UF 116 9/10: Comprehensive Notes on Historical Method, Counterfactuals, and Source Analysis
Pandemic Terminology: Pandemic vs Endemic
The discussion opens with a quick distinction: pandemic vs endemic.
Endemic: a disease that is consistently present at a baseline level in a population (example: comparison to common flu or cold).
Pandemic: not explicitly defined in a formal sense here, but used in contrast to endemic to discuss broader disease spread.
The speaker uses simple, accessible language to anchor students in basic infectious-disease terminology before delving into analytical methods.
Counterfactuals in Historical Research
Counterfactuals are hypothetical scenarios about what could have happened but did not.
They are common in historical thinking, especially when exploring patterns and causes.
Risk: without an actual starting point, counterfactuals can devolve into opinion, hearsay, and theory rather than evidence.
Example discussed: Civil War in the United States – “What if the Confederates had won?” proponents claim various outcomes, but no solid evidence can prove these as actualities.
Key takeaway: counterfactuals can illuminate thinking but cannot be used as solid argument without legitimate起 starting points.
Causation vs Correlation
Causation: something legitimately creates or leads to another outcome. It denotes a direct causal link.
Correlation: two events occur at the same time but do not necessarily indicate a cause-and-effect relationship; could be coincidental.
Important caution: do not conflate correlation with causation.
Historians may theorize that a correlation suggests potential causation, but they cannot declare a singular cause solely from correlation.
Quick recap formula (illustrative):
Covariance and correlation conceptually capture association; a common quantitative representation is the Pearson correlation coefficient
A nonzero r indicates association, not proven causation.
The Historical Method: Why Questions, Gaps, Hypotheses, and Interpretation
Many history questions are driven by a “why” question: Why did something happen? Why did it affect some groups more than others?
A central tactic: identify what is missing or not answered yet – the research gap.
From gaps, develop a hypothesis or research question.
Interpretation: evaluate what sources (primary and secondary) allow you to infer from the data.
Primary source: firsthand encounter, occurring at the time of the event.
Secondary source: analysis of a primary source.
Distinct for historians: inability to “prove” a historical claim with the same certainty as some scientific fields; historians build a historiography instead.
Historiography: the ongoing conversation among historians about how to interpret a topic; reveals how debates have evolved and what components were missed or added by later scholars.
Secondary sources are crucial because they help you understand how others have written about the topic and what debates exist.
Students are encouraged to constantly compare sources and recognize biases or missing elements in each.
Primary vs Secondary Sources and Historiography in Practice
Primary sources provide direct evidence from the time/event (letters, photographs, official documents, poems, petitions, injunctions, etc.).
Secondary sources synthesize and interpret primary sources (monographs, analyses, reviews).
In the Storyville case study, the instructor emphasizes how sources are categorized and how the same item can function as primary or secondary depending on how you use it:
EJ Bellock’s Storyville portraits: lack of annotations (no dates, places, or subjects named) – complicates treatment as a primary data point.
Nell Kimball memoir: presented as a memoir but later revealed as a forgery; its classification as primary/secondary has implications for reliability.
Longstreet’s published memoir: presented as a first-hand life story but later shown to be fabricated; raises questions about sourcing and labeling.
Al Rose’s compilation: widely cited but criticisms exist about verification and lack of citations; questions about who wrote what and why it’s considered authoritative.
Storyville Museum: treated as a tertiary source in some contexts (a collection), but the instructor uses it as a primary lens for examining preservation and interpretation of the district.
Maps, Blue Book, and other artifacts: used as data points, with attention to how they were produced and what they reveal about the period.
Poetry and petitions: demonstrate literacy and social voices (e.g., prostitutes’ petition to keep the district open), illustrating how everyday people contributed to the historical record.
Injections and legal documents: injunctions and lawsuits (e.g., a prostitute’s injunction against the city) provide insights into legal and social dynamics.
Other forms of evidence (an art piece, a booklet, banners): used to triangulate interpretations of Storyville.
Ambiguities in labeling: some artifacts labeled as secondary sources (e.g., certain memoirs) are treated as primary data for questions about preservation and memory; the labeling itself becomes a research question.
Core issue: who wrote the history and whose voices are amplified or suppressed can shape the interpretation of events.
The instructor highlights that the topic’s historiography involves constant re-evaluation as new information or new critiques emerge.
Strong Research Questions and Finding Evidence
Emphasis on starting with a strong, concise research question.
A good research question should be one clear sentence (not a sprawling paragraph) that guides the inquiry.
Students should identify data that could support their theory as well as data that contradicts it; avoid confirmation bias.
In practice: when researching a topic like Storyville, consider what data would support the claim and what data would challenge it.
The instructor’s example research question: “Why were the mixed-race maps in Storyville basically written off of the visual record?”
Why these maps existed, why they disappeared from the record, and who benefited from their absence.
The question leads to an examination of preservation, memory, and power dynamics in historiography.
A strong research habit: anticipate gaps in the existing literature and use that to frame data collection and interpretation.
Case Study: Storyville – A Researcher’s Method and Sources
Timeframe and context: Victorian era; 19th to early 20th century; “code of war” referenced as 1724 precedence and its influence on relationships in the district.
Primary data points the researcher explored:
Newspaper clippings around Storyville and its closure.
A faux/forged booklet circulated in the 1960s that was treated as authentic for many years.
Storyville portraits by EJ Bellock: lacked annotation (who/when/where), complicating attribution.
A letter to Mayor Berman requesting closure of Storyville.
Storyville Museum artifacts: maps, films, blue book, and art pieces; treated as primary or tertiary sources depending on perspective.
Poetry about Storyville, demonstrating public discourse and literacy.
Petitions and legal documents by sex workers showing social and legal perspectives.
An injunction filed by a prostitute against the city, providing a legal voice from the community.
Sources treated as secondary or tertiary with re-interpretive aims:
Nell Kimball memoir: later revealed to be fake; raises concerns about reliability and labeling of “memoir” vs “fiction.”
A well-known historian (Al Rose) who compiled a large amount of material, but whose sourcing and verification were questioned.
The historiographical debate around whether the district’s memory was shaped by the writer’s identity or by the subject’s experiences.
Key interpretive questions raised:
How does preservation (what is kept) shape what we know about Storyville?
How does memory construction (who writes about the event) influence our understanding of the district?
Are there missed components that other scholars should consider? If so, what are they?
The professor emphasizes that the Storyville case demonstrates how data quality, provenance, and labeling affect interpretation and that you must examine both the data and the manner in which it was produced and preserved.
Additional sources mentioned for Storyville context:
Maps, film materials, blue books, and other artifacts that document spatial and visual memory of the district.
The role of poets, inscriptions, petitions, and lawsuits in providing alternative testimonies beyond institutional records.
Research takeaway: the past is constructed through a range of artifacts, and historians must interrogate labeling, provenance, and the biases of those who produced the records.
Paleopathology and Pandemic-Era Research: Group Exercise and Questions
The assignment asks students to draw on a paleopathology Anderson article (chapter one referenced) and to discuss a set of bottom-of-article questions.
Examples of potential discussion prompts from the Anderson article section:
Compassion and cultural definitions: Why might it be problematic to assume compassion when analyzing skeletons or past medical practices?
Tray penetration method (trepanation) and its role in epidemiology: What is its significance, and what does it reveal about beliefs and medical practices?
The question of whether the presence of cancer, or post-stroke indicators, can be inferred from skeletal remains, and how that informs epidemiology or social history.
Whether the history of medicine can be written only by medical doctors, and what non-medical perspectives (historians, communities, religious groups, patients, families) contribute to medical history.
The value of diverse perspectives (e.g., preachers, nurses, laypersons) in reconstructing medical history and public health experiences.
The group discussion outcomes (from the transcript) highlighted:
Non-medical authors can contribute valuable insights; medical training is not the sole determinant of valid historical interpretation.
Historians play a crucial role in analyzing evidence, identifying biases, and translating old texts into accessible interpretations.
The pandemic example demonstrates the importance of considering social impact, not just medical data alone.
The need to balance different kinds of sources (medical records, personal narratives, church records) to avoid narrow conclusions and confirm biases.
The concept of cost-risk analysis in medical interventions (e.g., during historical surgical procedures) can reveal historical mindsets and limitations.
Specific paleopathology observations discussed:
The trepanation discussion noted its quick execution (often about thirty minutes) and targeting non-motor regions of the skull; healing practices included hair management and the use of gold or silver plates for stabilization.
The absence of obvious skull abnormalities post-surgery and the reported low infection rates were discussed, illustrating how surgical narratives shape our understanding of historical medicine.
Consideration of what constituted a “successful” intervention could differ across historical contexts and complicates modern judgments.
The exercise emphasized examining what counts as evidence of medical care and how to interpret historical medical practices in light of available data and social context.
Additional notes from the group discussions:
The debate around the precautionary value of non-medical sources for understanding epidemics, including the role of social institutions like churches and lay networks in shaping public health narratives.
The importance of preserving a broad evidentiary base to capture the full social and cultural impact of health crises, not just clinical outcomes.
Practical Guidance for Research and Data Collection in Historical Epidemics
Start with a clear, concise research question; be able to summarize it in one sentence.
Identify data sources that could support your theory and actively seek sources that could challenge or disprove it.
Be wary of confirmation bias; deliberately seek contradictory or missing evidence to fill gaps.
Consider a wide breadth of sources beyond doctors and scientists:
City records, census data, urban development plans, and infrastructure (e.g., water/sewer systems) that show living conditions and public health measures.
Medical records, early outbreak reports, and treatment narratives in both formal and informal channels.
Art, poetry, newspapers, letters, petitions, and legal documents that illuminate social experiences and attitudes.
Oral histories, religious or community records, and non-traditional data sources (e.g., memoirs, diaries) with careful scrutiny of provenance.
Remember that scientific notions of proof (as in some scientific theories) do not map directly onto historical claims; historiography is iterative and contested.
When labeling sources, be explicit about their provenance, authorship, and potential biases; treat some documents as primary in a given context and as secondary or tertiary in another.
Use the interplay of evidence to build a nuanced interpretation rather than a single, definitive conclusion.
Ethical and Philosophical Considerations in Historical Research
Who wrote the history—and for whom it was written—shapes what counts as evidence and what is omitted.
Forged or misrepresented documents (e.g., a fake memoir or forgery circulated as authentic) underscore the importance of source verification and critical appraisal.
The need to balance expert knowledge with lay or experiential knowledge (e.g., survivors’ accounts, community voices) to gain a fuller understanding of historical events.
Recognition that some aspects of the past may remain partially obscure; historians must acknowledge gaps and why they exist, rather than pretend complete certainty.
Recap: Key Takeaways for Exam Preparation
Understand the difference between pandemic and endemic contexts and why these distinctions matter for public health history.
Distinguish causation from correlation and recognize the limits of inference when only correlations are observed.
Master the language of historical methods: why questions, data gaps, hypotheses, interpretation, and historiography.
Be able to classify sources as primary, secondary, and tertiary; recognize that the same artifact can play different roles depending on the research question.
Appreciate how memory, attribution, and provenance influence historical narratives (e.g., Storyville sources and the impact of whose voice is heard).
Apply a robust research-question framework to pandemics and epidemics by considering a wide set of data, including medical, social, demographic, urban, and cultural evidence.
When discussing modern parallels (e.g., COVID-19), acknowledge the value of multiple perspectives beyond medical experts and embrace the social dimension of health crises.
Develop critical thinking about the credibility of sources, the possibility of forgeries, and the necessity of corroboration across multiple evidence streams.
Use explicit, one-sentence research questions and actively seek data that tests and challenges your hypothesis to minimize confirmation bias.