Enlisting Narrative Historical Evidence: Pitfalls and Best Practices

• In Event: Methodological Issues in Comparative Historical Analysis

Abstract

The historical turn in social science has prompted scholars to engage with the work of historians on a large scale. This requires that social scientists can translate historical data into something that fits their own conceptual categories. At the same time, when social scientists enlist historical data, they face two standard problems of selection bias: confirmation bias and convenience sampling – as well as the fundamental problem of historical uncertainty. This paper describes these challenges and illustrates how they have weakened otherwise very good work. We provide a series of recommendations for how to solve or at least mitigate these challenges. First, we warn about projecting definitions that fit contemporary phenomena back in time without reflecting on their historical fit. Second, we present a criterial framework for how social scientists can reduce bias when enlisting historical evidence. We term the idea behind this framework the Ulysses Principle because it can be understood as a way of avoiding the sirens’ inciting call to follow instincts and gut feelings rather than reason when using historical sources as the primary evidentiary base. The framework emphasizes the importance of securing a conceptual overlap with the work of historians and archeologists, taking the theoretical vantage points of historical sources into consideration, and enlisting updated evidence. The criteria and the trade-offs between them are illustrated using recent studies. We also develop a distinction between different kinds of historical evidence (broader interpretations versus data of a more factual character) and show how they present different challenges for social scientists.

Authors

• Svend-Erik Skaaning, Aarhus University

• Jorgen Moller, University of Aarhus