Historians are notoriously fussy about documenting sources. A good historian probably needs imaginative powers, but a good work of history cannot be a pure invention. It must be based on the “sources,” meaning materials ranging from manuscript letters, state papers, pamphlets, and books, to coins, gravestones, and films.

The good historian’s task is to discover, evaluate, and clarify the “sources” employed in a work of history. The good reader wants to be sure that the historian relies only on “sources,” not on imagination and personal prejudice. The best assurance to the reader is a profusion of accurate and detailed footnotes or endnotes and an accurate and complete bibliography.

In beginning a research project in history, then, the student must consider the availability of resources. Can the base library supply the necessary research materials? Is additional support available through the Internet, interlibrary loan or the UMUC Asia Faculty library? Will alternative sources such as interviews fill in the gaps?

Documenting Sources in History

Historians do not require one single format for typing or printing books and articles in their discipline. Of course, individual academic journals and book publishers do dictate particular formats, but the profession as such has never done so. A student in a HIST course, therefore, normally can choose among a variety of formats for documenting a research paper. The most commonly used is provided by Turabian in A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations. The student might substitute the styles used in the leading American historical journals, the Journal of American History and the American Historical Review. It is important, however, that styles not be mixed. Use one style consistently throughout the paper.