Tag: Methodology

Switching topics

I met with my Dissertation adviser last week, and we decided that the topic I had picked really had nothing to do with my dissertation. I don’t know why, but I had always been afraid to just bite off a chunk of the dissertation and give that a go. But after talking with Prof. Deshmukh, it should be quite doable.

Albert Speer at Nuremburg Trials. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

So the dissertation is the Nazi tunnels, and this paper will be an important part of that. One of the two organizations that looked into, and actually built some of the planned tunnels was the Reichsministerium für Rüstung und Kreigsproduktion (RMfRuK, Reich Ministry for Armaments and War Production). This group was headed by Albert Speer, who incidentally was a very interesting man. Anyhow, my paper will now look at the Reich Ministry for Armaments and War Production. It will kind of be an historical overview of the organization and several key players in the building of the tunnels.

As we were discussing each others papers in class last night, the question kept coming around to what is the so what question, or why is this important for us to know. I went last, so we were all ready to just get out of class, and we didn’t really get to that part of mine. Which I’m kind of glad for, since I don’t really have one. Why is this important for us to know? Because it helps us understand the tunnel? Does that work?

At any rate, such is my new topic, it applies directly to my dissertation, and will be part of a chapter that discusses the organizations involved in building the tunnels.

US National Archives at College Park. Image from Wikimedia Commons

This, of course, means that all of my sources and bibliography need to be redone. I was a bit worried about sources, which is probably why I didn’t want to do the topic. Well, it turns out that Prof. Deshmukh has copies of the indexes to the Guides to German Records Microfilmed at Alexandria, VA, which are the captures Nazi documents housed at the U.S. National Archives. It just so happens that there are over 1000 rolls of microfilm that reference the RMfRuk (with over 190 being the records of this organization directly)! What a find. Now my extra hours will be spent going over the hundreds of pages of the indexes looking for references to Speer, Himmler, Kammler and tunnels. And then it’s off to the National Archives in College Park, Maryland to look at the actual documents. I have a lot to do before the April 12 deadline of the first draft (which should be as complete as possible).

So, if you didn’t get it yet, here are the steps to doing such a research paper:

  1. Find an interesting topic. It has to hold your attention, or you will be miserable.
  2. Talk to your Professors. They’ll point you on the right track for all kinds of things (sources, topic focus, secondary literature, encouragement, etc).
  3. Find the sources. Best is to find an index or something that describes the sources. For my example, before I even go to the National Archives, I will have a list of specific rolls of microfilm I need, with particular documents I want to look at on the films. Hopefully my bank account can sustain the copies needed, or better yet, I’ll be able to make digital copies.
  4. Find secondary literature about any aspect of your topic. In my case I need books and articles about Albert Speer, the RMfRuk, Nazi organizations, industrial and economic studies of Nazi Germany, etc.
  5. Look the the secondary material for insights, information, and most importantly, more sources. I’m now see how important footnotes are, and can see what resources are most often used, what works are most often cited, and who makes what arguments. Harvesting the footnotes for sources is integral in historical research.
  6. Gather information from primary and secondary sources and make an outline of the argument.
  7. Write, write, write, and then do some more writing.

So, I am back to step 3, finding the sources. I’m going to the Archives on Friday. Wish me luck!

Archival Research

Library of Congress - John Adams Building

So I finally went to the Library of Congress for actual archival research. They have about ten years worth of the ‘Kosmos’ magazine from 1919-1927 that I will look at for my paper. It was really fun. The whole family went down. Jess and I both got new LoC cards, then they went to a museum and I went to read old books.

Up until this point my big worry had been in finding some primary documents. Now that I have them, I don’t know what to do with them. I proposed this dilemma to the class last night and they had some great ideas on how to use the source. I also have a great article to use as a template, in that the historian, Nick Hopwood, looks at the ‘Urania’ magazine used by the socialists in Weimar Germany. (Nick Hopwood, “Producing a Socialist Popular Science in the Weimar Republic,” History Workshop Journal, no. 41 (Spring 1996): 117-153.)

Reading this article is my goal for tonight’s short two hour study session. I’m planning on going back to the LoC on Thursday to get some more data. But here are the ideas my classmates had:

  • look at a particular author that continually prints
  • look at one science/tech, follow how Nazi magazines and others treat the topic
  • look at old and new to see if they deal with a subject
  • what happened to the authors of the socialist papers
  • study what kind of articles are being printed, what topics come up continually
  • what happened to the authors/editors of the socialist papers, did they go to Dachau, were the scientists who published put to work in their fields?
  • narrow down the so what question. What question are you trying to answer, that will help you know what to look for in the sources.
Library of Congress - John Adams Building - 5th floor

What the issue really boils down to is that I need to narrow my topic. I can’t have my topic be ‘science and technology in Weimar Germany’. That’s way too broad. Too broad for a dissertation, even. I like the idea of focusing on one particular science or technology, and see how it is portrayed throughout the Weimar Republic, and even into post-Weimar Germany. Ideally, it aligns with my dissertation topic of Nazi tunnels.

The Mystery of Scholarly Articles Revealed

In class last night we discussed what makes up a historical scholarly paper. To jump start our thinking processes and enhance our observation skills, we were to compare two essays, one provided by the professor, and the other one applicable to our papers.

This was a great exercise to help me figure out the structure of a scholarly paper. As we discussed in class, here are the common conventions in a scholarly paper as written in an historical journal. A good historical scholarly paper usually:

  • opens with a catchy anecdote, quote, narrative, etc. This livens up the essay, provides a good basis for framing the time period, etc.
  • discusses the most relevant historiography
  • discusses the “So What?” question. Addresses why the article is worth reading. Provides a clear statement of the problem.
  • provides a clear statement of the thesis.
  • lays out the the themes and structure of article in the beginning so it is easy to follow.
  • discusses methodology. This includes a discussion of primary sources; organizing the sources, what to expect out of them, address the limits and strengths of primary sources (who wrote them, what was their purpose).
  • uses footnotes. Footnotes can be an integral part of a historical paper. Footnotes can be used to discuss other arguments not directly related to the thesis. They establish credibility by showing that the author knows more than just their narrow topic. Footnotes are a way of establishing legitimacy and knowledge of the subject and other tangential subjects. They can be a means to deflect possible criticism by addressing issues other historians would most likely raise. Footnotes can also build bridges to understanding by referencing other areas, or providing examples. If there are a bunch of letters, newspaper articles, etc., quote a couple in the text, but then to show there is more than just the two, do a “see also”, or reference that you read many more sources, in a footnote.
  • has a length of 20-25 pages of text.
  • has a format consisting of an intro, a body divided into three sections and a conclusion.
  • has reference to the most prevalent historians in the field, and includes their articles/books in the footnotes as a reference. They just might be the ones reviewing your essay, and if they see their works referenced, they  might be more likely to approve yours for publishing.

So there you have it. Some easy guidelines for writing a historical scholarly article for a journal.

The review of the historiographical essay

With 20+ inches of snow outside, and no sign of it letting up, and the kids busy playing and what not, there’s not much else to do but homework. 🙂

So I buckled down and wrote out the review to the essay this afternoon. It was actually a great exercise for learning what’s going on in the field, and will definitely benefit me on this paper. The article was about what makes Nazi science Nazi, or what’s the difference between the science done in Nazi Germany versus at other times in Germany, and even in other nations.

Volker Remmert describes three issues in the current (article was written in 2004, so pretty current) trends of writing about science in Nazi Germany. The first is that of organization. Historians like to discuss how the Nazis were or were not able to congeal a general policy and practice in regards to their science and technology. Current thinking, shows Remmert, is that the Nazis were very capable. He points to the many Allied agencies that swept into Germany post-WWII and took all of their scientists, engineers, research and projects. I’m most familiar with the United States’ Project Paperclip, and taking Wernher von Braun for their rocket development.

Second is about how Nazi science and technology practices, ideology, and policies were developed well before the National Socialists came to power. Some historians will contend even before World War I.

Lastly is the issue of Entgrenzung, or dealing with the issues of ethics and morality in scientific research, and whether scientists and researches knew their work was tested in inhumane conditions or not.

That’s my three pages in a nut shell.

I also found a few primary sources for the paper. Several books popped up on worldcat.org by doing a search for “wirtschaft AND tech*” and limiting the time frame to 1920-1940. What I really need is a bunch of popular magazines and newspaper articles that talk about science and technology in Weimar Germany. Particularly with some reader comments, would be nice.

Anywho, that’s were I stand on that.

Aaarg – finding an historiographical essay

So the next assignment for the Research Seminar is to find a historiographical essay related to our topic, and then write a three page summary of the article. After a nice day of work and with only three hours for study tonight, I finally found one… after looking for an hour and a half!

I started out looking in JSTOR for ‘historiography German aviation’, and found a few possible leads on the historiography of aviation history in general (which means US aviation history). I could fit that in, comparing US and German aviation, or something like that, but I thought I should search elsewhere.

So then I went to Project Muse to see if they had anything better. They had the same stuff. But I did rethink an article that came up in both. I figured a historiographical essay on science in Nazi Germany was about as close as I can get. So I’ll be writing three pages on this article: Volker R. Remmert, “What’s Nazi about Nazi Science? Recent Trends in the History of Science in Nazi Germany,” Perspectives on Science 12, no. 4 (2004): 454-475.

Changing plans already

I needed to rethink my proposal for my paper. The comments I got back were “too vague,” “too broad,” “need focus,” and “what aspect.” Yeah, I knew that already. But when you write the new proposal 30 minutes before you turn it in, and 10 minutes after you think it up… well, it don’t look pretty.

So I’ve had some more time to think about my topic, and have searched for sources, and I think I have a better grasp on what to do.

Reconstructed Horton 2-29

Now the paper will be on science and technology in the Weimar period. More specifically, I’ll look at how popular, political and scientific attitudes about science and technology influenced German leaders going into World War II. Germany had some pretty incredible technology in World War II. They had the first jet aircraft, the first ballistic missile, and this awesome airplane (I have posted about before)!

I also found an interesting quote from Hitler, where he supposedly said “Germany’s technology, industry, and morale were sufficient to fight an indefinite war.” So was there something in the Weimar period that lead Hitler to believe this. Certainly he did, as did the scientists and researchers who were so innovative.

So now I’ll come up with a better one paragraph proposal, and I might feel comfortable enough about it to post it. And now it’s on to find sources (primary and secondary) about popular, political, and from the field itself, attitudes about science and technology in Weimar Germany! I’ll start by looking in the field of aviation, since that is my passion, if I have such a thing.

Graduate Research Paper

Not that I really have time to blog as I do it, but… I feel like I need to do something historical here… So why not.

Tunnel at Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines (German: Markirch), in Alsace, France

So this is my last class before embarking on my dissertation. The Graduate Research Seminar should hopefully tie up any loose knots in our historical writing abilities. It’s a course on honing our skills. The syllabus looks great, and I’m excited for the class. One initial question I had was, why are we learning how to write like historians until the very end? Why don’t we learn how to write at the beginning or even in the middle? Well, there is a course or two on that, but nothing like this one proposes to be. We’re apparently going to learn all the behind-the-scene techniques and tricks to the trade. I’m actually really excited for it. Our Professor is great.

So for this class we’re supposed to write a 25-30 page paper that will hopefully become a chapter (or at least a bulk of one) of the dissertation. If nothing else, it can be a publishable paper. On the very low end, it will at least teach us something we don’t want to do for a dissertation.

Map of tunnel locations

My dissertation, as it stands now, is on Nazi Tunnels. The Nazis, towards the middle of the war, decided that they needed to move much of their war manufacturing underground. So they designed and built huge underground bunkers and tunnel systems for factories and depots. Go ahead, google it. There’s not much out there. Add the keywords, ‘melk ebensee’ and you’ll get a few more responses. The only scholarly works that I know of on this topic are two German books. One is an excellent work by Hans Walter Wichert, Decknamenverzeichnis deutscher unterirdischer Bauten(at Amazon, already have one), which lists practically all of the underground building sites during Nazi Germany. The second work is a dissertation by Bertrand Perz, Projekt Quarz: Steyr-Daimler-Puch Und Das Konzentrationslager Melk, Industrie, Zwangsarbeit und Konzentrationslager in O?sterreich (at Amazon if anyone wants to buy it for me), which is an in-depth look at one of these underground projects in Melk, Australia.

Anyhow, there are totally no sources available, to my knowledge, that I can use for the current project. That’s part of my dissertation work, is to dig up all of those sources. It should be fun. It’s also not manageable in a semester’s time. So for this semester’s project I had several ideas.

Projekt Quarz

First, I thought about doing a micro-study on just one of the tunnels. Unfortunately, in the two or three hours of looking for sources, I couldn’t find any. I haven’t checked with the library, yet, but I’m not hopeful. So my second idea is to look at a more broad topic that touches the issue of the tunnels. One obvious one is, why did they build them in the first place (the answer is to protect them from Allied bombings). But a deeper question begs, why did they think they could do that in the first place. It was a huge undertaking to move so many factories underground. They must have though they could do it. So a deeper question would be, why did the Nazi’s think they could undertake such a big job. Now let’s step back a bit, say, 30-50 years, and apply this question to Germany as a whole in the form of, what did German’s think of their technical and scientific abilities? So that will be my basis of inquiry for this semester’s project. I will look at what German citizens, German scientists, and German politicians thought about German science and technology from 1900 until the end of World War II. I post more on this as I think it through and find sources.

So, basically, I’m hoping to keep up the blog as I write the paper and take the class. I’ll post the methodology that I learn, and the troubles and trials, the triumphs and tackles about writing a historical paper.

First off, I feel completely unprepared because I have no sources. That’s the first thing to tackle.