Checklist:
NB: the examiners have mentioned in recent subject reports that a good reflection will use TOK concepts, particularly from History as an AOK. This means using concepts in your reflection such as:
- selection of a selection, interpretation, traces of the past, omission, hindsight bias, confirmation bias and certainty
NB: the examiners have mentioned in recent subject reports that a good reflection will use TOK concepts, particularly from History as an AOK. This means using concepts in your reflection such as:
- selection of a selection, interpretation, traces of the past, omission, hindsight bias, confirmation bias and certainty
Example 1:
SECTION C - ESSAY TITLE:
To what extent did Hitler create a Totalitarian type of government?
The process of this investigation has certainly allowed me to use a variety of research methods and thus experience some of the challenges that face historians. Firstly, through my use of primary sources, notably that of the memories of Otto Dietrich, I came to appreciate the difficulty of gaining accurate historical knowledge. Although primary sources are useful for bringing us closer to the past, we must nevertheless rely on inferences from them in order to suggest how and why things were at this time, calling into question how accurate historical knowledge can be. This challenge was made explicit to me through the examination of Dietrich’s extract, as it contained within in it biases, such as the desire to shift blame away from Nazi officials, which may have distorted the true picture of events, thus distorting the accuracy of our knowledge of them.
The sheer amount of research into Nazi Germany has made a wealth of information available, both helping and challenging historians. This challenge comes in the form of fact selection. Whilst trying to accurately represent the nature of Nazi government and thus expose whether it was totalitarian or not, I questioned the extent to which a historian can construct an objective history. Indeed, certain facts appeal to us more than others, whilst others are ignored, and historians are constantly challenged to select the one’s which best explain the period. I was aware of this in my own investigation and selected facts based on how they confirmed each other to create a coherent picture of Nazi government.
Finally, in building an argument from the chosen sources and facts, I was prompted to consider the problem of interpretation that faces the historian. As highlighted by my analysis, examinations of Nazi government have been dominated by Structuralist and Intentionalist theories, posing a distinct challenge in avoiding being over-influenced by their research; instead new angles should be considered, as Ian Kershaw did when proposing a synthesis of the two schools, something which I tried to explore further in my own work.
To what extent did Hitler create a Totalitarian type of government?
The process of this investigation has certainly allowed me to use a variety of research methods and thus experience some of the challenges that face historians. Firstly, through my use of primary sources, notably that of the memories of Otto Dietrich, I came to appreciate the difficulty of gaining accurate historical knowledge. Although primary sources are useful for bringing us closer to the past, we must nevertheless rely on inferences from them in order to suggest how and why things were at this time, calling into question how accurate historical knowledge can be. This challenge was made explicit to me through the examination of Dietrich’s extract, as it contained within in it biases, such as the desire to shift blame away from Nazi officials, which may have distorted the true picture of events, thus distorting the accuracy of our knowledge of them.
The sheer amount of research into Nazi Germany has made a wealth of information available, both helping and challenging historians. This challenge comes in the form of fact selection. Whilst trying to accurately represent the nature of Nazi government and thus expose whether it was totalitarian or not, I questioned the extent to which a historian can construct an objective history. Indeed, certain facts appeal to us more than others, whilst others are ignored, and historians are constantly challenged to select the one’s which best explain the period. I was aware of this in my own investigation and selected facts based on how they confirmed each other to create a coherent picture of Nazi government.
Finally, in building an argument from the chosen sources and facts, I was prompted to consider the problem of interpretation that faces the historian. As highlighted by my analysis, examinations of Nazi government have been dominated by Structuralist and Intentionalist theories, posing a distinct challenge in avoiding being over-influenced by their research; instead new angles should be considered, as Ian Kershaw did when proposing a synthesis of the two schools, something which I tried to explore further in my own work.
CLICK HERE FOR EXAMINER FEEDBACK
Example 2:
SECTION C - ESSAY TITLE:
To what extent was ideology the main cause of the Cambodian Genocide?
The historians I referenced used various methods to acquire and present historical information, often by examining both primary and secondary sources. I too explored a total of six secondary sources and three primary sources. Three of the secondary sources are simplistic accounts, written at least 10 years after the genocide occurred, and originating from Western countries. The purpose of my other secondary sources is to analyse and educate, and they are written by academics, one of whom is a linguist and another a specialist in genocide prevention. These sources explore the genocide from an authoritative and academic perspective. My chosen primary sources present two opposing first-hand viewpoints of the Khmer Rouge regime, from leaders and victims. I limited the scope of my investigation to causes of the Cambodian genocide, because details of the genocide are well known while the causes seem vague and unexplored.
There are challenges historians face both in selecting and portraying historical information. Objectivity is often a challenge due to the origin of many historians, as Western authors such as Garraty may not have an accurate understanding of what occurred in Cambodia during the 1970s. Cambodians involved in the genocide often use emotive language, causing some primary sources to lack objectivity. Historians also have the power to omit and select information for their own purpose. "1966-1985 Historical Background" portrayed the Khmer Rouge “brutal” ideologists, not taking into account other factors that could have triggered the genocide. This can lead to traces of history, when authoritative figures determine recorded history, causing information to be deemed trivial and ignored.
I found my investigation question easy to prove, as all sources suggested Khmer Rouge ideology as an important cause of the Cambodian genocide. However, secondary sources tended to paint the Khmer Rouge leaders as monsters who deliberately tried to massacre their own race, whereas primary sources were much more objective and considered a range of factors that sparked the genocide. More academic Western secondary sources written recently also suggested that ideology was not the only basis for the genocide, but pointed to factors such as timing and personal desire for revenge. Despite this, I felt that every cause of the genocide could be tied into ideology, as they were either precursors or results of Khmer Rouge philosophy. Deliberately or not, it is inevitable that historians are selective in their portrayal of historical knowledge. In an attempt to counteract this fact I attempted to use a wide range of sources to present a more objective perspective about several causes of the Cambodian genocide.
What mark would you award this?
To what extent was ideology the main cause of the Cambodian Genocide?
The historians I referenced used various methods to acquire and present historical information, often by examining both primary and secondary sources. I too explored a total of six secondary sources and three primary sources. Three of the secondary sources are simplistic accounts, written at least 10 years after the genocide occurred, and originating from Western countries. The purpose of my other secondary sources is to analyse and educate, and they are written by academics, one of whom is a linguist and another a specialist in genocide prevention. These sources explore the genocide from an authoritative and academic perspective. My chosen primary sources present two opposing first-hand viewpoints of the Khmer Rouge regime, from leaders and victims. I limited the scope of my investigation to causes of the Cambodian genocide, because details of the genocide are well known while the causes seem vague and unexplored.
There are challenges historians face both in selecting and portraying historical information. Objectivity is often a challenge due to the origin of many historians, as Western authors such as Garraty may not have an accurate understanding of what occurred in Cambodia during the 1970s. Cambodians involved in the genocide often use emotive language, causing some primary sources to lack objectivity. Historians also have the power to omit and select information for their own purpose. "1966-1985 Historical Background" portrayed the Khmer Rouge “brutal” ideologists, not taking into account other factors that could have triggered the genocide. This can lead to traces of history, when authoritative figures determine recorded history, causing information to be deemed trivial and ignored.
I found my investigation question easy to prove, as all sources suggested Khmer Rouge ideology as an important cause of the Cambodian genocide. However, secondary sources tended to paint the Khmer Rouge leaders as monsters who deliberately tried to massacre their own race, whereas primary sources were much more objective and considered a range of factors that sparked the genocide. More academic Western secondary sources written recently also suggested that ideology was not the only basis for the genocide, but pointed to factors such as timing and personal desire for revenge. Despite this, I felt that every cause of the genocide could be tied into ideology, as they were either precursors or results of Khmer Rouge philosophy. Deliberately or not, it is inevitable that historians are selective in their portrayal of historical knowledge. In an attempt to counteract this fact I attempted to use a wide range of sources to present a more objective perspective about several causes of the Cambodian genocide.
What mark would you award this?
Here are 2 examples of Works Cited pages.
For much more detail, go to the Library website for the MLA Quick Guide
For much more detail, go to the Library website for the MLA Quick Guide
| 2_examples_of_works_cited_page.docx |