NF First steps when you begin research

[MackCW]

I've got another search to do. According to my GGGG Grandmother, John was deceived into enlisting and promised a bounty which he hadn't received by November 1862 by a man named Babbitt. As someone said, this becomes a rabbit hole that I'm happily descending into.

 

[Coonewah Creek]

You've already gotten great advice from a lot of folks about how to begin a research project. Once you get started however, somewhere along the line "burnout" becomes a real possibility. You look at how much is left to do and it looks impossible to complete...you hit a "brick wall"...other priorities just get in the way.

You can take this for "what it worth," and honestly I don't even abide by its principles at times when I should, but I think one of the best discussions for time management is an older book (may be out of print...I'm not sure) by Alan Lakein, "How to Get Control of Your Time and Your Life." What he suggests for big, complex projects is to apply the "Swiss Cheese" approach. This makes the project not look quite so overwhelming and intimidating.

Lay out your tasks making up the project so you can estimate about how much time each will take. For example, you may not be able to start on a big task of your project right now, but can you "punch a hole" in it on a smaller task with the 10 minutes you do have free? Just something that you know you need to do that doesn't take a huge investment of time or energy. So you find out once you're able to punch a bunch of these little holes in your big project, it starts to look like a slice of Swiss cheese. Punch enough holes, what's left finally looks manageable. For me, it does help...

 

[MackCW]

You've already gotten great advice from a lot of folks about how to begin a research project. Once you get started however, somewhere along the line "burnout" becomes a real possibility. You look at how much is left to do and it looks impossible to complete...you hit a "brick wall"...other priorities just get in the way.

You can take this for "what it worth," and honestly I don't even abide by its principles at times when I should, but I think one of the best discussions for time management is an older book (may be out of print...I'm not sure) by Alan Lakein, "How to Get Control of Your Time and Your Life." What he suggests for big, complex projects is to apply the "Swiss Cheese" approach. This makes the project not look quite so overwhelming and intimidating.

Lay out your tasks making up the project so you can estimate about how much time each will take. For example, you may not be able to start on a big task of your project right now, but can you "punch a hole" in it on a smaller task with the 10 minutes you do have free? Just something that you know you need to do that doesn't take a huge investment of time or energy. So you find out once you're able to punch a bunch of these little holes in your big project, it starts to look like a slice of Swiss cheese. Punch enough holes, what's left finally looks manageable. For me, it does help...

I appreciate your words and advice. Will check it out. Thanks so much.

 

[Sharon C.]

Isn't that a story told many times over... that a Veteran survives a war (or two), comes home and is killed in a
ridiculous fracas with "friends?" So sad.

 

[James N.]

Often I seem to be looking for information on specific units. Assuming I know next to nothing about the particular regiment, I want first to know what larger formation (unit) it belonged to: brigade, division, and corps. Being definitely "old school" and having no computer available at home, I'm most likely to sit down with my copy of Battles And Leaders and look through the various orders of battle for the major campaigns of the war. The main problem for me is wanting a general idea from which I can make inferences and then hopefully fill in details later as I go along; however, most general histories don't go as far as individual regiments, especially among the Confederates. However, once I find the larger unit designation I have much better luck discovering what happened to their component regiments, if I don't already know.

For example, using my own ancestor, once I found out his regiment I didn't recognize the 33rd Alabama. But once I found it as a part of Wood's/Lowrey's Brigade of Pat Cleburne's Division of Hardee's/Cheatham's Corps of the Army of Tennessee, I could instantly place it from Perryville through Nashville based on previous reading about this famous division and its commander. Further research showed its colonel and some details about its particular service.

 

[letterreader]

Hello all,

This is a question for those that have written about the Civil War or on any subject that requires research. How do you usually begin? With a general account to get a framework of an idea? The OR? Memoirs? Or does it just depend on the subject and whatever feels right?

I'm curious what your approaches are, especially since we have so many writers on this forum.

Great question and so far, you have some great replies here, all that appear very helpful. I would add the following that addresses both researching and writing. I've been working on the same subject for almost 30 years, one inspired by a set of letters from my great grandfather. The first inspiration led to my graduate work and dissertation, a unique literacy project by identifying the major experiences influencing the words in my ancestor's letters. The academics liked it, but many CW readers would find it too academic and even boring. Since then, I've learned how incredibly rich and diverse this subject area can be. I've had to re-examine my assumptions and goals several times. As a result, I've had to redefine a book project more than once.

Regarding the research, several have noted the importance of taking a "big" look at your topic. I could not agree more. Context is everything to me, and sometimes my demise. Facts don't exist in a vacuum. Knowing more about context will enrich your understanding and likely lead to more informed decisions on what you write, present and any analysis or interpretation you share. If you want a good example of what I'm describing, read Gary Wills book if you have not already, Lincoln at Gettysburg. In my view, it's a great example of one scholar demonstrating how and why Lincoln's words resonated with his audience. This is an extreme example perhaps that few of us could every replicate, but it does help explain to today's readers why Lincoln's words resonated with so many at the time.

Even when you start the research, envisioning the "end" and your writing can help you establish focus. Regarding the writing, you really have to force yourself to articulate your primary audience and what you want them to gain by the experience of reading your work. Doing so has helped me sort out what seems interesting to me but is mostly a long digression into a very secondary topic, a highly specialized one with a more limited audience. Save that research and topic for another project, perhaps a different publication or even a presentation. Last, Civil War readers represent a very broad and diverse set of readers. Just look at all the backgrounds and interests of the Forum readers here. Some folks have strong interdisciplinary interests, but others just want to stick to the topics they know and want to learn more about them. Force yourself to answer in one clear and concise sentence what you want your reader to know as a result of your research and writing. If you cannot do so, you are not ready to write and perhaps were not quite ready to begin your research with some sense of direction and guidance. Good luck with your research!

 

[danny]

Step one is to narrow down what you are looking for; Person, place, thing, battle or campaign?

A timeline is very helpful. What were the order of events leading up to the event you are investigating.

if you have already made up your mind & are looking for citations that confirm your preconceived idea, you are wasting your time. Inductive logic inevitably leads to false conclusions.

Follow the evidence. The whole point of doing research is finding out things you don't know. Living with it can be a challenge. That is especially true of family history. A good friend of mine was nearly physically assaulted by two of his great aunts when he found out that g-g-grandpa had deserted the CSA army & marched to the sea with Sherman.

Do not use secondary sources. A popular book on the subject may be a starting point to inspire interest, but it is not a source. There are a world of Masters thesis & doctoral dissertations available online on just about any subject you can imagine.You may or may not agree with their conclusions, but the footnotes are a treasure trove. They have done the legwork, you will know where to look.

Read the original documentation yourself. Nothing cuts through Lost Cause distortions like reading the original 1858-1870 documents.

Cast a wide net. Gather as much as you can. Don't be discouraged because there is little or nothing to be found... welcome to the club. Some things are very difficult to document, some things never really existed & were made up later.

Have fun, I have been looking into a very thinly documented event for 20 years.

 

[DixieRifles]

Remember that the real value of a secondary source is in its footnotes and bibliography. If either is thin or absent, it's a story book, not a history

I came across a detailed history of a Confedetate cavalry regiment. It had a good history of many cavalry battles. The only appendix is a list of all the men who served, along with notes on many. But it had NO footnotes nor bibliography. I showed it to a writer and he said pretty much what you said— this book is worthless and the info cant be trusted. Yet it is the only book that Ive found that has good account of the battle in my town.
[ Edited ]
What is odd, Im reading Timothy Smith's new book and he has a footnote referencing this "worthless book".

Now Im working with a team of volunteers who are trying to compile a history of our town. Im adding footnotes as I change thoughts— every paragraph. But it doesnt match the number of footnotes found in books Im reading now.
How do you judge when you need footnotes?
For example, I used one after-action report by a general from the OR. But that one letter may be used throughout a whole chapter. Do I keep footnoting that same reference over and over?

 

[Gary Morgan]

But it had NO footnotes nor bibliography. I showed it to a writer and he said pretty much what you said— this book is worthless and the info cant be trusted. Yet it is the only book that Ive found that has good account of the battle in my town.
[ Edited ]
But that one letter may be used throughout a whole chapter. Do I keep footnoting that same reference over and over?

I tend to think that older books, particularly regimental histories written by one of the men in the unit, don't need footnotes, since there were often no prior books on the subject to refer to. For a modern book that is not, say, a word for word reproduction on a diary, I would expect there to be endnotes and a good bibliography.

To answer your other question, the Modern Language Association has redone it's format for bibliographies at least three times since I've been teaching (frequently with regards to how to document electronic media vs print media), and the MLA format, which tells you to put the author's name first, is different from the APA format, which tells you to put the title first. For your purposes, I say go old school, and just use good old "ibid" for now with the relevant page number afterward, and if you are referring to a single letter throughout the chapter, I think that as long as you mention the present location of the letter in the chapter, you don't need to footnote it.

Someone may come along and disagree with me, but until you are ready to publish and as long as YOU know where the source material came from, just concentrate on doing the best piece of writing you can do for now and use whatever sources you think are relevant.