I’ve communicated with the University of Massachusetts Archives and they’re setting aside some resources for us so I can visit on Friday. I’m excited! It’s been hard to feel really connected to the subject when all of our sources are either secondary and/or are reprinted primary sources. This project has really highlighted the challenges that research poses. My previous (limited) experience has been fairly straightforward and this has been a challenge. The first part of our project was so frustratingly sparse in terms of resources and only now does it feel like we’re no longer scavenging.
One of our big challenges has been distilling all this seemingly information into a meaningful narrative without fabricating one. Both Lizzie and I are currently in a historiography course and this tension is the crux of our studies. I keep thinking of the theologian Friedrich Schliermacher who defined the distinction between history and chronicle. A chronicle was a list of events and history was the search for a deeper philosophical purpose behind a string of seemingly arbitrary facts. Unfortunately his thesis allowed room for many 19th-century historians to further racist and anti-Semitic philosophies. Not that we’re anywhere near that territory—eek! However, we are constructing our project around a strong and pretty stark argument. As we gather information, how much of the research is actually evidence of our claim or just an interpretation thrust upon it?
So are we researching correctly? I know how to cite, how to find an abundance of secondary and primary sources, how to analyze the bias behind those sources? But do I know how to recognize my own bias? Do I want this project to go so well and our argument to be so powerful that I misrepresent the Quaker’s story? All things to consider…