Historical Research Critique
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•798 views
This is my PowerPoint presentation for LIBR 285 - Fall 2012. The original link was lost.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Historical Research Critique
Similar to Historical Research Critique (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Historical Research Critique
- 1. Historical Research Critique Susan Duran LIBR 285 Fall 2012 October 13, 2012
- 2. Historical Study Dupin, C. (2006). The origins and early development of the National Film Library: 1929-1936. Journal of Media Practice 7(3). 199-217.
- 3. Research Summary • Early history of National Film Library of Britain • “Specific circumstances” and “changes” • Commission on Educational and Cultural Film report from the British Film Institute • Universal call for preservation • Ernest Lindgren and the British Film Institute • Final status of the National Film Library
- 4. In-depth Critique Research Problem: • Establish the “status” – ambiguous • Natural growth of a business (trial and error) • Author’s own interpretation • Better subject: a simple history study
- 5. In-depth Critique Review of Literature • Few primary sources not reviewed • Paraphrased and improper citations • Judgmental assumptions • Not enough data and material not used effectively
- 6. In-depth Critique Theoretical Framework • No theory, used ideology • Defining relationship between NFL and BFI • Was it strong or weak?
- 7. In-depth Critique Methods and Response • No definite research pattern • Assumption for research • Language biased, opinionated • Favoritism with Lindgren
- 8. In-depth Critique Methods and Response • Statistics were irrelevant • Assumptions • Citings incorrect • Improbable prediction
- 9. In-depth Critique Methods and Response • “Epilogue” rather than conclusion • Did not have enough valid evidence or testimony • Enough to warrant historical study…?
- 10. Results Evidence, argument and interpretation • Evidence: • No real proof of the need to find the “status” • No true theory or hypothesis • Argument: • BFI helped, not hampered NFL – Harry Price • Interpretation: • Used biased feelings, assumptions and judgments • Set to revere NFL, rather than report facts
- 11. Conclusion • Not efficient • Weak evidence • Weak testimony • Historical “story” not historical “research”
- 12. References Dupin, C. (2006). The origins and early development of the National Film Library: 1929-1936. Journal of Media Practice 7(3). 199-217. Ostrowski, D. (2003). Three criteria of historical study. Harvard University. Retrieved on October 1, 2012 from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic866726.files/histor y.pdf.
Editor's Notes
- The historical research study I chose was Christophe Dupin’s “The origins and early development of the National Film Library: 1929 to 1936”. This was published in the Journal of Media Practice, volume 7 issue number 3. The pages read were 199 to 217.
- Christophe Dupin’s article is a historical study of the National Film Library in Britain. Describing the early history, the researcher wrote of the “specific circumstances” that lead to the Library’s creation, noting how “changes in these circumstances affected the process of its setting up” (Dupin, 2006). It was with help from the Commission on Educational and Cultural Film’s 1935 report that the idea of having a multidimensional entity to house a repository, loan library and a reference library surfaced. As part of a simultaneous international movement that involved several other countries, the need for film preservation became universal. Beginning with a few cans of film and donations, the National Film Library (NFL) grew extensively under the direction of its first curator, Ernest Lindgren and with the help of the British Film Institute. Using primary sources the author attempted to show the struggles and stresses that were involved between educators and preservationists to find the reason for its existence separate of the British Film Institute (BFI).
- The purpose put forth by the researcher was to find the status of the National Film Library under the British Film Institute. However, the meaning of “status” is murky. There were no real extenuating circumstances presented to describe such a need, other than to show the NFL’s early development. Like all types of relationships, there is a growth process. The relationship of the two entities was short of simple business evolution, give and take, trial and error. The author wished to show exactly how the NFL was “envisaged as one of the (British Film) Institute’s many prerogatives” (Dupin, 2006, pg. 201). But what type or which prerogative was that? Naturally, the author has leeway to interpret his own research. But as Don Ostrowski (2003) clearly pointed out, “Which comes first, facts or the interpretation? In this case, it seems interpretation supersedes the facts. Perhaps it would have been to examine the simple history of the NFL rather than researching to find how it stood apart from the BFI in the early years.
- None of literature cited was presented beforehand, and there were few primary sources, primarily reports, brochures and trade papers. One document reviewed was from the British Film Institute Commission on Educational and Cultural Films conference report. It was not cited correctly, and even used partial quotes. One lengthy quote from an exhibition booklet was used to describe the NFL’s adopted aims (goals) from the BFI. It would have been better suited to use actual and more reliable office documents or memoranda. It was also noted that some sections were paraphrased with a judgmental assumption. Perhaps a little more research might have yielded more informative sources. The study could also have scaled back its subject matter using only the material present for a narrower historical review.
- As part of the argument, this historical research study had no concrete causal or problem-specific theory to apply, suffice to say the researcher’s ideology appeared to be focused on the business relationships of the National Film Library and the British Film Institute only, rather than on any given theory – or at least one that was obvious to the reader. Perhaps it would have been better to define the relationship between the entities as either a strong or weak one, and whether one entity actually diminished the other.
- Using Don Ostrowski’s “Three Criteria of Historical Study” (2003) - evidence, argument and interpretation - this historical research paper was critiqued. First, a research pattern was expected, with a hypothesis or theory that ends with a conclusion or a summation. Instead, it was explained that a “status” needed to be established. The word is ambiguous at best. Without a discernible review of the literature or a clearly stated theory, the audience is left to assume – much like the researcher as to why this study was presented in the first place. Some of the language and vocabulary appear to be biased, ambiguous and self-serving. For example, Dupin (2006, pg. 204) discussed how small taxes were applied to British cinemas, and inserted his own opinion: that the taxation was “closely monitored by an unsympathetic film trade whose sole concern was for the new body to not interfere in any way with their short-term economic interests”. But where was the actual proof that this was the case? No citation was noted. He also criticized the “idealist educationalists” whose “main preoccupation was the promotion of film as a modern instrument of formal education” and who “heavily dominated” the Commission. But again, no evidence was cited that the educationalists actually had this type of job or interest. Dupin (2006) also displayed favoritism throughout the study with a individual, Ernest Lindgren, the “undisputed leader for 40 years” of the National Film Library who had a “enthusiastic and effective promotion campaign” in supporting the NFL.
- (Continuing on) There were many suppositions about facts and figures that were given. Pie charts listed non-important statistical numbers as in one chart, Figure 8, on page 212. The definition written was: “in practice, the Library had to settle for whatever prints came its way” (Dupin, 2006, pg. 212). And yet, under the chart, it states simply, “Condition of the prints kept in the Preservation section” (Dupin, 2006, pg. 213). In which context was this chart actually used? These statistics charted could also have meant that film companies were not aware of the NFL’s existence at this time and had not yet taken part of it services. Footnotes did not state proper evidence: in one case, the researcher implies that the Commission report anticipated the coming of the digital age because of a prediction that improvements to film material would make preservation easier. These events took place well before any type of thinkable modern technology appeared; the Commission report could not have assumed such a direct idea for preservation!
- The conclusion was indicated as “epilogue”. The intention is a historical study but did it end up a story instead? The “conclusion” as it should have been deemed, stated simply that with the help of “Lindgren’s sheer professionalism and youthful enthusiasm” the NFL gained its own independence from the British Film Institute. It is not certain that what was presented warranted such a study after all.
- As stated before historical studies should have three criteria: evidence, argument and interpretation (Ostrowski, 2003). As far as the evidence goes, there was no proof this idea of “status” needed to be established or researched. There was no true hypothesis or a thorough thesis statement because there was no real question. Second, there was no real argument. The British Film Institute did help and house the NFL, and simply collected materials as it saw fit as the NFL established itself. In fact, one of BFI’s very own, Harry Price, donated to the NFL, entrusting his own personal collection (Dupin, 2006, pg. 209). But was this enough to deny the NFL a proper place as Dupin suspected? Third, the way Dupin interpreted the literature he sourced was based on biased feelings, assumptions and judgments. With few citations and misrepresentation, it was hard not to see the emotional state behind the purpose of the report: to revere the National Film Library and all it represented in the past rather than describe the real facts that has made it what it is today.
- In conclusion, the historical study did not come across as efficient. Without proper citations, the paper was weak and therefore the information and evidence did not support the thesis. It did not seem valid and it was short of plagiarizing. Furthermore, there was no sufficient testimony and it read more like a fictional version of the National Film Library’s history rather than an articulate research paper of the past.
- Dupin, C. (2006). The origins and early development of the National Film Library: 1929-1936. Journal of Media Practice 7(3). 199-217. Ostrowski, D. (Updated: 2003). Three criteria of historical study. Harvard University. Retrieved from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic866726.files/history.pdf.