9315
Is history different?
Janet Coles, School of Education, University of Leeds
Research into the history of adult education would seem to have more in common with research into other historical subjects than with research into aspects of contemporary adult education. I have experienced various problems as well as rewards in my research, which has been concerned principally with the university extension movement.
The problems
The problems of carrying out research into people are notorious, whether or not the subjects are still living. Perhaps the main difference in dealing with historical characters is that they are unable to answer back. Although this may seem to be an advantage, it is not necessarily so; it may be more difficult to measure the degree of bias.
Because individuals are ‘only human’ they may consciously or unconsciously project a particular angle on an event in which they were involved; this can be exaggerated with the passage of time and come to be accepted as the ‘truth’ about a particular situation.
An example used by E.H. Carr illustrates this very effectively. Gustav Stresemann, Foreign Minister of the Weimar Republic, died in 1929, leaving a vast amount of paperwork which his secretary Bernhard then sorted out. Eventually three 600 page volumes were published. At the end of the war the Allies photocopied the entire Stresemann papers. It turned out that the documents Bernhard had selected were those concerning Stresemann’s western policy, which had been generally regarded as successful. His dealings with the Soviet Union, although recorded, seemed to have been less so; Bernhard therefore did not select them for publication. Further editing was carried out before a new edition was brought out by an English publisher in which the documents relating to the Soviet Union were even less well represented.
A researcher using this volume would obviously not gain a balanced view of Stresemann’s foreign policy, but had the original boxes of documents not survived this could never have been proved. Carr also pointed out that even before the weeding was carried out by Bernhard, the picture of Stresemann’s time as foreign minister was not a complete one. He himself, when recording conversations, described them in such a way as to suggest that he had presented cogent arguments while those of the people he spoke to were far less convincing.[1]The ‘genuine’ Stresemann memoirs had thus in effect been censored three times before publication: once by Stresemann himself; once by his secretary and once by the English publisher. Propaganda need not involve the active spreading of a particular view or doctrine, it can also be achieved by selection.Perhaps in this respect history is different in that the passing of time and generations serve to compound and strengthen versions of the ‘truth’; there are usually less means available to verify what actually happened. The constant, overriding fear of historical research has to be that one vitally important fact can so easily be missed. One small item can overturn a complete theory. There is an element of chance involved in the survival of certain historical documents. In historical research, too, it must be remembered that many sources are used for purposes totally different from those for which they were originally intended. This is very different from research in the social sciences when, for example, a questionnaire will be designed specifically to produce certain data.
It is necessary to step back and consider the background of any document - why it was written, when it was written and by whom. The fact that this procedure should be second nature does not mean that it is always carried out; it can well be overlooked if at first reading the contents of a document apparently fit a particular theory. This also applies to oral evidence. In both cases, even where a sincere attempt is made to present a fair picture of a personality or event, the ‘witness’ can only describe what he perceived as having happened; similarly, when attributing motivation, he will be influenced by his own feelings.
I have experienced this in my own research. While attempting to establish the possible importance of the influence of individuals in the field of adult education in the crucial post-war years, I looked at the work of a somewhat controversial figure, S.G. Raybould, and his time as Director of extra mural studies at the University of Leeds. Various discrepancies arose. One example concerned the encouragement he gave colleagues to get their work published; those who liked Raybould believed his motives were purely altruistic; those who had a less favourable opinion of him believed he acted from reasons of self-interest, so that he could bask in reflected glory. No-one can state categorically what his true motives were; it is likely that they were complex.
In dealing with people, even historical characters there is a danger of becoming emotionally involved with a particular individual. The problem can develop in various ways, all detrimental to the objectivity of the research. One might admire certain characteristics of the individual being researched; this can lead to treating the subject in a heroic manner – to praising his strong points and underestimating his weaknesses. The opposite can happen – researchers studying an individual they find abhorrent may fail to acknowledge the importance of any mitigating aspect of his character. This failure to look at the subject objectively can occur subconsciously. Although such a problem could well arise when dealing with living people, it is less likely to get out of hand; the characters themselves may step in to keep the records straight.
When dealing with historical characters it is also only too easy to be judgemental: to be guilty of what E.P. Thompson has called ‘the enormous condescension of posterity’[2], to censure individuals for the way they acted. It is vital to bear in mind the contemporary circumstances, beliefs etc. and not criticise them using today’s standards. In this respect history is different; we can surely never know as much about life in former times as we do about that of our own, however much we immerse ourselves in background material. It is inevitable that assumptions will be made; the danger is in assuming that our society and values are superior to former ones.
Consciously or unconsciously, the historian will gradually build up a ‘picture’ in his mind of his own particular subject which may well be influenced by the time in which he himself is living. Over the years his individual picture may become more and more fixed and vivid so that it is difficult to visualise an alternative image. This may explain why few historians undergo dramatic changes of mind about their subject.
Hypotheses and theories
There is also the question of establishing aims and objectives from the start. This done, the decision must be taken whether to stick rigidly to these boundaries, or whether to allow them to be stretched. This would apply to any kind of research, not only that based on a historical subject. It is only too easy to be side-tracked from the original purpose and to waste a great deal of time on peripheral matters. It may be, however, that while researching one area, the greater importance of a side issue becomes apparent. In such a case it may be decided to concentrate on this area in greater depth than had been anticipated. Many historians believe the value of beginning work with a specific hypothesis lies in the other questions which it may raise as much as in a rigid application of the original theory. If the original research has been specifically funded, of course, it is unlikely that it will be possible to change course or modify the direction the work is taking.
Some researchers believe that all historical material can and must be tied into a definite framework, or that only by linking it to a theoretical base will it achieve any real meaning. Opinion on this must surely remain divided. There would seem to be a case for providing a chronological account of particular events or aspects of history simply for its own sake; though of course then there is the temptation to think that because one event succeeded another it was caused by it. According to Tawney, ‘Time, and the order of occurrences in time, is a clue but no more; part of the historian’s business is to substitute more significant connections for those of chronology.’[3] It is these ‘more significant connections’ which form the basis of so much debate among historians.
There is too, a well-supported view that history is simply what is written down. In research into some scientific subjects, it is possible to present results in a straightforward, perhaps tabular form. With historical research, the presentation of results is often essentially a persuasive essay, however balanced a view the researcher may have sought to achieve.
Other problems
Total absorption in one’s work can prove hazardous. It is possible to lose track of the real world when a lot of time is spent in the cloistered atmosphere of a university library. Enthusiastic announcements about the progress of the research are soon greeted only by polite, glazed expressions on the faces of friends and family.
It could be claimed that in a time of financial restraint expenditure on a subject such as the history of adult education is less ‘worthwhile’ than on others and is more difficult to justify.
The rewards
The rewards of research into historical subjects, must, I believe, be similar to those experienced in other kinds of research. There is tremendous satisfaction in discovering a previously unknown piece of evidence and of following up various ‘clues’ and filling in missing links. It is difficult, if not impossible, to describe the sheer wonder at actually handling items of particular significance. In my case the most exciting was a history of the WEA presented to its founder, Albert Mansbridge, in 1924 and signed by the great and the good in adult education. Important discoveries will not, of course, necessarily involve any famous individuals, but will be valuable for their contribution to the research.
There is an additional benefit; it is inevitable that while studying a particular topic in depth one will gain an insight into far more than the narrow field under investigation; some would argue that such knowledge is never wasted. Perhaps it is only a step from acquiring such an insight into a different way of life to picking up a suggestion of an explanation of why certain things happen as they do today. This would seem to be a dangerous area, though Carr asserts that ‘we can fully understand the present only in the light of the past.’[4] The traditional purpose of studying history ‘to divine the future’ does not seem as directly relevant in the field of adult education as in such areas as international relations, but even in the latter case the argument is somewhat unconvincing.
Conclusion
I hesitate to conclude that in some respects history is different from other types of research in the field of adult education; in other respects there are marked similarities. All types of research demand thoroughness and objectivity – all, it seems, can be influenced by one’s own feelings and by those of the subject or witnesses. In all cases the selection of particular ‘facts’ and the omission of others can slant the outcome of the research. In all cases it is possible to start from a particular hypothesis and attempt to prove or disprove it. In all cases, too, it is presumably possible to become so totally engrossed in one’s work as to become an extraordinarily boring person.
On the other hand, there are marked differences between historical research and other types. Bias on the part of historical characters is harder to detect; the passage of time tends to establish information as ‘factual’; we can never know as much about former generations as we do about our own. There is more likelihood of missing a particular item in a historical context; the longer ago the period being researched was, the less likely it is that there will be other information available to confirm or challenge any particular finding.
Finally, I would like to emphasise that although numerically the problems of research, particularly historical research, seem to outnumber the rewards, overall the rewards far exceed the problems.
[1]EH Carr (1987), What is History? Second ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp16-19
[2] EP Thompson, The