation, and a pre-assignment bibliography/problem will comprise nearly one-third of your grade.
    back
    last modified on October 14, 2004