April 28th 2015
Henrietta Rema Sawyerr
EDUC 800 Ways of Knowing
Journal Entry 6
Instructor: Dr. Sturtevant
What is historical inquiry? Is this a “Way of Knowing?” Why or why not? Compare
Gaddis with two of the other authors we have read.
Historical inquiry is the process of developing knowledge and understanding by asking
questions about the past and applying skills associated with analyzing, interpreting and
evaluating sources of evidence to develop informed and desirable answers (National Curriculum
Board, 2009). Historical inquiry is a way of knowing because by engaging in historical inquiry,
we are able to develop particular intellectual capabilities, standards of judgement, powers of
reasoning, and critical awareness, which enables us to understand, explain and critique our
present practices and knowledge (Freathy and Parker, 2010)
In this section, a comparison will be made between Gaddis, Kuhn and Descartes.
According to Gaddis, historians need to learn from their past experiences and the experiences of
others and that skills and ideas are not only transmitted from one generation to the other and that
culture, technology, environment and traditions can also perform the same role. This is similar
to one of Descartes rules that focuses on building upon knowledge based on the simple concepts.
Descartes also suggested that individuals need to build on the background or previous
experiences. On the contrary, Kuhn’s idea of paradigm shift dwelt more on old theories being
disregarded and rather creating new theories. In this regard, Kuhn did not see previous
knowledge derived from old theories as important in informing how new theories are created.
1
Bruner however noted the importance of technology in helping learners gain knowledge and also
stresses the role that culture plays in organizing and understanding the way we communicate or
transmit information (Bruner, 1996).
According to Gaddis (2002), the methods that historians and scientists use are similar. In
this respect, a comparison between Gaddis and Kuhn will be made. Gaddis notes that historians
begin with surviving structures such as archives, artifacts and memories. Gaddis points out that
historians must recognize that most sources from the past do not survive and they must deal with
the evidence presented (Gaddis, 2002). Even though the ideas presented by Gaddis may be
similar to scientists, I think that there are some differences. Kuhn’s scientific method is more
structured in that it was more systematic in the scientific process. Kuhn structure of scientific
revolution focuses on normal science and then the solving of puzzles followed by anomalies
which leads to crisis and then a resolution of crisis by creating a paradigm. Kuhn’s scientific
method was more progressive (Kuhn, 1962).
Gaddis (2002), points out that historians can understand phenomenon through
comparison and that in order to compare something it is necessary that events are compared in
relation to other entities by viewing the past from the perspective of the present. Bruner (1996)
also notes that understanding other minds is an interpretative process. Bruner (1996), however
points out that even though interpretative and explanation are somehow linked, these two modes
of making sense of ideas are quite different.
According to Gaddis (2002), historians recount past experiences using narratives. Bruner
(1996) also suggested that the way in which are experiences and knowledge are organized is also
presented in a narrative form. However, Gaddis (2002), points out that narratives are not used to
2
compare only cases but to test, refine, and develop theories. Bruner (1996), however relates
narratives to events in a story and to the curriculum.
Gaddis (2002) indicated that the past does not predict the future and that it expands our
experiences in order to increase our skills. This idea can be related to the structure of scientific
revolution that Kuhn provided. Kuhn, however, suggested that there is the need to reject old
theories or paradigms in order to create new theories
Kuhn (1996) and Gaddis (2002) both used history as a focal point in terms of the
perspectives that they provided. Kuhn (1996) focused on the history of science and stresses the
importance on not focusing on data from past theories to respond to questions gotten from
science text. Gaddis (2002), on the other hand dwelt more on historical consciousness and how
our perception of the past informs our present and future.
References
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Freathy, R. Parker, S. (2010). The necessity of historical inquiry in educational research: The
case of religious education. British Journal of Religious Education, 32(30), 229-243.
doi:10.1080/01416200.2010.498612
Gaddis, J. L. (2002). The landscape of history: How historians map the past. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.) Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
National Curriculum Board (2009). Shape of the Australian curriculum: History. Retrieved from
http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/australian_curriculum_-_history.pdf
3