An example of a consistent study of a specific historical event. Abstract "methods of historical research"

HISTORICAL RESEARCH - 1) a system of theoretical and empirical procedures aimed at obtaining new knowledge necessary to achieve the goals (3); 2) special type cognitive activity, distinguishing feature which is to create new knowledge (4). Historical research as a special type of cognitive activity is associated with cognitive modeling of historical reality, the purpose of which is to obtain new historical knowledge using certain scientific means and research activities. Historical knowledge as a result of scientific research represents various models of historical reality as its formally structured images or representations, expressed in symbolic form, in the form of language. historical science. Since these models are formally structured images or representations, they contain certain errors in relation to the historical reality they reproduce. This is due to the fact that no model can reproduce all its aspects, and therefore this or that model always leaves something out of consideration, due to which some aspects of the historical reality being modeled are described and explained incorrectly. Since any formal system is either incomplete or contradictory, historical knowledge as a model of historical reality always contains an error associated with either an incomplete description (simple model) or an inconsistent description (complex model) of this reality. The error contained in the model is discovered as it begins to interfere with the solution of other problems associated with the modeled object. The scientific problems that arise due to such model errors encourage scientists to build new, more advanced models; however, the new models again contain errors, but with respect to other aspects of the historical reality being studied. The study of historical professional activity is carried out in a certain cultural and epistemological context and in order to be scientific, it must correspond to certain attributive features, such as: rationality; striving for truth; problematic; goal setting; reflexivity; objectivity; empiricism; theorism; methodology; dialogism; novelty; contextuality. I. and. how cognitive activity is a culturally organized and motivated activity directed at an object (a fragment of a historical

reality), therefore, the structure of historical research is the interaction-dialogue of the subject of historical research with its subject using such means as methodology, which determines the method of this interaction, and historical sources, which are the basis for obtaining empirical information about the subject of cognitive interest. Historical research is a certain sequence of interrelated cognitive actions, which can be expressed as the following logical scheme: the emergence of cognitive interest - the definition of the object of historical research - the critical analysis of the system of scientific knowledge about the object of historical research - the formulation of a scientific problem - the definition of the goal of research - the system analysis of the object research - setting research objectives - defining the subject of research - choosing the methodological foundations of research - determining the body of sources of empirical information - implementing research activities at the empirical and theoretical levels - obtaining new conceptually completed scientific knowledge. Cognitive interest in a certain fragment of historical reality, called the object of historical research, acts as a motive for scientific research. research activities. Critical analysis The system of scientific knowledge about the object of historical research makes it possible to formulate a scientific problem, and after its completion - to reflect on the scientific novelty of historical research. Critical analysis of the system of scientific knowledge, which implies the establishment of its authenticity, allows us to formulate the scientific problem of historical research as a question, answering which the scientist intends to obtain fundamentally new scientific knowledge. The scientific problem, without which, in principle, scientific research itself is impossible, sets its goal, which makes it possible to determine the boundaries of the subject area of ​​historical research. The content of the subject of historical research is determined by its tasks, the formulation of which is carried out within the framework of the methodological consciousness of the scientist on the basis of a preliminary system analysis of the subject area of ​​research. This analysis involves the construction of a cognitive model of the subject area of ​​historical research as an integrity, makes it possible to express it in the system basic concepts, to set tasks and define the subject of research in the form of a list of questions, the answers to which make it possible to implement a cognitive research strategy aimed at obtaining new historical knowledge based on a representative base of sources of empirical information using the most effective methodological guidelines associated with the solution of a particular class of research tasks. This kind of methodological guidelines, or scientific paradigms developed within the framework of various models of historical research, determine certain cognitive activities scientist during its implementation. In their structure, one can single out actions related to: a) obtaining representative empirical information from historical sources (source study level); b) with obtaining based on empirical information scientific facts, their systematization and description, the creation of empirical knowledge (empirical level); c) with the interpretation and explanation of scientific facts, the development of theoretical knowledge (theoretical level); d) conceptualization of scientific empirical and theoretical knowledge (conceptual level); e) presentation and translation of scientific historical knowledge (presentation and communication level).

A.V. Lubsky

The definition of the concept is cited from the ed.: Theory and Methodology of Historical Science. Terminological dictionary. Rep. ed. A.O. Chubaryan. [M.], 2014, p. 144-146.

Literature:

1) Kovalchenko I. D. Methods of historical research. Moscow: Nauka, 1987; 2) Lubsky A. V. Alternative models of historical research: conceptual interpretation of cognitive practices. Saarbriicken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2010; 3) Mazur L. H. Methods of historical research: textbook. allowance. 2nd ed. Yekaterinburg: Publishing house Ural, un-ta, 2010. S. 29; 4) Rakitov A. I. Historical knowledge: Systemic-epistemological approach. M.: Politizdat, 1982. S. 106; 5) Tosh D. Striving for the truth. How to master the skill of a historian / Per. from English. M.: Publishing house "The whole world", 2000.

Historical methodology (methodology of historical research)- the main theoretical discipline in the family of historical sciences, studying in unity the theory of historical knowledge and cognition, that is, the theory of the subject of history and the theory of methods of historical research.

The methodology of history is based on the general logical principles of the methodology of science, but of the two main methods of scientific knowledge - observation and experiment - history has the ability to use only the first. As for observation, the historian, like any scientist, faces the task of minimizing the influence of the observer himself on the subject under study. The methodology and theory of historical science determine the understanding by the historian himself of the nature, factors and direction historical process. Differences in methodological approaches, along with the characteristics of the creative individuality of researchers, lead to a variety of interpretations of historical plots, folding scientific schools, the emergence of competing concepts, create the basis for scientific discussions.

Logical Methods of Historical Research

The methods of historical research, called upon to perform an equally important function - to formulate the basic principles of the theory of knowledge - nevertheless differ both in essence and in the material to which they are applied, and in the tasks solved with their help. In specific historical practice, special research methods are used, which are based on philosophical (logical) and general scientific methods.

Logical methods include, in particular, such as analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, analogy and comparison, logical modeling and generalization.

The essence of analysis and synthesis is the actual or mental decomposition of the whole into its component parts and the reunification of the whole from the parts. Analysis allows you to identify the structure of the object under study, to separate the essential from the unimportant, to reduce the complex to the simple. Its forms are the classification of objects and phenomena, the identification of stages in their development, the detection of conflicting trends, etc. Synthesis complements the analysis, leads from the essential to its diversity, to the unification of parts, properties, relations, identified through analysis into a single whole.

Induction and deduction are methods of cognition that are interconnected and condition one another. If induction provides the possibility of moving from isolated facts to general propositions and possibly probable ones, then deduction is called upon to build a scientific theory. The deductive method is used, as a rule, after the accumulation and theoretical understanding of empirical material in order to systematize it and derive all the consequences from it.

Analogy is the establishment of similarities between non-identical objects. It should be based on how more relations, on essential properties, on establishing a closer connection between the resulting and factor characteristics. Comparison is a cognitive operation that underlies judgments about the similarity or difference of objects, a strictly thought-out concept of selection and interpretation of existing material. With the help of comparison, quantitative and qualitative characteristics of objects are revealed, their classification, ordering and evaluation are carried out. Its simplest types are the relations of identity and difference.

Since many facts, phenomena, events, etc. cannot be historically attested due to the weakness of the source base, they can be restored, reconstructed only hypothetically. Then the simulation method is used. Modeling is a way of establishing links between objects in order to determine their place in a system that indicates the properties of these objects. In logical modeling, the method of extrapolation is most often used, which means the distribution of conclusions made as a result of studying one part of the phenomenon to another part of this phenomenon; finding, by a series of given values ​​of functions, of its other values ​​emerging from the given series.

Generalization - the transition to a higher level of abstraction by identifying common features (properties, relationships, trends). Generalization is one of the most important means of scientific knowledge. If, for example, the inductive method is necessary when accumulating material, and the deductive method is necessary in the cognitive process, then the generalization technique makes it possible to unify and identify many different facts, judgments, and theories according to a single formula.

General scientific methods of historical research

Common methods include:

1. general logical techniques (comparison, generalization, abstraction, etc.);
2. methods empirical research(observation, measurement, experiment);
3. methods of theoretical research (idealization (see, in particular, the works of M. Weber), formalization, thought experiment, mathematical methods, modeling, methods of ascent from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract to the concrete, etc.).

In cognitive activity, all these methods are in dialectical unity, interrelationships, complement each other, which makes it possible to ensure the objectivity and truth of the cognitive process.

Special Methods of Historical Research

Among the special methods of historical science, the comparative historical method has received the greatest distribution. It allows you to identify trends in the historical process, forms the scientific basis for its periodization, points to the general and special in history, and makes it possible to penetrate into the essence of phenomena. The comparative historical method involves the typology of historical phenomena, which makes it possible to separate their essential characteristics from secondary, optional ones.

From Ser. 19th century a historical-dialectical method began to take shape, based on the formation theory of K. Marx, the idea of ​​an ascending unidirectional staged development of the historical process. The civilizational method competes with it, which considers the history of each community (ethnos, state, etc.) as a historical process of the development of a culture that goes through several phases of change like a living organism (see, in particular, the works of A. Toynbee). The controversy of this method lies in defining the boundaries of the concept of "civilization". Recently, attempts have been made to single out, on the basis of civilizational approaches to the study of history, a special discipline - civiliology.

Interdisciplinary research methods

Involvement in research mass sources in historical science, mathematical methods became widespread (works by academician I.D. Kovalchenko). Rapprochement with sociology allowed historians to actively apply the methods practiced in sociological research. So, content analysis came from sociology to history. The sociological methods are also actively used by gender history, which emerged in last years into an independent direction of historical science. In a similar way, from the practice of using new methods, such areas and schools of historical research as proposography, which developed from historical and biographical research, microhistory, etc., have grown. Historians, especially researchers of mentality, practice approaches developed by psychoanalysis , which brings certain results in explaining the motives of the behavior of individual historical characters.

The central place in the development of the methodology of history at the present stage was occupied by the ideas of interdisciplinarity, that is, interdisciplinary study of the past, the systematic integration of historical science into a single research space with geography, economics, sociology, social psychology. The movement along this path allowed historians to see new horizons and contributed to the emergence of new disciplines that lie at the junctions with other sciences (historical geography, historical demography, etc.). History itself is increasingly seen as part of the larger science of social anthropology.

Both in foreign and domestic historical science, new methods constantly appear, which is connected with the needs of science itself and with borrowings from related disciplines. The categorical-conceptual apparatus of historical science is being improved. The experience of historical research in recent centuries has shown that these and other methods can more or less accurately describe and explain the otd. sides of the historical process, give the key to solving specific research problems, but cannot claim to be universal. Usually in historical research a combination of various methods is used, which allows the historian to maximize the range of scientific tasks. This is facilitated by the observance of such an important principle of approach to the object under study as

In the scientific literature, the concept of methodology is used to denote, in some cases, a set of techniques, methods and other cognitive means used in science, and, in others, as a special doctrine of the principles, methods, methods and means of scientific knowledge: 1) Methodology - it is a doctrine of structure, logical organization, methods and means of activity. 2) The methodology of science is the doctrine of the principles, methods and forms of building scientific knowledge. 3) The methodology of history is a variety of systems of methods that are used in the process of historical research in accordance with the specifics of various historical scientific schools. 4) Methodology of history - special scientific discipline, formed within the framework of historical science with the aim of theoretically ensuring the effectiveness of historical research conducted in it.

The concept of the methodology of historical research is close to the concept of the paradigm of historical research. In the modern methodology of science, the concept of a paradigm is used to refer to a system of prescriptions and rules for cognitive activity, or models of scientific research. Paradigms are generally accepted scientific achievements, which for a certain time give the scientific community a model for posing problems and solving them. The paradigms of historical research that are followed in scientific activity certain scientific communities of historians set the way of seeing the subject area of ​​historical research, determine the choice of its methodological guidelines and formulate the basic rules of cognitive activity in historical research.

The methodology of historical research has a multilevel structure. According to one idea that exists in the scientific literature, its first level is knowledge of a philosophical nature. At this level, the methodological function is performed by epistemology as a theory of knowledge. The second level is scientific concepts and formal methodological theories, which include theoretical knowledge about the essence, structure, principles, rules and methods of scientific research in general. The third level is represented by theoretical knowledge, which is distinguished by its subject attachment and the relevance of methodological recommendations only to a certain class of research tasks and cognitive situations specific to a given field of knowledge.

According to another view, in order to understand the methodology of scientific knowledge in relation to historical research, the following levels can be distinguished in the structure of the methodology of concrete historical research: 1. The model of historical research as a system of normative knowledge that defines the subject area of ​​historical knowledge, its cognitive means and the role of a scientist in obtaining new historical knowledge. 2. The paradigm of historical research as a model and standard for setting and solving a certain class of research problems, adopted in the scientific community to which the researcher belongs. 3. Historical theories related to the subject area of ​​specific historical research, forming its scientific thesaurus, model of the subject and used as explanatory constructs or understanding concepts. 4. Methods of historical research as ways to solve individual research problems.

In accordance with modern ideas about science, theory means understanding in terms of certain empirical observations. This comprehension (giving meaning, attributing meaning) is synonymous with theorizing. Just like the collection of information (empirical data), theorizing is an integral component of any science, including historical science. As a result, the final result of the historian's work, the historical discourse, contains various theoretical concepts on which the historian relies, starting with the dating of the event described (whether it is an epoch or just an indication of the year in some system of chronology). Theorizing (comprehension in concepts) can take different forms. There are various ways of structuring theories, typologies for classifying theoretical approaches, from simple empirical generalizations to metatheories. The simplest concept is reduced to the dichotomy "description - explanation". Within the framework of this scheme, scientific theories are divided into two "ideal types" - description and explanation. The proportions in which these parts are present in a particular theory can vary significantly. These two parts or types of theory correspond to the philosophical concepts of particular and general (single and typical). Any description, first of all, operates with particular (single), in turn, the explanation is based on the general (typical).

Historical knowledge (like any other scientific knowledge) can be both predominantly description (inevitably including some elements of explanation) and predominantly explanation (certainly including some elements of description), as well as representing these two types of theory in any proportion.

The difference between description and explanation arises at the dawn of the development of philosophical thought in Ancient Greece. The founders of two types of historical discourse - description and explanation - are Herodotus and Thucydides. Herodotus is mainly interested in the events themselves, the degree of guilt or responsibility of their participants, while the interests of Thucydides are aimed at the laws by which they occur, clarifying the causes and consequences of ongoing events.

With the strengthening of Christianity in the era of the late Roman Empire, and after its fall and the beginning of an era called the Middle Ages, history (historical discourse) becomes almost exclusively a description, and history-explanation disappears from practice for many centuries.

In the Renaissance, history figures predominantly in the meaning of the text, not knowledge, and the study of history is reduced to the study of ancient texts. A radical change in attitude to history occurs only in the 16th century. As an explanatory factor, in addition to Providence and individual motives, Fortune appears more and more often, resembling some kind of impersonal historical force. In the second half of the XVI century. a real breakthrough is being made in understanding history as a type of knowledge, for a little more than half a century, dozens of historical and methodological treatises have appeared.

The next change in the interpretation of the theoretical foundations of history takes place in the 17th century, and this revolution is made by F. Bacon. By history, he means any description, and by philosophy/science, any explanation. “History ... deals with single phenomena ( individual), which are considered in certain conditions of place and time ... All this has to do with memory ... Philosophy does not deal with single phenomena and not with sensory impressions, but with abstract concepts derived from them ... This fully applies to areas of reason ... We consider history and experimental knowledge as a single concept, just like philosophy and science. F. Bacon's scheme gained wide popularity and was used by many scientists of the 17th-18th centuries. Up to late XVIII in. history was understood as scientific and descriptive knowledge, which was opposed to scientific and explanatory knowledge. In the terminology of that time, this was reduced to the opposition of facts and theory. In modern terms, a fact is a statement about the existence or occurrence, recognized as true (corresponding to the criteria of truth accepted in a given society or social group). In other words, facts are component descriptions. In turn, what was called theory in Bacon's time is now called explanation, and by theoretical we mean, among other things, descriptive statements.

In the 19th century positivist studies appeared, they did not distinguish between natural and social sciences. The social sciences included two generalized disciplines: the explanatory ("theoretical") science of society - sociology, and the descriptive ("factual") science of society - history. Gradually, this list was expanded at the expense of economics, psychology, etc., and history continued to be understood as the descriptive part of social scientific knowledge, as a field of knowledge of specific facts, as opposed to "real" science, which deals with the knowledge of general laws. For the historian, according to the positivist, the main thing is the presence of a real object, a document, a “text”. At the end of the XIX century. anti-positivist "counter-revolution" begins. The popularizer of Darwinism T. Huxley proposed to distinguish between prospective sciences - chemistry, physics (where the explanation goes from cause to effect), and retrospective sciences - geology, astronomy, evolutionary biology, the history of society (where the explanation comes from the effect and "rises" to the cause). The two types of sciences, in his opinion, presuppose, respectively, two types of causality. Prospective sciences offer "certain" explanations, while retrospective (essentially historical) sciences, including the history of society, can only offer "probable" explanations. In fact, Huxley was the first to formulate the idea that within the framework of scientific knowledge there can be different ways of explaining. This created an opportunity to abandon the hierarchy of scientific knowledge, to equalize the "scientific status" of different disciplines.

A significant role in the development of the philosophy of science was played by the struggle for the sovereignty of social science within the framework of the philosophical trend that arose in Germany in the 19th century, which is referred to as "historicism". Its representatives were united by the idea of ​​a fundamental difference between the natural and social sciences, the rejection of attempts to build "social physics", the proof of the "otherness" of social science and the struggle against ideas about the secondary importance of this other type of knowledge compared to natural science. These ideas were developed by V. Dilthey, V. Windelband and G. Rickert. They abandoned the traditional division of descriptive and explanatory knowledge, and began to use the term "understanding" as a generalizing feature of the social sciences, which they opposed to the natural scientific "explanation". The "historicists" began to designate by "history" all social scientific knowledge (or the totality of the social sciences is beginning to be called "historical").

In the second half of the 20th century, the process of delimitation of the natural-scientific and social-scientific types of knowledge, which began at the end of the 19th century, was completed (at the conceptual level). There was an idea that explanation is inherent in the humanities (social) sciences to the same extent as in the natural ones, just the nature of the explanation (procedures, rules, techniques, etc.) in these two types of scientific knowledge differ markedly. Social sciences dealing with social reality, i.e. with human actions, their causes and results, their own, special methods of explanation are inherent, different from natural sciences.

So, in historical discourse, as in any science, two "ideal types" of theories can be distinguished - description and explanation. Along with the terms "description and explanation", other names are used to distinguish between the two types of historical scientific discourse. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century N. Kareev proposed to use the terms "historiography" and "historiology", currently the terms "descriptive" and "problem" history are also used.

Unlike the specific social sciences, which specialize in the study of one part of one social reality (a given society), history studies almost all elements of all known past social realities. In the 60-70s of the XX century. historians actively mastered the theoretical apparatus of other social sciences, so-called "new" histories began to develop - economic, social, political. The "new" history was strikingly different from the "old" one. Studies written in the spirit of the "new" history were characterized by a distinctly explanatory (analytical) rather than descriptive (narrative) approach. In the field of source processing, the "new" historians also made a real revolution, widely using mathematical methods that made it possible to master huge arrays of statistics hitherto inaccessible to historians. But the main contribution of "new histories" to historical science was not so much in the spread of quantitative methods or computer processing of mass sources of information, but in the active use of theoretical explanatory models for the analysis of past societies. In historical research, concepts and concepts developed in theoretical economics, sociology, political science, cultural anthropology, and psychology began to be applied. Historians have adopted not only macro-theoretical approaches (economic cycles, conflict theory, modernization, acculturation, the problem of power, mentality), but also turned to micro-analysis involving relevant theoretical concepts (consumer function, bounded rationality, networking, etc.).

Consequently, any historical discourse is “permeated through” with theory, but taking into account the existing objective limitations and specific functions of historical knowledge, theorizing in this area of ​​knowledge takes other forms than in other humanities.

Like any other science, historical science relies both on general methodological foundations and on a specific set of principles and methods of research activity. Principles are the most general guidelines, rules, starting points that a scientist is guided by when solving a particular scientific problem. Historical science has its own principles, the main of which are: the principle of historicism; the principle of a systematic approach (systemic); the principle of objectivity; value approach.

The principle of historicism, which is based on the consideration of facts and phenomena in their development, provides for the study of facts and phenomena in the process of their formation, change and transition to a new quality, in connection with other phenomena, requires the researcher to consider phenomena, events, processes in their relationship and interdependence, and exactly as they took place in a particular era, i.e. evaluate the era according to its internal laws, and not be guided by its own moral, ethical, political principles that belong to another historical time.

The principle of consistency (systemic approach) assumes that any historical phenomenon can be understood and explained only as part of something more general in time and space. This principle directs the researcher to the disclosure of the entire integrity of the object under study, the reduction of all components of the relationships and functions that determine the mechanism of its activity into a single picture. Society in historical development is considered as a super-complex self-regulating system with diverse connections that are constantly changing, but at the same time remain an integral system with a certain structure.

The principle of objectivity. The main goal of any historical research is to obtain reliable, true knowledge about the past. Truth means the need to achieve ideas about the phenomenon or object being studied that are adequate to it. Objectivity is an attempt to reproduce the object of study as it exists on its own, regardless of human consciousness. However, it turns out that "in fact" researchers are not interested in objective reality proper, or rather, not in what is presented to ordinary thinking behind these words. As the modern historian I.N. Danilevsky, we are hardly worried about the fact that one day, about 227,000 mean solar days ago, approximately at the intersection of 54 ° N. sh. and 38° E. on a relatively small plot of land (about 9.5 sq. km), bounded on both sides by rivers, several thousand representatives gathered species homo sapiens, which for several hours with the help of various devices destroyed each other. Then, the survivors dispersed: one group went south and the other north.

Meanwhile, this is exactly what happened, “in fact”, objectively, on the Kulikovo field in 1380, but the historian is interested in something completely different. It is much more important who these “representatives” considered themselves to be, how they identified themselves and their communities, because of what and why they tried to exterminate each other, how they assessed the results of the act of self-destruction, etc. questions. A fairly strict separation of our ideas about what and how happened in the past from how all this was presented to contemporaries and subsequent interpreters of events is necessary.

The principle of value approach. In the historical process, the researcher-historian is interested not only in the general and particular, but also in the assessment of a particular phenomenon that occurred in the past. The value approach in historical science proceeds from the fact that in world history there are certain universally recognized cultural achievements that constitute unconditional values ​​for human existence. From here, all the facts and deeds of the past can be evaluated, correlating them with such achievements, and, on the basis of this, a value judgment can be made. Among them are the values ​​of religion, state, law, morality, art, science.

At the same time, it should be taken into account that there is no generally accepted gradation of values ​​for all peoples and communities. Because of this, there is no possibility of creating an objective evaluation criterion, and therefore, when applying this method, there will always be subjective differences between individual historians. Moreover, for each historical time value orientations were different, therefore, it is necessary not to judge, but to understand history.

In practice, the principles of historical knowledge are implemented in specific methods of historical research. A method is a set of techniques and operations that allow one to obtain new knowledge from already known material. The scientific method is a theoretically substantiated normative cognitive tool, a set of requirements and tools for solving a given problem.

First of all, general scientific methods used in any field of knowledge are needed. They are divided into methods of empirical research (observation, measurement, experiment) and methods of theoretical research (logical method, including methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, the method of ascent from the concrete to the abstract, modeling, etc.) General scientific methods are classification and typology, implying the allocation of the general and the special, which ensures the systematization of knowledge. These methods allow you to select types, classes and groups of similar objects or phenomena.

In historical research, in addition to general scientific methods, special historical methods are used. Let's highlight the most significant of them.

The ideographic method is a descriptive method. The need to consider any event in relation to others suggests a description. The human factor in history - the individual, the collective, the masses - needs to be characterized. The image of a participant (subject) of historical action - individual or collective, positive or negative - can only be descriptive, therefore, description is a necessary link in the picture of historical reality, the initial stage of the historical study of any event or process, an important prerequisite for understanding the essence of phenomena.

The historical-genetic method is based in its application on the literal meaning of the Greek concept " genesis» - origin, occurrence; the process of formation and formation of a developing phenomenon. The historical-genetic method is part of the principle of historicism. With the help of the historical-genetic method, the main causal relationships are established, and also, this method allows you to distinguish the key provisions of historical development, due to the characteristics of the historical era, country, national and group mentality and personal traits of the participants in the historical process.

The problem-chronological method involves the analysis historical material in chronological order, but within the identified problem blocks, it allows you to focus on the consideration of one or another component of the historical process in dynamics.

synchronous method. Synchrony ("horizontal cut" of the historical process) allows you to compare similar phenomena, processes, institutions different peoples, in different states in the same historical time, which makes it possible to identify common patterns and national characteristics.

diachronic method. Diachronic comparison (“vertical cut” of the historical process) is used to compare the state of the same phenomenon, process, system in different periods of activity. qualitatively different stages, periods of their evolution. Using the diachronic method, periodization is carried out, which is an obligatory component of research work.

Comparative-historical (comparative) method. It consists in identifying similarities and differences between historical objects, comparing them in time and space, explaining phenomena using analogy. At the same time, comparison must be applied in the complex of its two opposite sides: individualizing, which allows considering the singular and special in a fact and phenomenon, and synthetic, which makes it possible to draw a logical thread of reasoning to identify general patterns. The comparative method was first embodied by the ancient Greek historian Plutarch in his "biographies" of portraits of political and public figures.

The retrospective method of historical knowledge involves a consistent penetration into the past in order to identify the causes of the event. Retrospective analysis consists in a gradual movement from state of the art phenomena to the past, in order to isolate earlier elements and causes. The methods of retrospective (return) and prospective analysis make it possible to update the information received. The method of perspective analysis (performing a similar operation, only in the "reverse" direction) allows us to consider the significance of certain phenomena and ideas for subsequent historical development. The use of these methods can help predict the further evolution of society.

The historical-systemic method of cognition consists in establishing the relationships and interaction of objects, revealing the internal mechanisms of their functioning and historical development. All historical events have their own cause and are interconnected, that is, they are systemic in nature. Even in simple historical systems, there are diverse functions, determined both by the structure of the system and by its place in the hierarchy of systems. The historical-system method requires an appropriate approach to each specific historical reality: conducting structural and functional analyzes of this reality, studying it not as consisting of individual properties, but as a qualitatively integral system that has a complex of its own features, occupies a certain place and plays a certain role in the hierarchy systems. As an example of system analysis, one can cite the work of F. Braudel “Material civilization, economics and capitalism”, in which the author formulated a systematized “theory of the multi-stage structure of historical reality”. In history, he distinguishes three layers: event, opportunistic and structural. Explaining the features of his approach, Braudel writes: "Events are just dust and are only brief flashes in history, but they cannot be considered as meaningless, because they sometimes illuminate the layers of reality." From these systemic approaches, the author examines the material civilization of the XV-XVIII centuries. reveals the history of the world economy, the industrial revolution, etc.

Special methods, borrowed from other branches of science, can be used to solve specific particular problems of research, verify its results, and study previously untouched aspects of society. The attraction of new methods from related industries has become an important trend in historical research due to a significant expansion of the source base, which has been replenished due to archaeological research, the introduction of new arrays of archival materials into circulation, as well as the development of new forms of transmission and storage of information (audio, video, electronic media, the Internet).

The application of certain methods depends on the goals and objectives that the scientist sets himself. The knowledge obtained with their help is interpreted within the framework of various macrotheories, concepts, models, measurements of history. It is no coincidence, therefore, that in the course of the development of historical science several methodological approaches have developed to explain the meaning and content of the historical process.

The first of them consists in looking at history as a single stream of progressive, upward movement of mankind. Such an understanding of history presupposes the existence of stages in the development of mankind as a whole. Therefore, it can be called unitary-stage (from lat. unitas- unity), evolutionist. The linear model of history was formed in antiquity - in the Iranian-Zoroastrian environment and the Old Testament consciousness, on the basis of which Christian (as well as Jewish and Muslim) historiosophy was formed. This approach found its manifestation in isolating such basic stages of human history as savagery, barbarism, civilization (A. Ferguson, L. Morgan), as well as in the division of history into hunting and gathering, pastoral (shepherd), agricultural and commercial and industrial periods. (A. Turgot, A. Smith). It is also present in the selection in the history of civilized mankind of four world-historical epochs: ancient Eastern, ancient, medieval and new (L. Bruni, F. Biondo, K. Koehler).

The Marxist concept of history also belongs to the unitary-stage concept. In it, five socio-economic formations (primitive communal, ancient, feudal, capitalist and communist) act as stages in the development of mankind. This is what they mean when they talk about the formational conception of history. Another unitary concept is the concept of post-industrial society (D. Bell, E. Toffler, G. Kahn, Z. Brzezinski). Within its framework, three stages are distinguished: traditional (agrarian), industrial (industrial) and post-industrial (sensitive, information, etc.) society. The space of historical changes in this approach is unified and has the structure of a "layer cake", and in its center - Western European history - there is a "correct" (exemplary) arrangement of layers and movement from the bottom to the top. The layers are deformed along the edges, although the general pattern of movement from the lower layers to the higher ones is preserved, adjusted for specific historical specifics.

The second approach to understanding history is cyclical, civilizational. The cyclic model of world perception was formed in the ancient agricultural civilizations and received a philosophical interpretation in ancient Greece (Plato, the Stoics). The space of historical changes in the cyclical approach is not united, but is divided into independent formations, each of which has its own history. However, all historical formations, in principle, are arranged in the same way and have a circular structure: origin - growth - flourishing - breakdown - decline. These formations are called differently: civilizations (J.A. Gobineau and A.J. Toynbee), cultural-historical individuals (G. Ruckert), cultural-historical types (N.Ya. Danilevsky), cultures or great cultures (O . Spengler), ethnoi and superethnoi (L.N. Gumilyov).

The evolutionist approach makes it possible to identify the accumulation of a new quality, shifts in the economic, socio-cultural, institutional and political spheres of life, certain stages that society goes through in its development. The picture that is obtained as a result of applying this approach resembles a set of discrete segments stretched along a hypothetical line that represents the movement from a point of underdevelopment to progress. Civilization approach focuses attention on a complex of rather slowly changing parameters that characterize the sociocultural and civilizational core of the social system. Within the framework of this approach, the researcher focuses on the inertia of history, on the continuity (continuity, sequence) of the historical past and present.

Different in their essence, these approaches complement each other. Indeed, the whole course human history convinces that there is development and progress in it, despite the possibility of serious crises and reverse movements. Moreover, individual components of the social structure change (and develop) unevenly, at different rates, and the rate of development of each of them has a certain effect on other components (accelerating or slowing down their development). A society at a lower stage of development differs in a number of parameters from a society that is at a higher stage of development (this also applies to a single society considered at different phases of its development). At the same time, changes are usually unable to completely blur the features that are attributed to a particular society. The transformations themselves often lead only to a regrouping, a rearrangement of accents in the complex of root parameters that characterize it, to a transfiguration of the relationships that exist between them.

The perception of the historical process on the basis of these approaches makes it possible to realize that the world is infinitely diverse and that is why it cannot exist without conflict, but at the same time, objectivity and the need for progressive development determine the search for compromises, the tolerant development of mankind.

In addition to these approaches, a significant addition to the development of modern methodology of history is the political science approach, which provides an opportunity to compare political systems and draw objective conclusions about historical and political processes.

The theory of mentalities, in turn, makes it possible to introduce into scientific circulation a new range of historical sources that reflect the everyday life of people, their thoughts and feelings, and to more adequately reconstruct the past through the view of a person who lived in this past.

Enriches the modern methodology of historical science and a synergistic approach that allows us to consider each system as a certain unity of order and chaos. Particular attention deserves the complexity and unpredictability of the behavior of the systems under study during periods of their unstable development, at bifurcation points, when insignificant causes can have a direct impact on the choice of the vector. community development. According to the synergetic approach, the dynamics of complex social organizations is associated with a regular alternation of acceleration and deceleration of the development process, limited decay and reconstruction of structures, and a periodic shift of influence from the center to the periphery and back. Partial return in the new conditions to cultural and historical traditions, according to the synergistic concept, -necessary condition maintaining a complex social organization.

In historical science, the wave approach is also known, focusing on the wave-like nature of the evolution of complex social systems. This approach also allows alternatives development of human society and the possibility of changing the vector of development, but not returning society to its original state, but advancing it along the path of modernization, not without the participation of traditions.

Other approaches deserve attention: the historical-anthropological, phenomenological and historiosophical approach, which defines the task - to reveal the meaning and purpose of the historical process, the meaning of life.

Acquaintance of the student with various methodological approaches to the study of the historical process makes it possible to overcome one-sidedness in the explanation and understanding of history, and contributes to the development of historicism of thinking.

test questions

1. What are the main levels of the methodology of historical research, which of them, in your opinion, is the most important and why?

2. What, in your opinion, should prevail in historical research: description or explanation?

3. Can historians be absolutely objective?

4. Give examples of the use of historical-genetic and problem-chronological methods.

5. Which approach to the study of history: evolutionary or cyclic is more clear to you and why?

Literature

1.Historical science today: Theories, methods, perspectives. M., 2012.

2. Methodological problems of history / Ed. Ed. V.N. Sidortsov. Minsk, 2006.

3. Repina L.P. Historical science at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. M., 2011.

4. Savelyeva I.M., Poletaev A.V. Knowledge of the past: theory and history. St. Petersburg, 2003.

5. Tertyshny A.T., Trofimov A.V. Russia: images of the past and meanings of the present. Yekaterinburg, 2012.

They are based on philosophical, general scientific ones, they are the basis of concrete-problem methods.

Historical-genetic and retrospective methods. The historical-genetic method is the most common. It is aimed at the consistent disclosure of properties, functions and changes in historical reality. According to the definition of I. Kovalchenko, by logical nature it is analytical, inductive, by the form of information expression it is descriptive. It is aimed at identifying cause-and-effect relationships, at analyzing the emergence (genesis) of certain phenomena and processes. Historical events are also shown in their individuality, concreteness.

When applying this method, some errors are possible if it is absolutized. With emphasis on the study of the development of phenomena and processes, one should not underestimate the stability of these phenomena and processes. Further, showing the individuality and uniqueness of events, one should not lose sight of the 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. It is possible to reconstruct this past by elements of the preserved past. Going into the past, we can clarify the stages of formation, the formation of the phenomenon that we have in the present. What may seem random in the genetic approach, in the retrospective method will seem to be a prerequisite for later events. In the present we have a more developed object in comparison with its previous forms and we 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 on the maturing of the revolution. But if we return to this period, already knowing what happened in the course of the revolution, we will know the deeper causes and prerequisites of the revolution, which manifested themselves especially clearly in the course of the revolution itself. We will see not individual facts and events, but a coherent regular chain of phenomena that naturally led to the revolution.

Synchronous, chronological and diachronic methods. The synchronous method is focused on the study of various events occurring at the same time. All phenomena in society are interconnected, and this method, especially often used in a systematic approach, helps to reveal this connection. And this will make it possible to clarify the explanation of the 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 where he showed the system of states in the period English revolution mid-seventeenth in. However, to this day, this approach is poorly developed in Russian historiography: the chronological histories of individual countries predominate. Only recently has an attempt been made to write the history of Europe not as the sum of individual states, but as a definite system of states, to show the mutual influence and interconnection of events.

chronological method. It is used by every historian - the study of the sequence of historical events in time (chronology). Important facts must not be overlooked. Distortions of history are often allowed, when historians hush up 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 a chronological sequence of events.

Diachronic method (or periodization method). The qualitative features of processes in time, the moments of formation of new stages, periods are singled out, the state at the beginning and at the end of the period is compared, and the general direction of development is determined. 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. One criterion cannot be replaced by 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 an asynchrony of events and processes, and the historian must take this into account. When there are several criteria and various schemes, the historical process is more deeply known.

Historical-comparative method. Even enlighteners began to apply the comparative method. F. Voltaire wrote one of the first world stories, but the comparison was used 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. Virtually no historical study is complete without comparison.

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 up for understanding the essence of phenomena. The essence can be understood by the similarity and difference of the characteristics inherent in the phenomena. The logical basis of the method is analogy, when, based on the similarity of some features of an object, a conclusion is made about the similarity of others.

The method allows you to reveal the essence of phenomena when it is not obvious, to identify the general, repetitive, natural, to make generalizations, to draw historical parallels. A number of requirements must be met. Comparison should be carried out on specific facts that reflect the essential features of phenomena, and not formal similarities. You need to know the era, the typology of phenomena. It is possible to compare phenomena of the same type and different types, at one or different stages of development. In one case, the essence will be revealed on the basis of identifying similarities, in the other - differences. We should not forget the principle of historicism.

But application comparative method also has some limitations. It helps to understand the diversity of reality, but not its specificity in a particular 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 methods mentioned, is rarely used in its entirety.

Historical-typological method. Typology - the division of objects or phenomena into different types based on essential features, the identification of homogeneous sets of objects. I. Kovalchenko considers the typological method to be the method of essential analysis. Such a result is not given by the formal descriptive classification proposed by the positivists. The subjective approach led to the idea of ​​constructing types only in the thinking of the historian. M. Weber deduced the theory of "ideal types", which for a long time was not used by domestic sociologists, who interpreted it in a simplified way. In fact, it was about modeling, which is now accepted by all researchers.

According to I. Kovalchenko, types are distinguished on the basis of a deductive approach and theoretical analysis. The types and features that characterize the qualitative certainty are distinguished. Then we can attribute the object to a particular type. I. Kovalchenko illustrates all this on the example of the 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 the methods of historical research is devoted to this. We refer the reader to this book.

Historical-system method. This method was also developed by I. Kovalchenko in connection with the use of mathematical methods, modeling in historical science. The method proceeds from 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. All of them are functionally related. It is necessary to isolate the system under study from the hierarchy of systems. After the selection of the system, a structural analysis follows, the determination of the relationship between the components of the system 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 under study with systems more high level(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 economy, 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 in synchronous analysis, but the process of development remains undiscovered. 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 is universal and absolute. You need to use them in combination. 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 errors and false conclusions.

The positivists believed that scientific methods were the same for the natural and human sciences. The neo-Kantians opposed the method of history to the method of the natural sciences. In fact, 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 the domestic historical literature about the application of general scientific methods in his book on the methods of historical research. We will not characterize these methods in detail from a philosophical point of view, but only show the specifics of their application in historical science.

Logical and historical method. In history, synchrony is used - 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 act in pure form and in unity. As a result, we study the subject in space and time. The logical method is provided by a systematic approach and structural and functional analysis.

The historical method implements the principle of historicism, which was discussed above. The development process is studied through the analysis of the state of the object in different time slices. First an analysis of structure and function, then a historical analysis. You can't break these two methods.

I. Kovalchenko gives an example. If we use only the historical method, we can conclude that in agriculture Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was dominated by semi-serf relations. But if we add a logical analysis - system-structural - 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 to be 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 should reflect the essential aspects of reality.

The ascent from the concrete to the abstract is carried out in three ways. Through abstraction (certain properties are considered in isolation from other properties of the object, or a set of features of the object is distinguished and it is possible to build essential-content and formal-quantitative models).

The second technique is abstraction by means of identifying the non-identical: the object is assigned such states and characteristics that it does not possess. It is used for various kinds of classifications and typology.

The third technique is idealization - an object is formed with certain ideal properties. They are inherent in the object, but not sufficiently expressed. This makes it possible to carry out deductive-integral modeling. Abstraction helps to better understand the essence of the object.

But in order to understand the essence of concrete phenomena, the second stage is necessary - the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. Specific theoretical knowledge appears in the form of scientific concepts, laws, theories. The merit of developing such a method belongs to K. Marx ("Capital"). This method is complicated and, according to I. Kovalchenko, is not widely used.

System approach and system analysis. System - 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 its constituent elements. Each system has a structure, structure and functions. System components -- subsystems and elements. Social systems have a complex structure, which the historian should study. A systematic approach helps to understand the laws of the functioning of social systems. The leading method is structural-functional analysis.

Foreign science has accumulated extensive experience in the application of system analysis in history. Domestic researchers note the following shortcomings in the application of new methods. The interaction of the system with the environment is often ignored. the basis of all public structures the structures turn out to be subconscious-mental, possessing high stability; as a result, the structure turns out to be unchanged. Finally, the hierarchy of structures is denied, and society turns out to be an unordered set of closed and unchanging structures. The inclination towards synchronous study in statics often leads to the rejection of dynamic diachronic analysis.

Induction - deduction. Induction is a study from the singular to the general. Deduction - from the general to the particular, the singular. The historian investigates the facts and arrives at a generalized concept and, conversely, applies the concepts known to him to explain the facts. Every fact has elements in common. 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 reasoning is often erroneous. Historians in the 19th century used mainly the inductive method. Some are still suspicious of the deductive method. D. Elton believes that the use of theories not based on the empirical material of sources can be detrimental to science. However, this extreme point view is not shared by most historians. To penetrate into the essence of phenomena, it is necessary to use concepts and theories, including those from related sciences. Induction and deduction are organically linked 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 separate elements. The historian cannot cover as a whole the period or object of study he is studying. Having studied individual aspects, factors, the historian must combine the elements of knowledge obtained about individual aspects of historical reality, and the concepts obtained in the course of the analysis are combined into a single whole. Moreover, the 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, bringing together historians, sociologists and representatives of the natural and mathematical sciences a number of countries. He advocated a cultural-historical synthesis, for the fusion of history and sociology, the use of the achievements of psychology and anthropology. Approximately a hundred monographs by various historians were published in the series “The Evolution of Mankind. 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 the Second World War, went further than him in search of a synthesis.

Each philosophical trend offered its own basis for synthesis, but so far the factors were shuffled in a positivist spirit. Recently, the idea of ​​a synthesis based on culture in the postmodern sense has emerged. We should wait for specific historical works in this direction.

One thing is clear, analysis and synthesis are inextricably linked. Successes in analysis will not be significant if they are not in synthesis. Synthesis will give a new impetus to analysis, and that, in turn, will lead to a new synthesis. There are successes in achieving a synthesis, but they are of a partial and short-term nature, sometimes material, sometimes ideal factors are put forward as determining ones, but there is no unity among historians. The larger the subject of study, 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, to test hypotheses, and to develop a theory. This technique is also used by historians. Modeling of a historical phenomenon is carried out by means of logical design - mental models of a content-functional plan are created. Modeling is associated with some simplification, idealization and abstraction. It allows you to check the representativeness of information sources, the reliability of facts, test hypotheses and theories. This method is used at all stages of the study. An example of a study of the community can be given. When creating its model, data from sociology, law, psychology are used, mentality is taken into account. This already means the application of an interdisciplinary approach. At the same time, it must be remembered that it is impossible to simply transfer a model from another discipline, it must be reconstructed taking into account conceptual constructions.

Exists mathematical modeling. Methods of nonlinear dynamics, mathematical theory of chaos, 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 when solving scientific problems. This unexpected solution is then tested scientifically. In history, at the end of the 19th century, V. Dilthey, referring history to the sciences of the spirit, considered the historian's intuition as the main method of 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 very different in erudition and abilities. Objective research methods were needed.

But this does not mean that intuition does not play a major role in scientific research. For a historian, it is based on a deep knowledge of his subject, broad erudition, and the ability to timely apply this or that method. Without knowledge, no intuition will “work”. But, of course, talent is needed for “insight” to come. This speeds up the work of the historian, helps to create outstanding works.