How to Achieve Objectivity in History: A Step-by-Step Procedure
- Understanding What Objectivity Really Means in Historical Research – Explore the fundamental concept of historical objectivity and why separating personal bias from factual analysis is essential for credible scholarship.
- The Major Obstacles That Prevent Historians from Being Objective – Discover the common pitfalls including personal prejudices, group affiliations, value-laden judgments, and the selective nature of historical evidence.
- Practical Methods to Achieve Greater Objectivity – Learn actionable strategies such as using diverse sources, applying corroboration principles, avoiding evidence suppression, and maintaining critical distance from your subject.
- Why Complete Objectivity Might Be Impossible (But Worth Pursuing Anyway) – Understand the philosophical debate around historical objectivity and why striving for it remains crucial despite inherent human limitations.
Historical research stands as one of humanity’s most important intellectual endeavors. Through it, we understand where we came from, learn from past mistakes, and chart better courses for the future. Yet, anyone who has read conflicting accounts of the same historical event knows that history can be surprisingly subjective. Two historians examining identical evidence can arrive at vastly different conclusions. This raises a critical question: can history ever truly be objective, and if so, how do we achieve it?
What Does Objectivity Mean in History?
Before diving into methods, we must first understand what objectivity means in the context of historical research. According to prominent historians and philosophers, objectivity refers to the historian’s ability to separate themselves from the object of study, to analyze and interpret evidence without allowing personal prejudice, bias, or emotions to color their conclusions.
Leopold Von Ranke, one of the founding fathers of modern historical methodology, famously defined objectivity as “describing the past as it happened.” This means basing conclusions strictly on facts derived from evidence, nothing more and nothing less. In philosophical terms, Mark Day described objectivity as an epistemic standard where the historian’s account results solely from the object of inquiry itself, with no reflection of the historian’s personal features, social position, or contemporary concerns.
Objectivity could also be understood as impartiality. A truly objective historian should remain detached from their subject matter, refusing to take sides in controversial issues. They should consider comments and views from all parties involved before drawing any conclusions. Think of it like a judge in a courtroom who must hear all testimony, examine all evidence, and render a verdict based solely on facts, regardless of personal feelings.
However, objectivity does not require historians to be completely free from theories, philosophies, or analytical frameworks, which would be impossible. Every individual possesses intrinsic knowledge, emotions, and environmental influences that shape their worldview. The goal is not to eliminate these entirely but to recognize them and prevent them from distorting historical truth.
The Major Obstacles to Historical Objectivity
Understanding what prevents objectivity is as important as knowing what it means. Several significant factors can compromise a historian’s impartiality:
Personal Bias and Prejudice
Every historian carries personal likes, dislikes, preferences, and preconceptions. These deeply rooted mental frameworks are often difficult to recognize in ourselves. Whether consciously or unconsciously, historians may select evidence that confirms their existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory information. This confirmation bias represents one of the most insidious threats to objective historical writing.
Group Prejudice and Social Identity
Historians do not exist in a vacuum. They belong to specific groups defined by race, religion, nationality, social class, political ideology, and cultural background. These affiliations inevitably influence how they interpret events. A classic example appears in Eurocentric historians’ treatment of African history, where biased perspectives portrayed entire civilizations as barbaric and uncivilized, ignoring rich cultural traditions and sophisticated social structures.
When historians favor people of their own kind or interpret events through the lens of their group’s interests, objectivity suffers tremendously. The result is history written by winners, dominant groups, or those with the loudest voices, while marginalized perspectives disappear.
Value-Related Problems
Historians’ attitudes toward socioeconomic issues are inevitably influenced by their values. Their judgments become colored by various “isms,” capitalism, socialism, nationalism, communism, or religious doctrines. When historians project their values and contemporary concerns onto past events, they commit what philosophers call presentism, judging historical actors by modern standards rather than understanding them within their own context.
The Selection Problem
Perhaps the most unavoidable obstacle to objectivity lies in the very nature of historical work. Historians cannot possibly include every detail about any historical period or event. They must select which facts to include and which to omit. This selection process itself introduces subjectivity. As one scholar noted, a historian who titles their work “The History of England” is setting themselves up for criticism because no one could possibly write about everything concerning England. History becomes, by necessity, fragmentary.
The Nature of Historical Evidence
Historical events no longer exist except in the minds of historians who reconstruct them. This reconstruction inevitably involves interpretation. Unlike scientists who can repeatedly test hypotheses through experiments, historians cannot recreate the past. They work with remnants, documents, artifacts, and testimonies that survived, which may not represent the full picture. Moreover, the past influences the present, and the present inevitably influences how we understand the past.
Practical Steps to Achieve Greater Objectivity
Despite these formidable obstacles, historians can take concrete steps to minimize bias and approach greater objectivity:
Follow Historical Laws of Interpretation
Historians should adhere to established methodological principles when analyzing evidence. There should be no bias or prejudice in the selection of evidence. Facts must be depicted accurately based on available evidence alone, not on extraneous factors such as what would make a better narrative or support a preferred conclusion.
Question Sources Like a Judge
A historian should interrogate witnesses, documents, and sources with the same rigor a judge applies in a courtroom. Regardless of personal desires or preconceptions, the historian must determine what the evidence actually says. This means asking critical questions: Is this document believable? Who created it and why? What was their motivation? What might they have hidden or exaggerated?
Use the Principle of Corroboration
When facing conflicting theories, evidence, or interpretations, historians should seek points where various sources agree. Corroboration, where multiple independent sources support the same conclusion, provides stronger evidence than any single source. If different witnesses, documents, or artifacts all point to the same fact, that fact becomes more reliable.
Embrace Diverse Sources
Limiting research to a narrow range of sources almost guarantees bias. Objective historians should consult diverse sources including archaeology, linguistics, ethnography, anthropology, and various documentary records. The more varied the sources, the richer and more balanced the historical account becomes. This diversity helps cross-check information and identify biases present in individual sources.
Avoid Evidence Suppression
To achieve objectivity, historians must never deliberately suppress or twist evidence to project a particular viewpoint. This ethical obligation requires honesty even when evidence contradicts cherished theories or preferred narratives. Respecting evidence means presenting it fairly, even when inconvenient.
Study the Historian Before Studying the Facts
E.H. Carr wisely advised studying the historian before studying their work, and studying the historian’s historical and social environment before studying the historian. Understanding who wrote a historical account, when they wrote it, and what circumstances shaped their perspective helps readers identify potential biases and evaluate the work more critically.
Maintain Critical Distance
Historians should strive to separate their emotional reactions from their analytical work. While passion for one’s subject can fuel excellent research, it should not cloud judgment. Creating psychological distance from the subject matter allows for more balanced assessment.
Be Transparent About Methods and Limitations
Objective historians acknowledge their methods, reveal their sources, and admit the limitations of their work. They make clear what they know, what they infer, and what remains uncertain. This transparency allows readers to evaluate the work independently and understand its scope.
Consider Multiple Perspectives
Before reaching conclusions, historians should actively seek out and seriously consider alternative interpretations. What would someone from a different background, ideology, or time period make of this evidence? Engaging with rival interpretations strengthens historical arguments by addressing potential objections and revealing blind spots.
Draw Conclusions Based on Evidence, Not Vice Versa
Perhaps most importantly, historians should allow evidence to drive conclusions rather than selecting evidence to support predetermined conclusions. This means being willing to abandon beloved theories when evidence points elsewhere.
Why Pursue Objectivity Even If Perfect Objectivity Is Impossible?
Philosophers and historians continue debating whether complete objectivity is truly achievable. Keith Jenkins argued that objectivity is impossible because the actual past is gone, and creating history in the present means content is “as much invented as found.” Since historians cannot remove their preconceived ideas and personal motives, some degree of subjectivity remains inevitable.
Yet this philosophical limitation should not discourage us from pursuing objectivity. Even if perfect objectivity remains an unattainable ideal, striving toward it produces better history. The difference between history that attempts objectivity and history that embraces bias is profound. Objective interpretations, even if imperfect, meet rational criteria of accuracy, comprehensiveness, consistency, and openness to revision based on new evidence.
Furthermore, recognizing the impossibility of complete objectivity makes historians more careful, more self-aware, and more honest about their limitations. It encourages humility and ongoing refinement of methods. The pursuit of objectivity, even as an asymptotic goal we approach but never fully reach, elevates historical scholarship above mere propaganda or storytelling.
The Continuing Importance of Objectivity
In our contemporary world, where misinformation spreads rapidly and competing narratives battle for dominance, objective historical research matters more than ever. History shapes national identities, informs policy decisions, and influences how societies understand themselves. Biased or inaccurate historical interpretations can distort our understanding of the present, perpetuate harmful myths, fuel conflicts, and undermine social cohesion.
Achieving objectivity in historical research requires constant vigilance, methodological rigor, intellectual honesty, and deep commitment to truth over convenience. It demands that historians acknowledge their biases, embrace diverse perspectives, follow evidence wherever it leads, and remain open to revising conclusions when new evidence emerges.
While the journey toward complete objectivity may be endless, each step along that path brings us closer to understanding the past as it actually was, not as we might wish it had been. This understanding, imperfect though it may be, represents one of humanity’s highest intellectual achievements.
Need Expert Historical Research and Writing?
Achieving objectivity in historical writing requires not only understanding these principles but also the experience and discipline to apply them consistently. Whether you’re working on a thesis, dissertation, research paper, or any historical writing project, the challenge of maintaining objectivity while producing compelling, well-researched content can feel overwhelming.
Premium Researchers specializes in high-quality academic and professional research writing across all disciplines, including history. Our team of experienced writers understands the delicate balance between thorough research, analytical rigor, and objective presentation. We follow established methodological principles, consult diverse sources, and maintain the highest standards of academic integrity.
From research proposals to complete dissertations, from literature reviews to comprehensive historical analyses, we deliver work that meets your exact specifications and academic standards. Every project receives careful attention to ensure proper citation, logical argumentation, and bias-free presentation.
Don’t let the complexity of objective historical research hold you back. Contact Premium Researchers today and let our expert team help you produce scholarly work that stands up to the most rigorous academic scrutiny. Your success is our mission.
| MESSAGE US
Need quick, reliable writing support? Message us Now and we’ll match you with a professional writer who gets results!
or email your files to [email protected]
|