The Role Of Sources In World War I

When developing studies in history, the theme explored, the scope of sources, and the methodologies employed determine the outcome of one’s research. Around the field of history, there are distinct schools characterised by the kinds of history examined, what sources they utilise, and the methods adopted in a study. During the 2017 run of Canterbury University’s history research seminars, participants were exposed to a range of themes and approaches in the study of history. For example, David Monger put forth a history of the role of patriotism in World War I Britain considering its impact on British society and the war effort. In addition, Tom Gilmore, studied the representation of Britain’s enemies in news media during World War I. Furthermore,

David Monger examines the role of the patriotic society in World War I Britain, identifying its impact on the war effort across British society. In order to do so, Monger examines a range of sources that demonstrate both how patriotic society impacted the war effort, and the perpetuation of patriotism by various institutions of British society. These sources include newspaper articles, newsreel footage, national service department press releases, pictorials, and widely distributed guidebooks on contributing to the war effort. When examining these sources, the primary method employed by Monger was comparative analysis. Through comparing each source, Monger was able to ascertain how these sources were instrumental, relative to one another, as both perpetuators of patriotism, and contributors to the British war effort. For example, Monger identified how certain publications pertaining to the proper use of resources during wartime were indicative of a society who would sacrifice higher living standards for the benefit of their nation’s war effort. Furthermore, Monger considered how the use of identification markers indicating one’s

David Monger examined a broad range of sources, all from the public sphere, analysed for their significance in propagating patriotic war efforts in British society. Due to the expansive breadth of sources examined, and their place as cultural artefacts, Monger’s work is evidently a cultural history. Furthermore, when considering Tom Gilmore’s work, the limited scope of sources all drawn from the social milieu and comparatively analysed against one another identifies his work as a social history. Finally, in John Richardson’s case, the use of specific sources developed by medical specialists and military statisticians, and the scope of research being military and medical, defines his work as a mix between medical and military history. In each of these examples, the methods and source types limited to a particular study could also have been utilised in any of the studies to bolster their paper. However, time constraints certainly limit the scope of sources and methods one can employ in their research, so shortcomings from not utilising a method or source type that a colleague had used is easily