Basic principles and methods of historical research. Methods of historical research. Character traits
“The scientific method is a set of ways and principles, requirements and norms, rules and procedures, tools and instruments that ensure the interaction of the subject with the knowable object in order to solve the problem” (5-39). "In general, we can say The scientific method is a theoretically based normative cognitive tool"(5- 40).
Methods are means of historical research within the framework of a certain methodology; these are activities ordered in a certain way: induction, deduction, analysis, synthesis, analogy, experiment, observation (for historical science - comparative methods, statistical methods, modeling-hypotheses, etc.)
Based on the methodology, the researcher in practical activities deals with a set of methods. Methodology is broader than method and acts as a doctrine about it.
The structure of the scientific method is presented as follows:
Worldviews and theoretical principles characterizing the content of knowledge;
Methodological techniques corresponding to the specifics of the subject being studied
Techniques used to record and document the progress and results of scientific research (3-8)
According to the accepted classification, methods are divided into general scientific, special historical, and interdisciplinary.
« General scientific methods, unlike philosophical ones, cover only certain aspects of scientific and cognitive activity, being one of the means of solving research problems. General scientific methods include:
general techniques (generalization, analysis, synthesis, abstraction, comparison, modeling, induction, deduction, etc.);
methods of empirical research (observation, measurement, experiment);
methods of theoretical research (idealization, formalization, thought experiment, systems approach, mathematical methods, axiomatic, methods of ascent from the abstract to the concrete and from the concrete to the abstract, historical, logical, etc.).
The development of scientific knowledge led to the emergence new general scientific methods. These include system-structural analysis, functional analysis, information-entropy method, algorithmization, etc.” (5-160).
We will dwell in more detail on the characteristics of historical, logical, system-structural methods. Characteristics of other general scientific methods can be found in the work of I.D. Kovalchenko (5 – 159-173) and a manual on the methodology of history, edited by V.N. Sidortsov (7 – 163-168).
Historical method in the general sense of the word, it includes ideological, theoretical knowledge and specific techniques for studying social phenomena. We are talking about those techniques of special historical analysis, those cognitive means that are aimed at revealing the historicity of the object itself, namely its genesis, formation and contradictory development. The historical method, synthesizing these techniques, serves the task of clarifying the qualitative certainty of socialphenomena at various stagesdevelopment. Reproduction, reconstruction of an object, description, explanation, typification of phenomena of the past and present are the cognitive functions of the historical method (3 – 97, 98).
The logical method, in essence, is also a historical method, only freed from historical form and from interfering accidents. It is based on the laws of a certain science - logic.
“In the substantive aspect, the historical method reveals the concrete world of phenomena, and the logical method reveals their inner essence” (5 – 155).
System-structural method arose in the second half of the twentieth century and represents the trend of integration of scientific knowledge. He allows you to consider objects and phenomena in their interrelation and integrity, representing any phenomenon as a complex system, the dynamic balance of which is maintained through the connections of various elements united into a certain structure.
« System represents such an integral set of elements of reality, the interaction of which causes the emergence of new integrative qualities in this set that are not inherent in the elements that form it” (5 – 173,174).
"All systems have their structure, structure and functions. Structure a system is determined by its constituent components, i.e. its interconnected parts. The components of the system are subsystems and elements. Subsystem- this is such a part of the system that is itself formed from components, i.e. a subsystem is a system within a higher order system. Element– this is a further indivisible, elementary (atomic) carrier of the meaningful properties of the system, the limit of division of the system within the boundaries of its inherent given quality (5 – 174).
Structure – the internal organization of a system, characterized by the way its components interact and their inherent properties. The structure of the system determines the substantive essence of the system as a whole. The structure expresses the integral properties of the system (5-175).
Function – form, way of life of the social system and its components (5 – 175). The structure and functions of the system are closely interrelated. The functions of the system are implemented through its structure. Only with an appropriate structure can the system successfully perform its functions (5-176).
“Every social system operates in a certain environment. System environment – her surroundings. These are objects that directly or through system components influence the formation, functioning and development of the system. For social systems, the environment is other systems. The functioning of a particular social system is a complex interaction with other systems. This interaction reveals the essence of those functions that are inherent in the system (5-176).
“The connections and relationships of systems (i.e. their interaction) are characterized by a complex combination coordination and subordination their structures and functions, which give rise to different levels hierarchy of systems.
Coordination– horizontal, spatial ordering, consistency of structures and functions of systems. Subordination – vertical, temporary subordination of structures and functions of systems. This determines the presence of a structural and functional hierarchy of systems (5 – 176).
The leading specific methods of systems research are structural and functional analyses. The first is aimed at revealing the structure of systems, the second - at identifying their functions. This distinction is legitimate in a highly specialized sense. Comprehensive knowledge of any system requires consideration of its structure and functions in organic unity. Therefore, an adequate method for systems research is structural-functional analysis, designed to reveal the structure, structures, functions and development of systems. Structural-functional analysis for its completeness requires modeling of the systems being studied (5 – 179-180)
History as a subject and science is based on historical methodology. If in many other scientific disciplines there are two main ones, namely observation and experiment, then for history only the first method is available. Even though every true scientist tries to minimize the impact on the object of observation, he still interprets what he sees in his own way. Depending on the methodological approaches used by scientists, the world receives different interpretations of the same event, various teachings, schools, and so on.
The following methods of historical research are distinguished:
- brain teaser,
- general scientific,
Special,
- interdisciplinary.
historical research
In practice, historians have to use research based on logical and general scientific methods. Logical ones include analogy and comparison, modeling and generalization, and others.
Synthesis implies the reunification of an event or object from smaller components, that is, a movement from simple to complex is used here. The exact opposite of synthesis is analysis, in which you have to move from the complex to the simple.
No less important are such research methods in history as induction and deduction. The latter makes it possible to develop a theory based on the systematization of empirical knowledge about the object being studied, drawing numerous consequences. Induction transfers everything from the particular to the general, often probabilistic, position.
Scientists also use analgia and comparison. The first makes it possible to see some similarity between different objects that have a large number of relationships, properties, and other things, and comparison is a judgment about the signs of difference and similarity between objects. Comparison is extremely important for qualitative and quantitative characteristics, classification, evaluation and other things.
Particularly important methods of historical research are modeling, which allows us to only assume the connection between objects in order to identify their location in the system, and generalization, a method that identifies common features that make it possible to make an even more abstract version of an event or some other process.
General scientific methods of historical research
In this case, the above methods are supplemented by empirical methods of knowledge, that is, experiment, observation and measurement, as well as theoretical methods of research, such as mathematical methods, transitions from the abstract to the concrete and vice versa, and others.
Special methods of historical research
One of the most important in this area is the comparative historical method, which not only highlights the underlying problems of phenomena, but also points out the similarities and features in historical processes, and indicates the trends of certain events.
At one time, the theory of K. Marx and his civilizational method became particularly widespread.
Interdisciplinary research methods in history
Like any other science, history is interconnected with other disciplines that help to understand the unknown to explain certain historical events. For example, using psychoanalytic techniques, historians have been able to interpret the behavior of historical figures. The interaction between geography and history is very important, as a result of which the cartographic method of research appeared. Linguistics has made it possible to learn a lot about early history based on the synthesis of approaches from history and linguistics. There are also very close connections between history and sociology, mathematics, etc.
Research is a separate section of cartography, which has important historical and economic significance. With its help, you can not only determine the place of residence of individual tribes, indicate the movement of tribes, etc., but also find out the location of minerals and other important objects.
Obviously, history is closely interconnected with other sciences, which greatly facilitate research and make it possible to obtain more complete and extensive information about the object being studied.
The following special historical methods have been developed: genetic, comparative, typological, systemic, retrospective, reconstructive, actualization, periodization, synchronous, diachronic, biographical; methods associated with auxiliary historical disciplines - archaeology, genealogy, heraldry, historical geography, historical onomastics, metrology, numismatics, paleography, sphragistics, phaleristics, chronology, etc.
“Special historical, or general historical, research methods represent one or another combination of general scientific methods aimed at studying the object of historical knowledge, i.e. taking into account the features of this object, expressed in the general theory of historical knowledge.
The main general historical methods of scientific research include: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological and historical-systemic.
The rules and procedures necessary for conducting research are also developed (research methodology) and certain tools and instruments are used (research technique) (5 – 183).
"Historical-genetic method is one of the most common in historical research. Its essence lies in the consistent disclosure of the properties, functions and changes of the reality being studied in the process of its historical movement, which makes it possible to come closest to reproducing the real history of the object. This object is reflected in the most concrete form. Cognition proceeds...consistently from the individual to the particular, and then to the general and universal. By its logical nature, the historical-genetic method is analytical-inductive, and by its form of expressing information about the reality under study, it is descriptive” (5-184).
The specificity of this method is not in the construction of ideal images of an object, but in the generalization of factual historical data towards the reconstruction of a general scientific picture of the social process. Its application allows us to understand not only the sequence of events in time, but also the general dynamics of the social process.
The limitations of this method are the lack of attention to statics, “i.e. to fix a certain temporal reality of historical phenomena and processes, the danger of relativism may arise” (5-184). In addition, he “gravitates towards descriptiveness, factualism and empiricism” (5-185). “Finally, the historical-genetic method, despite its long history and breadth of application, does not have a developed and clear logic and conceptual apparatus. Therefore, his methodology, and therefore his technique, is vague and uncertain, which makes it difficult to compare and bring together the results of individual studies” (5-186).
Idiographic (Greek)Idios– “special”, “unusual” andgrapho- "writing") the method was proposed by G. Rickert as the main method of history (1 – 388). “In contrast to him in natural science, he called nomothetic a method that allows one to establish laws and make generalizations. G. Rickert reduced the essence of the idiographic method to the description of individual characteristics, unique and exceptional features of historical facts, which are formed by a scientist-historian on the basis of their “attribution to value.” In his opinion, history individualizes events, distinguishing them from the infinite variety of so-called. “historical individual,” which meant both the nation and the state, a separate historical personality.
Based on the idiographic method, the method is used ideographic(from “idea” and Greek “grapho” - I write) a way of unambiguously recording concepts and their connections using signs, or descriptive method. The idea of the ideographic method goes back to Lullio and Leibniz (24 – 206)
The historical-genetic method is close to the ideographic method...especially when used at the first stage of historical research, when information is extracted from sources, systematized and processed. Then the researcher’s attention is focused on individual historical facts and phenomena, on their description as opposed to identifying developmental features” (7 – 174).
Cognitive functions comparative historical method: - identification of features in phenomena of different order, their comparison, juxtaposition; - clarification of the historical sequence of the genetic connection of phenomena, establishment of their genus-species connections and relationships in the process of development, establishment of differences in phenomena; - generalization, construction of a typology of social processes and phenomena. Thus, this method is broader and more meaningful than comparisons and analogies. The latter do not act as a special method of this science. They can be used in history, as in other areas of knowledge, and regardless of the comparative historical method (3 – 103,104).
“The logical basis of the historical-comparative method in the case when the similarity of entities is established is analogy.Analogy – This is a general scientific method of cognition, which consists in the fact that, based on the similarity of some characteristics of the objects being compared, a conclusion is made about the similarity of other characteristics. It is clear that in this case the circle famous characteristics of the object (phenomenon) with which the comparison is made must be wider than that of the object under study” (5 – 187).
“In general, the historical-comparative method has broad cognitive capabilities. Firstly, it allows us to reveal the essence of the phenomena under study in cases where it is not obvious, based on the available facts; to identify the general and repetitive, the necessary and natural, on the one hand, and qualitatively different, on the other. Thus, the gaps are filled and the research is brought to a complete form. Secondly, the historical-comparative method makes it possible to go beyond the phenomena being studied and, on the basis of analogies, to arrive at broad historical generalizations and parallels. Thirdly, it allows the use of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method” (5 – 187,188).
“The successful application of the historical-comparative method, like any other, requires compliance with a number of methodological requirements. First of all, comparison should be based on specific facts that reflect the essential features of phenomena, and not their formal similarity...
You can compare objects and phenomena, both of the same type and of different types, located at the same and at different stages of development. But in one case the essence will be revealed on the basis of identifying similarities, in the other - differences. Compliance with the specified conditions for historical comparisons essentially means consistent implementation of the principle of historicism” (5 – 188).
“Identification of the significance of the features on the basis of which a historical-comparative analysis should be carried out, as well as the typology and stage nature of the phenomena being compared, most often requires special research efforts and the use of other general historical methods, primarily historical-typological and historical-systemic. Combined with these methods, the historical-comparative method is a powerful tool in historical research. But this method, naturally, has a certain range of most effective action. This is, first of all, the study of socio-historical development in broad spatial and temporal aspects, as well as those less broad phenomena and processes, the essence of which cannot be revealed through direct analysis due to their complexity, inconsistency and incompleteness, as well as gaps in specific historical data "(5 – 189).
“The historical-comparative method has certain limitations, and the difficulties of its application should also be taken into account. This method is not generally aimed at revealing the reality in question. Through it, the fundamental essence of reality in all its diversity is known, first of all, and not its specific specificity. It is difficult to use the historical-comparative method when studying the dynamics of social processes. The formal application of the historical-comparative method is fraught with erroneous conclusions and observations...” (5 – 189, 190).
Historical-typological method.“Both the identification of the general in the spatially individual and the identification of the stage-homogeneous in the continuous-temporal require special cognitive means. Such a tool is the method of historical-typological analysis. Typologization as a method of scientific knowledge has as its goal the division (ordering) of a set of objects or phenomena into qualitatively defined types (classes) based on their common essential features...Typologization.., being in form a type of classification, is a method essential analysis (5 – 191).
“...Identification of the qualitative certainty of the considered set of objects and phenomena is necessary for identifying the types that form this set, and knowledge of the essential-substantive nature of the types is an indispensable condition for determining those basic features that are inherent in these types and which can be the basis for a specific typological analysis, i.e. . to reveal the typological structure of the reality under study” (5-193).
The principles of the typological method can be effectively applied “only on the basis of a deductive approach. It consists in the fact that the corresponding types are identified on the basis of a theoretical essential-substantive analysis of the considered set of objects. The result of the analysis should be not only the definition of qualitatively different types, but also the identification of those specific features that characterize their qualitative certainty. This creates the opportunity to classify each individual object as one type or another” (5-193).
The selection of specific features for typology can be multivariate. “...This dictates the need to use both combined deductive-inductive, and actually inductive approach. The essence deductive-inductive approach is that the types of objects are determined on the basis of an essential-substantive analysis of the phenomena under consideration, and those essential features that are inherent in them are determined by analyzing empirical data about these objects” (5-194).
« Inductive The approach differs in that here both the identification of types and the identification of their most characteristic features are based on the analysis of empirical data. This path has to be taken in cases where the manifestations of the individual in the particular and the particular in general are diverse and unstable” (5-195).
“In cognitive terms, the most effective typification is one that allows not only to identify the corresponding types, but also to establish both the degree to which objects belong to these types and the degree of their similarity to other types. This requires methods of multidimensional typologization” (5 –196,197).
Its use brings the greatest scientific effect when studying homogeneous phenomena and processes, although the scope of the method is not limited to them. In the study of both homogeneous and heterogeneous types, it is equally important that the objects being studied are comparable in terms of the main fact for this typification, in terms of the most characteristic features underlying the historical typology (for example: a revolution of type ...) (3-110).
Historical-systemic method is based on a systems approach. “The objective basis of the systemic approach and method of scientific knowledge...is unity in the socio-historical development...of the individual (individual), the special and the general. This unity is real and concrete and appears in socio-historical systems. miscellaneous level (5-197,198).
Individual events have certain traits unique to them that are not repeated in other events. But these events form certain types and kinds of human activity and relationships, and therefore, along with individual ones, they also have common features and thereby create certain aggregates with properties that go beyond the individual, i.e. certain systems.
Individual events are included in social systems and through historical situations. Historical situation– is a spatio-temporal set of events that form a qualitatively defined state of activity and relationships, i.e. it is the same social system.
Finally historical process in its temporal extent has qualitatively different stages or stages, which include a certain set of events and situations that make up subsystems in the overall dynamic system of social development” (5-198).
“The systemic nature of socio-historical development means that all events, situations and processes of this development are not only causally determined and have a cause-and-effect relationship, but are also functionally connected. Functional connections... seem to overlap cause-and-effect relationships, on the one hand, and are complex in nature, on the other. On this basis, it is believed that in scientific knowledge the decisive significance should not be causal, but ... structural-functional explanation” (5-198,199).
The systems approach and system methods of analysis, which include structural and functional analyses, are characterized by integrity and complexity. The system being studied is considered not from the perspective of its individual aspects and properties, but as a holistic qualitative certainty with a comprehensive account of both its own main features and its place and role in the hierarchy of systems. However, for the practical implementation of this analysis, it is initially necessary to isolate the system under study from an organically unified hierarchy of systems. This procedure is called decomposition of systems. It represents a complex cognitive process, because it is often very difficult to isolate a specific system from the unity of systems.
Isolation of a system should be carried out on the basis of identifying a set of objects (elements) that have qualitative certainty, expressed not just in certain properties of these elements, but also, first of all, in their inherent relationships, in their characteristic system of interrelations... Isolation of the system under study from the hierarchy systems must be justified. In this case, methods of historical and typological analysis can be widely used.
From a specific content point of view, the solution to this problem comes down to identifying system-forming (systemic) characteristics, inherent in the components of the selected system (5 – 199, 200).
“After identifying the relevant system, its analysis as such follows. Central here is structural analysis, i.e. identifying the nature of the relationship between the components of the system and their properties... the result of the structural-system analysis will be knowledge about the system as such. This knowledge... has empirical character, because they in themselves do not reveal the essential nature of the identified structure. Translating the acquired knowledge to the theoretical level requires identifying the functions of a given system in the hierarchy of systems, where it appears as a subsystem. This problem can be solved functional analysis, revealing the interaction of the system under study with higher-level systems.
Only a combination of structural and functional analysis makes it possible to understand the essential and meaningful nature of the system in all its depth” (5-200). “...System-functional analysis makes it possible to identify which properties of the environment, i.e. systems of a higher level, including the system under study as one of the subsystems, determine the essential and meaningful nature of this system” (5-200).
“...The ideal option would be an approach in which the reality under study is analyzed at all its system levels and taking into account all the scales of the system components. But this approach cannot always be implemented. Therefore, a reasonable selection of analysis options is necessary in accordance with the research task” (5-200-201).
The disadvantage of this method is its use only in synchronous analysis, which risks not revealing the development process. Another drawback is the danger of “excessive abstraction - formalization of the reality being studied...” (5-205).
Retrospective method.“A distinctive feature of this method is its focus from the present to the past, from effect to cause. In its content, the retrospective method acts, first of all, as a reconstruction technique that allows one to synthesize and correct knowledge about the general nature of the development of phenomena. K. Marx’s position “human anatomy is the key to the ape’s anatomy” expresses the essence of retrospective knowledge of social reality” (3-106).
"Reception retrospective cognition consists of consistent penetration into the past in order to identify the cause of a given event. In this case, we are talking about the root cause directly related to this event, and not about its distant historical roots. Retro-analysis shows, for example, that the root cause of domestic bureaucracy lies in the Soviet party-state system, although they tried to find it in Nicholas’s Russia, and in Peter’s transformations, and in the administrative red tape of the Muscovite kingdom. If during retrospection the path of knowledge is a movement from the present to the past, then when constructing a historical explanation it is from the past to the present in accordance with the principle of diachrony” (7-184, 185).
A number of special historical methods are associated with the category of historical time. These are methods of actualization, periodization, synchronous and diachronic (or problem-chronological).
The first three of them are quite easy to understand. "Diachronic method is characteristic of structural-diachronic research, which is a special type of research activity when the problem of identifying the features of the construction of processes of various natures over time is solved. Its specificity is revealed through comparison with the synchronistic approach. Terms " diachrony"(multi-temporality) and "synchrony""(simultaneity), introduced into linguistics by the Swiss linguist F. de Saussure, characterizes the sequence of development of historical phenomena in a certain area of reality (diachrony) and the state of these phenomena at a certain point in time (synchrony).
Diachronic (multi-temporal) analysis is aimed at studying essentially-temporal changes in historical reality. With its help, you can answer questions about when this or that state may occur during the process being studied, how long it will persist, how long this or that historical event, phenomenon, process will take...
There are several forms of this research:
elementary structural-diachronic analysis, which is aimed at studying the duration of processes, the frequency of various phenomena, the duration of pauses between them, etc.; it gives an idea of the most important characteristics of the process;
in-depth structural and diachronic analysis aimed at revealing the internal temporal structure of the process, highlighting its stages, phases and events; in history it is used in the reconstruction of the most significant processes and phenomena;...
extended structural-diachronic analysis, which includes previous forms of analysis as intermediate stages and consists of identifying the dynamics of individual subsystems against the background of systems development” (7 – 182, 183).
They are based on philosophical, general scientific, and are the basis of specific problem-solving methods.
Historical-genetic and retrospective methods. The historical-genetic method is the most common. Aimed at the consistent disclosure of properties, functions and changes in historical reality. According to I. Kovalchenko’s definition, by its logical nature it is analytical, inductive, and by the form of expression of information it is descriptive. It is aimed at identifying cause-and-effect relationships and analyzing the occurrence (genesis) of certain phenomena and processes. Historical events are shown in their individuality and specificity.
When applying this method, some errors are possible, if you take it as an absolute. Focusing on studying the development of phenomena and processes, one cannot underestimate the stability of these phenomena and processes. Further, while showing the individuality and uniqueness of events, one must not lose sight of what is common. Pure empiricism should be avoided.
If the genetic method is directed from the past to the present, then the retrospective method is from the present to the past, from the effect to the cause. Based on the elements of the preserved past, it is possible to reconstruct this past. By going into the past, we can clarify the stages of formation and formation of the phenomenon that we have in the present. What may seem random with a genetic approach, with a retrospective method will seem to be a prerequisite for later events. In the present, we have a more developed object compared to its previous forms and can better understand the process of formation of this or that process. We see the prospect of the development of phenomena and processes in the past, knowing the result. By studying the years preceding the French Revolution of the 18th century, we will obtain certain data about the maturation of the revolution. But if we return to this period, already knowing what happened during the revolution, we will learn the deeper reasons and preconditions of the revolution, which became especially clear during the revolution itself. We will see not individual facts and events, but a coherent, logical chain of phenomena that naturally led to the revolution.
Synchronous, chronological and diachronic methods. The synchronous method is focused on studying different events that occurred at the same time. All phenomena in society are interconnected, and this method, especially often used in a systems approach, helps to reveal this connection. And this will make it possible to clarify the explanation of historical events taking place in a particular region, to trace the influence of economic, political, and international relations of different countries.
In domestic literature, B.F. Porshnev published a book in which he showed the system of states during the English revolution of the mid-17th century. However, to this day this approach is poorly developed in domestic historiography: chronological histories of individual countries predominate. Only recently has an attempt been made to write the history of Europe not as a sum of individual states, but as a certain system of states, to show the mutual influence and interconnection of events.
Chronological method. Every historian uses it - the study of the sequence of historical events in time (chronology). Essential facts must not be overlooked. History is often distorted when historians suppress facts that do not fit into the scheme.
A variant of this method is problem-chronological, when a broad topic is divided into a number of problems, each of which is considered in the chronological sequence of events.
Diachronic method (or periodization method). The qualitative features of processes over time, the moments of formation of new stages and periods are highlighted, the state at the beginning and end of the period is compared, and the general direction of development is determined. In order to identify the qualitative features of periods, it is necessary to clearly define the criteria for periodization, take into account objective conditions and the process itself. You cannot replace one criterion with another. Sometimes it is impossible to accurately name the year or month of the beginning of a new stage - all facets in society are mobile and conditional. It is impossible to fit everything into a strict framework; there is asynchrony of events and processes, and the historian must take this into account. When there are several criteria and different schemes, the historical process is understood more deeply.
Historical-comparative method. Enlightenment scholars began to use the comparative method. F. Voltaire wrote one of the first world histories, but he used comparison more as a technique than a method. At the end of the 19th century, this method became popular, especially in socio-economic history (M. Kovalevsky, G. Maurer wrote works on the community). After the Second World War, the comparative method was especially widely used. Almost no historical study is complete without comparison.
By collecting factual material, comprehending and systematizing the facts, the historian sees that many phenomena can have similar content, but different forms of manifestation in time and space, and, conversely, have different content, but be similar in form. The cognitive significance of the method lies in the possibilities it opens for understanding the essence of phenomena. The essence can be understood by the similarities and differences in the characteristics inherent in phenomena. The logical basis of the method is analogy, when, based on the similarity of some characteristics of an object, a conclusion is drawn about the similarity of others.
The method makes it possible to reveal the essence of phenomena when it is not obvious, to identify common, repeating, and natural patterns, to make generalizations, and to draw historical parallels. A number of requirements must be met. Comparison should be made on specific facts that reflect the essential features of phenomena, and not formal similarities. You need to know the era, the typology of phenomena. You can compare phenomena of the same type and different types, at the same or different stages of development. In one case, the essence will be revealed based on identifying similarities, in the other - differences. The principle of historicism should not be forgotten.
But the use of the comparative method also has some limitations. It helps to understand the diversity of reality, but not the specificity of it in a specific form. It is difficult to apply the method when studying the dynamics of the historical process. Formal application leads to errors, and the essence of many phenomena can be distorted. You need to use this method in combination with others. Unfortunately, only analogy and comparison are often used, and the method, which is much more meaningful and broader than the techniques mentioned, is rarely used in its entirety.
Historical-typological method. Typology - division of objects or phenomena into various types based on essential features, identification of homogeneous sets of objects. I. Kovalchenko considers the typological method to be a method of essential analysis. The formal descriptive classification proposed by the positivists does not give such a result. The subjective approach led to the idea of constructing types only in the thinking of a historian. M. Weber developed the theory of “ideal types,” which for a long time was not used by domestic sociologists, who interpreted it in a simplified manner. In fact, we were talking about modeling, which is now accepted by all researchers.
Types according to I. Kovalchenko are distinguished on the basis of a deductive approach and theoretical analysis. Types and characteristics characterizing qualitative certainty are identified. Then we can classify the object as one type or another. I. Kovalchenko illustrates all this using the example of types of Russian peasant farming. I. Kovalchenko needed such a detailed development of the typology method to justify the use of mathematical methods and computers. A significant part of his book on methods of historical research is devoted to this. We refer the reader to this book.
Historical-systemic method. This method was also developed by I. Kovalchenko in connection with the use of mathematical methods and modeling in historical science. The method is based on the fact that there are socio-historical systems of different levels. The main components of reality: individual and unique phenomena, events, historical situations and processes are considered as social systems. They are all functionally connected. It is necessary to isolate the system under study from the hierarchy of systems. After identifying the system, a structural analysis follows, determining the relationship between the system components and their properties. In this case, logical and mathematical methods are used. The second stage is a functional analysis of the interaction of the system being studied with systems of a higher level (the peasant economy is considered as part of the system of socio-economic relations and as a subsystem of capitalist production). The main difficulty is created by the multi-level nature of social systems, the transition from lower-level systems to higher systems (yard, village, province). When analyzing, for example, a peasant farm, data aggregation provides new opportunities for understanding the essence of phenomena. In this case, all general scientific and special historical methods are used. The method gives the greatest effect with synchronous analysis, but the development process remains undisclosed. System-structural and functional analysis can lead to excessive abstraction and formalization, and sometimes subjective design of systems.
We have named the main methods of historical research. None of them are universal or absolute. They need to be used comprehensively. In addition, both historical methods must be combined with general scientific and philosophical ones. It is necessary to use methods taking into account their capabilities and limits - this will help to avoid mistakes and false conclusions.
Positivists believed that scientific methods are the same for the natural and human sciences. Neo-Kantians contrasted the method of history with the method of the natural sciences. In reality, everything is more complicated: there are general scientific methods used in all sciences, and there are specific methods of a particular science or complex of sciences. I. Kovalchenko spoke most thoroughly in Russian historical literature about the application of general scientific methods in his book on methods of historical research. We will not characterize these methods in detail from a philosophical point of view, but will only show the specifics of their application in historical science.
Logical and historical method. History uses synchrony, the study of an object in space as a system, their structure and functions (logical method) and the study of objects in time - diachrony (historical method). Both methods can appear in their pure form and in unity. As a result, we study the subject in space and time. The logical method is provided by a systems approach and structural-functional analysis.
The historical method implements the principle of historicism, which was discussed above. The development process is studied through analysis of the state of the object in different time slices. First an analysis of structure and function, then a historical analysis. These two methods cannot be separated.
I. Kovalchenko gives an example. If we use only the historical method, we can conclude that semi-serf relations dominated in Russian agriculture at the beginning of the 20th century. But if we add a logical analysis - a systemic-structural one - it turns out that bourgeois relations dominated.
Ascent from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract to the concrete. I. Kovalchenko considers this method the most important and decisive. The concrete is the object of knowledge in all its richness and diversity of its inherent features. Abstraction is a mental distraction from some features and properties of the concrete, while it must reflect the essential aspects of reality.
The ascent from the concrete to the abstract is carried out in three ways. By means of abstraction (certain properties are considered in isolation from other properties of the object, or a set of features of the object is isolated and it is possible to build essentially substantive and formal-quantitative models).
The second technique is abstraction through identification of the non-identical: states and characteristics that it does not possess are attributed to the object. It is used for various types of classifications and typology.
The third technique is idealization - an object with certain ideal properties is formed. They are inherent in the object, but are not sufficiently expressed. This allows for deductive-integral modeling. Abstraction helps to better understand the essence of an object.
But in order to understand the essence of concrete phenomena, a second stage is necessary - the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. Specific theoretical knowledge appears in the form of scientific concepts, laws, and theories. The credit for developing this method goes to K. Marx (“Capital”). This method is complex and, according to I. Kovalchenko, is not widely used.
Systems approach and systems analysis. A system is, as already noted, an integral set of elements of reality, the interaction of which leads to the emergence of new integrative qualities that are not inherent in the elements that form it. Each system has structure, structure and functions. System components - subsystems and elements. Social systems have a complex structure, which a historian must study. The systems approach helps to understand the laws of functioning of social systems. The leading method is structural-functional analysis.
Foreign science has accumulated extensive experience in the application of systems analysis in history. Domestic researchers note the following disadvantages in the use of new methods. The interaction of the system with the environment is often ignored. The basis of all social structures are subconscious-mental structures that are highly stable; as a result, the structure turns out to be unchanged. Finally, the hierarchy of structures is denied, and society turns out to be a disordered collection of closed and unchanging structures. The tendency towards synchronous static study often leads to the rejection of dynamic diachronic analysis.
Induction - deduction. Induction is a study from the individual to the general. Deduction - from the general to the particular, the individual. The historian examines the facts and comes to a generalized concept and, conversely, applies the concepts known to him to explain the facts. Every fact has elements of commonality. At first it is merged with a single fact, then it stands out as such. F. Bacon considered induction to be the main method, since deductive conclusions are often erroneous. Historians in the 19th century used mainly the inductive method. Some people are still suspicious of the deductive method. D. Elton believes that the use of theories from sources other than empirical material can be detrimental to science. However, this extreme point of view is not shared by most historians. To get to the essence of phenomena, you need to use concepts and theories, including those from related sciences. Induction and deduction are organically connected and complement each other.
Analysis and synthesis. Also widely used by historians. Analysis is the isolation of individual aspects of an object, the decomposition of the whole into individual elements. The historian cannot cover as a whole the period or object of study he is studying. Having studied individual aspects and factors, the historian must combine elements of knowledge obtained about individual aspects of historical reality, and the concepts obtained during the analysis are combined into a single whole. Moreover, synthesis in history is not a simple mechanical addition of individual elements; it gives a qualitative leap in understanding the object of study.
The idea of “historical synthesis” was developed by A. Burr. He created the Journal of Historical Synthesis at the beginning of the 20th century and the International Center for Synthesis, which united historians, sociologists and representatives of the natural and mathematical sciences of several countries. He advocated cultural-historical synthesis, the merging of history and sociology, and the use of the achievements of psychology and anthropology. About a hundred monographs by different historians were published in the series “The Evolution of Humanity. Collective synthesis." The focus is on social and mental life. But priority is given to psychology. A. Burr, in fact, prepared the emergence of the “Annals School,” but the latter, after World War II, went further than him in search of synthesis.
Each philosophical direction offered its own basis for synthesis, but so far the factors were shuffled in a positivist spirit. Recently, the idea of synthesis based on culture in the postmodern sense has emerged. We should wait for concrete historical work in this direction.
One thing is clear: analysis and synthesis are inextricably linked. Advances in analysis will not be meaningful if they are not in synthesis. Synthesis will give a new impetus to analysis, which, in turn, will lead to a new synthesis. There have been successes in achieving synthesis, but they are private and short-term in nature; sometimes material and sometimes ideal factors are put forward as determining factors, but there is no unity among historians. The larger the subject of research, the more difficult it is to obtain a synthesis.
Modeling. This is the most common form of scientific activity. All sciences use models to obtain information about the phenomenon being modeled, test hypotheses, and develop theory. Historians also use this technique. Modeling of a historical phenomenon is carried out by means of logical design - mental models of a content-functional plan are created. Modeling involves some simplification, idealization and abstraction. It allows you to check the representativeness of information from sources, the reliability of facts, and test hypotheses and theories. This method is used at all stages of the study. An example might be given of community studies. When creating its model, data from sociology, law, psychology are used, and mentality is taken into account. This already means taking an interdisciplinary approach. At the same time, we must remember that it is impossible to simply transfer a model from another discipline; it must be reconstructed taking into account conceptual constructs.
There is mathematical modeling. Methods of nonlinear dynamics, mathematical chaos theory, and catastrophe theory are used. The construction of statistical models will be discussed in the section on mathematical methods in history.
Intuition. It is well known that scientists often use intuition to solve scientific problems. This unexpected solution is then tested scientifically. In history, at the end of the 19th century, V. Dilthey, classifying history as the sciences of the spirit, considered the historian’s intuition as the main method for understanding historical events. But this point of view was not shared by many historians, since it destroyed history as a science, preaching extreme subjectivism. What kind of truth could one talk about, relying only on the intuition of historians of very different erudition and abilities? Objective research methods were needed.
But this does not mean that intuition does not play a serious role in scientific research. For a historian, it is based on deep knowledge of his subject, broad erudition, and the ability to apply one or another method in a timely manner. Without knowledge, no intuition will “work”. But, of course, talent is needed for “insight” to come. This speeds up the work of the historian and helps create outstanding works.
