Abstract

The author of the article considers the problem of interaction of historian and method in the Ukrainian historiographical field in modern conditions of unprecedented expansion of authorial freedoms. Uncertainty about “how we write history” has not yet been overcome. The dissertations of young authors contain such shortcomings as declarative and pointless presentation of the methods of their research, irresponsible juggling of such “fashionable” names as “comparative analysis”, “prosopography”, “oral history”, “everyday history”. The author notes that research technologies, including methods, are not something that has always been in Clio’s box. Technology arises as a result of the desire of historians to be successful, to realize their curiosity, their abilities, their ambitions. He analyzes specific examples of innovative research and shows the specifics and effectiveness of methods such as microanalysis, rich description, oral history, prosopography. He points to the distinct specificity of methods such as psychoanalysis and mathematical methods, so they are an example of a substantive understanding of the method as a research technology. The article shows that the history of everyday life has acquired citizenship rights in Ukrainian historiography since the late 1990s. The publications of the last few years provide the necessary material to see the difference between traditional historiography and the technology of everyday history on the examples of specific research, as well as to understand how this magic works when the essence emerges “from the little things”. After all, these are special little things. Thanks to the talent of the historian, they reflect the whole world like drops of morning dew. As a result, the author reminds that today not only “truth” but also “technique of execution” is important. Not only deep positions, original statements, but also witty tools, elegant course of thought, rich language, demanding style are components of success.

Highlights

  • Автор статті розглядає проблему взаємодії історика і методу на українському історіографічному полі в сучасних умовах безпрецедентного розширення авторських свобод

  • Він розбирає конкретні приклади новаторських досліджень і показує специфіку і ефективність таких методів, як мікроаналіз, насичений опис, усна історія, просопографія

  • The author notes that research technologies, including methods, are not something that has always been in Clio’s box

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Автор статті розглядає проблему взаємодії історика і методу на українському історіографічному полі в сучасних умовах безпрецедентного розширення авторських свобод. Він вказує на виразну специфіку таких методів, як психоаналіз і математичні методи, завдяки чому вони є зразком предметного розуміння методу як дослідницької технології.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.