History 3810/Winter 2011

Carleton University

Critical Analysis of a Secondary Source

Proposal Due: February 16, 3:30 pm

Essay Due: March 29, 3:30 pm

By calling for attention to be paid to the ways in which historical works themselves come into existence it is
possible for students to ask the same sets of questions of secondary sources as we have been
taught to do of primary sources. - Oliver J. Daddow, Debating History Today, 145.

Overview. Responding to Daddows call to approach secondary sources in the same ways that we
approach primary sources, in this assignment, you will be writing a critical analysis of an historical work,
offering an analysis of the historians approach, use of theory (explicit or implicit), and/or methodology.
This is not a book review which (too often) simply summarizes the authors conclusions. In this
assignment, the actual conclusions or argument of the author are secondary to your interest in how the
historian reaches them. This is your chance to explore how theory is used by practicing historians. To
help you focus your argument, a proposal is required in order to facilitate early feedback.

Format. The proposal will be 4-5 pages; the final paper will be 7-9 pages (double-spaced, based on a
standard 12-point font with one inch margins). For both, please include a title page (which is not
numbered and does not count towards the total number), bibliography (of both sources consulted and
source you will consult in preparing for the paper), and the final product should be stapled. Footnotes or
endnotes will be expected and these should be done according to Chicago/Turabian (see webct links and
examples). Note that parenthetical author/date notations will not be accepted for this assignment.
Please avoid using subheadings for both elements given the short length of the assignments.

Books. A list of books has been approved for this assignment and posted on webct. Note: Do NOT
confuse the book list for the assignment with the books listed as on reserve for this course in the
library catalogue - some books are on reserve as reference for further reading.

Think historiographically. As you are planning your paper and your proposal, ask yourself the types of
questions we have been asking throughout this course. (Note: this is NOT a checklist, just suggestions to
get you going) How does the historian employ his/her sources? Does the narrative structure itself
shape the history being presented in a particular way? What theoretical positions are being adopted,
and are they explicit or implicit in the work? Are there discernible influences from particular
people/theorists that shape how the subject is being approached? How is the history structured in
relation to scales of time or space? What are the causal forces of history that are presented? Is the
author more interested in agency or structure and how does this relate to deeper assumptions
about history? How is power (or power relations) structured and located? How are the analytical
categories of class/gender/race/sexuality being employed? Remember that the thesis of your analysis
does not need to accept your historian's choice of theory and/or method; you can propose alternative
historiographical frameworks that would reveal more about the topic at hand.
Proposal. The proposal should include the following elements: a) a good, but short description or
synopsis of the book, b) the themes or questions you plan to address in your paper, c) how you are
going to connect your analysis to the wider theoretical literature. You dont need to provide answers to
all of the questions you might raise, nor is your analysis written in stone at this stage. However, it is very
important that you give us a good indication of how youre going to address the assignment and in what
context(s) you are situating your book. The more detailed you can be in your proposal, the better the
feedback we can provide, and this will aid you in producing a better essay in the end.

Paper. Do not provide long descriptions summarizing the content of the monograph; any more than a
page is too much and you should try to aim for no more than a paragraph. Get to your analysis as
quickly as possible. Your paper must have a thesis that outlines what you are going to argue about the
book and/or the historians approach. Define your topic narrowly so that youre not trying to cover
every aspect or every angle; this will give you both a deeper analysis and a sharper argument. Provide
specific examples from the book to support your thesis, but avoid the use of too many long block
quotations.

Outside Sources. You are free to consult as many scholarly book reviews or related articles/books as
you wish. You can (and are encouraged to) draw upon readings from the course. Some people may
want to do research in order to historiographically place the work under consideration, but more
often you will be looking at thematic secondary sources to assist you in your analysis. Still others may
only want to focus on the internal elements of the book. However, it is vitally important that ALL
sources consulted in putting together your paper be included in your bibliography, whether or not you
actually cite them in the text! You should demonstrate that you have consulted at least 2 other sources
to help your analysis.

Pointers. Do not quote lectures as a source; find good secondary works to support your work instead.
Avoid using the word "bias" - instead, focus on understanding 'position,' 'perspective,' or 'ideology'. And
remember that "critique" doesn't mean negative criticism (although you can certainly criticise). Critique
in this context means a systematic, disciplined analysis of a source. Use book reviews with caution,
since their focus may differ from the kinds of questions this assignment is asking you to engage with.
Dont be afraid to talk to your TA and ask for help. And have fun!