A Dummies Guide to Historical Research

BrightEye

I may have misread the initial post, but I don't think Rosanne is asking everyone who participates in the History forum to list their credentials. As far as I understand it, it's about whether or not to cite books that gave you new ideas for posts or posts by other people that have inspired you.
Rosanne said:
So if I have read a book that you introduced me to and I have not said that you are the reason I now know a little bit more on this or that- forgive me- but it won't change. At the time I will thank you for listing the book. It is kind of like listening to an acceptance speech that thanks everyone back to Adam and Eve for their input into the recipients life.
If it were me, I would cite the book but not necessarily the person who alerted me to the book unless they had something of interest to say independently of the book. It's unnecessary. I'd say something like 'I've read such-and-such in [author & title of book; or relevant comments by other posters], and this prompted the following train of thought [insert train of thought]. What do you think? Or fancy exploring that?' That helps to distinguish your ideas from others.

But since I never post in the History forum, my comment is probably irrelevant because you seem to be asking about forum etiquette. Is that right?
 

Rosanne

Thanks BrightEye- you are right I was not asking for credentials- but they have been interesting when proffered.
No it goes to my highlighted text in the opening post of the thread.....
Rosanne said:
Now once I post these things- they are in the Public domain. I never thought I owned them, do not consider them mine, do not need to be credited for discussing them, do not think I have made a startling discovery, do not think I am absolutely right and correct; nor do I think they will change other's points of view ( Do you believe the Phoenicians had a Tarot sequence? ) I do not write research papers- I consistently fail to dot my i's and cross my t's with listing sources; I wander from subject to subject and wish to participate in the wide interesting subject of Tarot History. I do not mind been set straight, I have no ego in this regard.
..... and this feeling that if I read anything by another poster and go and investigate or discuss with myself (I talk to myself :D) then post am I plagiarizing? You see I have been warbling on about maps and calenders and almanacs for yonks here (well I would -I was raised with occult Tarot) and it seems of late that there is this other view....
while at the same time adopting information I have provided into their own theses.
I have taken 'theses' as theory maintained in argumentCollins Concise English.
This is what I am concerned about.
I think you are right that I should just name the book and author which with the Catholic Church is quite easy really...'So says the Church' will mostly cover it. Reading back my intial quote you will see I don't give a Monkey's ass if someone uses what I say here on a forum for their argument- do others expect differently?
~Rosanne
 

DianeOD

re baba's previous - and Gerson ref

Actually I do have academic qualifications to teach history, and did. Also have - or should say had since it has transferred so badly to my new computer - a manuscript etc.
___

From the Ltarot listing:

"This holiday break, I attempted again to hunt up the Gerson reference
to "diis gentium"

Not only the promise to Ross, but also wanted to find out which sort
of prohibitions (civil/ ecclesiastical) were made formal[ly against the buying and selling of those pictures].

In the end, I had to get help from an eminent scholar working in a
different country, because no edition here contains reference to diis
gentium in that way.

This kind person has located the reference on my behalf, in a modern
edition of Gerson's works not available to me in Australia.

Ref given as:
Jean Gerson, *Oeuvres complètes*, volume 10 page 28 ..
 

jmd

I am astounded by this thread - but it is quite an important one that periodically needs to surface when difficulties arise. The last time there was an equivalent, as far as I recall, had to do with the certification fiasco.

Personally, I consider the many directions we can take in speculation and related materials very interesting... as long as they are fairly presented.

Michael Hurst continually presents us (when we have a chance to read him) with broad details that are carefully considered and presented, and personally value reflecting on the situation that arose on LTarot to which I rarely ever visited (I just don't personally like the Yahoo format).

When Debra writes, by the way, to thank DianeOD and says of her that "We can put aside the idea that your expertise is established because you are a professor teaching history at a university with academic publications relevant to tarot history and a manuscript ready for publication that has been vetted by relevant experts", this does not come from DianeOD's own post, and am actually surprised to hear that Diane is teaching history at University - not that this is required for this forum, of course, and have seen wonderful historical materials outlined and explained by, for example, lependu who claims to have little in the way of official qualifications.

What DianeOD says is that "I was invited, then, to do what was termed an 'MA-PhD' conversion in the department of Semitic studies. This means, in effect, that my undergraduate work was of a standard sufficent for the department's professor to feel that the 'M-A' stage could be conferred retrospectively and my thesis submitted directly at PhD level". This is a little inaccurate. A person undertaking a MA by research may apply, after some development for their thesis, for a conversion for their research to PhD. No MA is then retrospectively conferred in Australian Universities as far as I am aware - though would be happy to stand corrected on this.

As universities vary in the manner they organise their post-grad. awards across the world, I thought this needed to be addressed. Also, in the context of the undergraduate work, to be awarded 'honours' is a grade applied to essays and, in the end, the specific subject undertaken in some universities (others call this a 'B'), and distinct to an Honours degree.

From what I read of DianeOD's specific situation, we share something in common: we each started post-graduate research degrees as MAs, and both intended in having these converted to PhDs.... and neither of us (as of yet) completed this (for whatever reasons).

My own background, by the way, is Philosophy, not history, and that is precisely where I became a little unstuck in some of my own research that required of me a move from the purely (academic) philosophical to the (mediaeval) historical - a shift that is difficult as the very style of analysis and presentation is different, and hence the academic discipline distinct.

This is where I consider myself as well at most an amateur at historical investigations, and relish the work that others put into the research that provides the rest of us with wonderful fruits for deepened reflection.

An important thread, Rosanne - thankyou!!!
 

DianeOD

MA conversion

Requirements differ from University to University,and have changed also since the mid-1980s.

To get technical about it:I had in total 5 years to complete the PhD - by research only. No other topic was set, and no other work required. In total I had five years to complete.

After three years max. - but ideally after 18 months - the work was supposed to be sufficiently advanced that it could be presented - at that time - and the 'MA' conferred with another two years for full completion, at which time the MA would also be confirmed. Rather than fill these posts with technical details whose only purpose is to bore others while defending myself against this accusation or that from Mr. Hurst, I explained more shortly.

Since the MA was not confirmed in such cases until the PhD thesis was complete, it is in effect conferred retrospectively - or was back then.
 

BrightEye

If you are not bothered, you are not bothered. End of story. I wouldn't be either on an internet forum, unless I was sharing information that was part of a book I was writing/publishing. Because then it becomes copyright material and intellectual property in a legal sense, and that's different (I think) to sharing your views on this forum. But then plagiarism is a legal thing as well as an ethical concern. I think only the latter applies here, unless someone cites large passages from an already existing publication without crediting them.

I would usually say that some other member of the board made the comment that then prompted my own ruminations. In that way you avoid any allegations of plagiarism. It's a little bit like going to an academic conference and listening to other people's (usually as yet unpublished) papers and then using that material for your own work. That's unethical, and no one in the academic community would think that fair. But I don't think there are any set rules on an internet forum. I guess if someone were really concerned, they would let you know you have pinched their ideas.
 

Debra

DianeOD said:
Actually I do have academic qualifications to teach history, and did. Also have - or should say had since it has transferred so badly to my new computer - a manuscript etc.

None of this is necessary if only honesty and clarity were pursued. So for the sake of honesty and clarity:

1. To teach history in a University requires a Master's degree in the field. Do you have a Master's degree in history, Diane?

2. I sympathize completely with the problem of transferring a manuscript from one computer system to another. When you say you have a "manuscript etc." by "etc." do you mean a manuscript that has been reviewed by relevant experts? Or is there some other "etc." you have in mind?

ETA: Looks like several of us posted at the same time, and from Diane's explanation of how MA/PhD degrees were conferred in the program she attended in in the 1980's, it seems the answer to #1 is "no" because she/you did not complete the graduate work. Thank you for clarifying that.
 

jmd

Incorrect, Debra - sorry... but to be clear, to have 'academic qualifications to teach history in a History Department of a university, (rather than a high school) requires that one either have a BA with Honours, or Preliminary MA, or be undertaking an MA or PhD, or have published or be considered by academic peers to have sufficient merit to be so considered. Also, 'teaching history' may simply mean (at uni.) tutoring rather than lecturing.
 

Debra

Thank you, jmd. Apologies to Diane. The system is very different in the US. Here, one cannot teach at a University with a bachelor's degree.

At any rate, I allowed my irritation to lead me away from the original point of Rosanne's thread, and am sorry for that, too.

We can only hope that everyone will try present their ideas clearly, with relevant evidence and respect for the intelligence and goodwill of the members here. For those who don't take this approach--it is a shame that they waste our time, and even more sad that their insights and efforts are wasted.
 

jmd

Generally, this is also here the case: in practical terms, one needs to at least have completed a research MA. In terms of official 'qualified to teach' at univ., however, this is not so. For example, one of the most astute philosophers I have met is John Fox, who never submitted for either MA nor PhD (Cf http://www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/johnf.htm).