ScholarGate
Βοηθός

Σύγκριση μεθόδων

Εξετάστε τις επιλεγμένες μεθόδους δίπλα-δίπλα· οι γραμμές που διαφέρουν επισημαίνονται.

Archival Content Analysis×Source Criticism×
ΠεδίοHistoriographyHistoriography
ΟικογένειαProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Έτος προέλευσης19521889
ΔημιουργόςAdapted from Berelson and Lasswell content analysis; Furet's quantitative historyLeopold von Ranke; Bernheim and Langlois-Seignobos codification
Τύποςmixed qualitative-quantitative methodqualitative critical method
Θεμελιώδης πηγήFuret, F. (1971). Le quantitatif en histoire. In J. Le Goff & P. Nora (Eds.), Faire de l'histoire (Vol. 1, pp. 42-61). Gallimard. ISBN: 9782070287666Howell, M., & Prevenier, W. (2001). From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods. Cornell University Press. ISBN: 9780801485602
Εναλλακτικές ονομασίεςDocumentary Content Analysis, Archival Coding, Quantitative-Qualitative Content Analysis, Source CodingQuellenkritik, Historical Criticism, External and Internal Criticism, Heuristic and Critical Method
Συναφείς44
ΣύνοψηArchival content analysis adapts the social-scientific technique of content analysis to the systematic study of historical documents held in archives. Where the impressionistic reading of sources risks privileging the vivid or the convenient, content analysis imposes an explicit, replicable procedure: a defined corpus, a coding scheme of categories, the consistent application of those categories to every document, and the analysis of the resulting frequencies and co-occurrences. Pioneered for mass communication by Bernard Berelson and Harold Lasswell, the approach was absorbed into the quantitative history championed by Francois Furet and others, who treated runs of administrative records as data to be counted and tabulated. Applied to archives, however, the method must reckon with a complication absent from designed surveys: the archive was not created to answer the historian's questions. Its categories, survivals, and silences reflect the purposes and power of the institution that produced it, so disciplined coding must be paired with critical reflection on the archive's own logic.Source criticism (Quellenkritik) is the foundational procedure of the historical discipline, by which a scholar interrogates a source before treating any of its statements as evidence. Codified in the nineteenth century by Ernst Bernheim and by Charles-Victor Langlois and Charles Seignobos, and rooted in Ranke's insistence on examining documents at first hand, the method divides into two complementary operations. External (or lower) criticism establishes whether a source is what it purports to be: its authenticity, the integrity of its text, its author, place, and date. Internal (or higher) criticism then asks what the source means and how far its assertions can be trusted, weighing the author's competence, sincerity, proximity to events, and interests. Only after both passes does the historian compare independent sources and synthesize a defensible account. The discipline of the method lies precisely in its refusal to take any testimony at face value.
ScholarGateΣύνολο δεδομένων
  1. v1
  2. 2 Πηγές
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Πηγές
  3. PUBLISHED

Μετάβαση στην αναζήτηση Λήψη διαφανειών

ScholarGateΣύγκριση μεθόδων: Archival Content Analysis · Source Criticism. Ανακτήθηκε στις 2026-06-25 από https://scholargate.app/el/compare