The positivists believed that scientific methods were the same for the natural and human sciences. The neo-Kantians opposed the method of history to the method of the natural sciences. In fact, everything is more complicated: there are general scientific methods used in all sciences, and there are specific methods of a particular science or complex of sciences. I. Kovalchenko spoke most thoroughly in the domestic historical literature about the application of general scientific methods in his book on the methods of historical research. We will not characterize these methods in detail from a philosophical point of view, but only show the specifics of their application in historical science.

Logical and historical method. In history, synchrony is used - the study of an object in space as a system, their structure and functions (logical method) and the study of objects in time - diachrony (historical method). Both methods can act in pure form and in unity. As a result, we study the subject in space and time. The logical method is provided by a systematic approach and structural and functional analysis.

The historical method implements the principle of historicism, which was discussed above. The development process is studied through the analysis of the state of the object in different time slices. First an analysis of structure and function, then a historical analysis. You can't break these two methods.

I. Kovalchenko gives an example. If we use only the historical method, we can conclude that in the agriculture of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century semi-serf relations dominated. But if we add a logical analysis - system-structural - it turns out that bourgeois relations dominated.

Ascent from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract to the concrete. I. Kovalchenko considers this method to be the most important and decisive. The concrete is the object of knowledge in all its richness and diversity of its inherent features. Abstraction is a mental distraction from some features and properties of the concrete, while it should reflect the essential aspects of reality.

The ascent from the concrete to the abstract is carried out in three ways. Through abstraction (certain properties are considered in isolation from other properties of the object, or a set of features of the object is distinguished and it is possible to build essential-content and formal-quantitative models).

The second technique is abstraction by means of identifying the non-identical: the object is assigned such states and characteristics that it does not possess. It is used for various kinds of classifications and typology.

The third technique is idealization - an object is formed with certain ideal properties. They are inherent in the object, but not sufficiently expressed. This makes it possible to carry out deductive-integral modeling. Abstraction helps to better understand the essence of the object.

But in order to understand the essence of concrete phenomena, the second stage is necessary - the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. Specific theoretical knowledge appears in the form of scientific concepts, laws, theories. The merit of developing such a method belongs to K. Marx ("Capital"). This method is complicated and, according to I. Kovalchenko, is not widely used.

System approach and system analysis. System - as already noted, an integral set of elements of reality, the interaction of which leads to the emergence of new integrative qualities that are not inherent in its constituent elements. Each system has a structure, structure and functions. System components -- subsystems and elements. Social systems have a complex structure, which the historian should study. A systematic approach helps to understand the laws of the functioning of social systems. The leading method is structural-functional analysis.

Foreign science has accumulated extensive experience in the application of system analysis in history. Domestic researchers note the following shortcomings in the application of new methods. The interaction of the system with the environment is often ignored. The basis of all social structures are subconscious-mental structures with high stability; as a result, the structure turns out to be unchanged. Finally, the hierarchy of structures is denied, and society turns out to be an unordered set of closed and unchanging structures. The inclination towards synchronous study in statics often leads to the rejection of dynamic diachronic analysis.

Induction - deduction. Induction is a study from the singular to the general. Deduction - from the general to the particular, the singular. The historian investigates the facts and arrives at a generalized concept and, conversely, applies the concepts known to him to explain the facts. Every fact has elements in common. At first it is merged with a single fact, then it stands out as such. F. Bacon considered induction to be the main method, since deductive reasoning is often erroneous. Historians in the 19th century used mainly the inductive method. Some are still suspicious of the deductive method. D. Elton believes that the use of theories not from the empirical material of sources can be detrimental to science. However, this extreme view is not shared by most historians. To penetrate into the essence of phenomena, it is necessary to use concepts and theories, including those from related sciences. Induction and deduction are organically linked and complement each other.

Analysis and synthesis. Also widely used by historians. Analysis is the isolation of individual aspects of an object, the decomposition of the whole into separate elements. The historian cannot cover as a whole the period or object of study he is studying. Having studied individual aspects, factors, the historian must combine the elements of knowledge obtained about individual aspects of historical reality, and the concepts obtained in the course of the analysis are combined into a single whole. Moreover, the synthesis in history is not a simple mechanical addition of individual elements, it gives a qualitative leap in understanding the object of study.

The idea of ​​"historical synthesis" was developed by A. Burr. He created the "Journal of Historical Synthesis" at the beginning of the 20th century and the International Center for Synthesis, which brought together historians, sociologists and representatives of natural and mathematical sciences from several countries. He advocated a cultural-historical synthesis, for the fusion of history and sociology, the use of the achievements of psychology and anthropology. Approximately a hundred monographs by various historians were published in the series “The Evolution of Mankind. Collective Synthesis. The focus is on social and mental life. But priority is given to psychology. A. Burr, in fact, prepared the emergence of the "Annals School", but the latter, after the Second World War, went further than him in search of a synthesis.

Each philosophical trend offered its own basis for synthesis, but so far the factors were shuffled in a positivist spirit. Recently, the idea of ​​a synthesis based on culture in the postmodern sense has emerged. We should wait for specific historical works in this direction.

One thing is clear, analysis and synthesis are inextricably linked. Successes in analysis will not be significant if they are not in synthesis. Synthesis will give a new impetus to analysis, and that, in turn, will lead to a new synthesis. There are successes in achieving a synthesis, but they are of a private and short-term nature, sometimes material, sometimes ideal factors are put forward as determining ones, but there is no unity among historians. The larger the subject of study, the more difficult it is to obtain a synthesis.

Modeling. This is the most common form of scientific activity. All sciences use models to obtain information about the phenomenon being modeled, to test hypotheses, and to develop a theory. This technique is also used by historians. Modeling of a historical phenomenon is carried out by means of logical design - mental models of a content-functional plan are created. Modeling is associated with some simplification, idealization and abstraction. It allows you to check the representativeness of information sources, the reliability of facts, test hypotheses and theories. This method is used at all stages of the study. An example of a study of the community can be given. When creating its model, data from sociology, law, psychology are used, mentality is taken into account. This already means the application of an interdisciplinary approach. At the same time, it must be remembered that it is impossible to simply transfer a model from another discipline, it must be reconstructed taking into account conceptual constructions.

There is mathematical modeling. Methods of nonlinear dynamics, mathematical theory of chaos, catastrophe theory are used. The construction of statistical models will be discussed in the section on mathematical methods in history.

Intuition. It is well known that scientists often use intuition when solving scientific problems. This unexpected solution is then tested scientifically. In history, at the end of the 19th century, W. Dilthey, referring history to the sciences of the spirit, considered the historian's intuition as the main method of understanding historical events. But this point of view was not shared by many historians, since it destroyed history as a science, preaching extreme subjectivism. What kind of truth could one talk about, relying only on the intuition of historians very different in erudition and abilities. Objective research methods were needed.

But this does not mean that intuition does not play a serious role in scientific research. For a historian, it is based on a deep knowledge of his subject, broad erudition, and the ability to timely apply this or that method. Without knowledge, no intuition will “work”. But, of course, talent is needed for “insight” to come. This speeds up the work of the historian, helps to create outstanding works.

Methodology is an integral part of scientific knowledge

Any discipline, in order to have the status of a scientific one, simply inevitably must acquire a clear system and methodology of knowledge. Otherwise, in the absence of a methodological apparatus, it cannot, strictly speaking, be considered a science. A striking example of such a statement is the existence of a number of alternative views (like homeopathy). The historical discipline, taking shape as a science, of course, also over time acquired its own scientific apparatus and acquired methods of historical research.

Peculiarities

It is interesting that the methods of research in history are by no means always historical in isolation, sometimes they are borrowed from other sciences. So, a lot was taken from sociology, geography, philosophy, ethnography, etc. However, history has one important feature that is unique to it. This is the only scientific discipline whose object and subject of study do not exist in real time, which makes it difficult to study them, significantly curtails the possibilities of its methodological apparatus, and also adds inconvenience to the researcher, who inevitably projects his own experience and beliefs onto the logic and motivation of past eras.

Variety of historical methods of knowledge

Methods of historical research can be classified in different ways. However, these methods formulated by historians are divided mainly into the following: logical knowledge, general scientific methods, special, interdisciplinary.
Logical or philosophical methods of historical research are the most elementary elements of common sense in the study of the subject: generalization, analysis, comparison, analogy.

General scientific methods

These are the methods of historical research that do not belong to history alone, but extend in general to the methods of scientific knowledge, such may be the following: a scientific experiment, measurement, hypothesis building, and so on.

Special Methods

They are the main and characteristic of a particular story. There are also a lot of them, but the following are distinguished as the main ones. Ideographic (narrative), which consists in the most accurate description of facts (of course, the description of reality and facts has its place in any study, but in history it has a very special character). Retrospective method, which consists in tracking the chronicle preceding the event of interest in order to identify its causes. Closely related to it is the historical-genetic method aimed at studying the early development of an event of interest. The historical-comparative method is based on the search for common and different phenomena in distant time and geographical periods, that is, on the identification of patterns. The logical follower of the previous method is the historical-typological method, which is based on the found patterns of phenomena, events, cultures, creates their classification for a simpler subsequent analysis. The chronological method involves a strict presentation of the factual material in the correct sequence.

Interdisciplinary Methods

Methods of historical research include interdisciplinary ones. For example, quantitative, borrowed from mathematics. Or socio-psychological. And geography did not just give history a cartographic method of research based on close work with maps. The purpose of the latter is to identify patterns and causes of historical events. A special discipline was born - historical geography, which studies the influence of geographical and climatic features on the course of history.

Thus, the methods of historical research are the most important basis for history as a science.

The purpose of the lesson is mastering the principles of historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological methods of historical research.

Questions:

1. Idiographic method. Description and summary.

2. Historical and genetic method.

3. Historical and comparative method.

4. Historical-typological method. Typology as forecasting.

When studying this topic, it is recommended to pay attention first of all to the works of I.D. Kovalchenko, K.V. Tail, M.F. Rumyantseva, Antoine Pro, John Tosh, revealing its current state to a sufficient extent. You can study other works, depending on the availability of time and if this work directly relates to the topic of the student's scientific research.

Under the "historical", "history" in scientific knowledge in a broad sense is understood everything that in the diversity of objective social and natural reality is in a state of change and development. The principle of historicism and the historical method have a common scientific value. They apply equally to biology, geology or astronomy as well as to the study of the history of human society. This method allows you to know reality through the study of its history, which distinguishes this method from the logical one, when the essence of the phenomenon is revealed by analyzing its given state.

Under the methods of historical research understand all the general methods of studying historical reality, i.e., methods related to historical science as a whole, applied in all areas of historical research. These are special scientific methods. On the one hand, they are based on the general philosophical method, and on one or another set of general scientific methods, and on the other hand, they serve as the basis for specific problematic methods, that is, methods used in the study of certain specific historical phenomena in the light of certain other research tasks. Their difference lies in the fact that they must be applicable to the study of the past according to the remnants that remain of it.

The concept of "ideographic method", introduced by representatives of the German neo-Kantian philosophy of history, presupposes not only the need to describe the phenomena under study, but also reduces to it the functions of historical knowledge in general. In fact, description, although an important step in this knowledge, is not a universal method. This is just one of the procedures of the historian's thinking. What are the role, limits of application and cognitive possibilities of the descriptive-narrative method?

The descriptive method is connected with the nature of social phenomena, their features, their qualitative originality. These properties cannot be neglected; no method of cognition can ignore them.

From this it follows that cognition in any case begins with a description, a characteristic of a phenomenon, and the structure of the description is ultimately determined by the nature of the phenomenon under study. It is quite obvious that such a specific, individually unique character of the object of historical knowledge requires appropriate linguistic means of expression.

The only language suitable for this purpose is a live colloquial speech in the composition of the literary language of the era contemporary to the historian, scientific historical concepts, terms of sources. Only a natural language, and not a formalized way of presenting the results of knowledge makes them accessible to the general reader, which is important in connection with the problem of the formation of historical consciousness.

Essential-meaningful analysis is impossible without methodology; it also underlies the description of the course of events. In this sense, the description and analysis of the essence of phenomena are independent, but interconnected, interdependent stages of cognition. Description is not a random enumeration of information about the depicted, but a coherent presentation that has its own logic and meaning. The logic of the image can to some extent express the true essence of what is depicted, but in any case, the picture of the course of events depends on the methodological ideas and principles that the author uses.

In a truly scientific historical study, the formulation of its goal is based on the position, including methodological, of its author, although the study itself is carried out in different ways: in some cases, it has a pronounced tendency, in others, the desire for a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of what is depicted. However, in the overall picture of events, the specific weight of what is a description always prevails over generalization, conclusions regarding the essence of the subject of the description.

Historical reality is characterized a number of common features, and therefore it is possible to single out the main methods of historical research. According to the academician I.D. Kovalchenko The main general historical methods of scientific research include: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological and historical-systemic. When using one or another general historical method, other general scientific methods are also used (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, description and measurement, explanation, etc.), which act as specific cognitive means necessary to implement the approaches and principles underlying basis of the leading method. The rules and procedures necessary for conducting research (research methodology) are also developed, and certain tools and tools are used (research technique).

Descriptive method - historical genetic method. The historical-genetic method is one of the most common in historical research. It consists in the consistent discovery of the properties, functions and changes of the studied reality in the process of its historical movement, which makes it possible to get as close as possible to recreating the real history of the object. Cognition goes (should go) sequentially from the individual to the particular, and then to the general and universal. By its logical nature, the historical-genetic method is analytical and inductive, and by the form of expressing information about the reality under study, it is descriptive. Of course, this does not exclude the use (sometimes even wide) of quantitative indicators. But the latter act as an element of describing the properties of an object, and not as a basis for revealing its qualitative nature and constructing its essential-content and formal-quantitative model.

The historical-genetic method makes it possible to show causal relationships and patterns of historical development in their immediacy, and to characterize historical events and personalities in their individuality and imagery. When using this method, the individual characteristics of the researcher are most pronounced. To the extent that the latter reflect a social need, they have a positive effect on the research process.

Thus, the historical-genetic method is the most universal, flexible and accessible method of historical research. At the same time, it is also inherent in its limitations, which can lead to certain costs in its absolutization.

The historical-genetic method is aimed primarily at the analysis of development. Therefore, with insufficient attention to statics, i.e. to fixing a certain temporal given of historical phenomena and processes, there may be a danger relativism .

Historical comparative method has also long been used in historical research. In general, comparison is an important and, perhaps, the most widespread method of scientific knowledge. In fact, no scientific research can do without comparison. The logical basis of the historical-comparative method in the case when the similarity of entities is established is analogy.

Analogy is a general scientific method of cognition, which consists in the fact that on the basis of similarity - some features of the compared objects, a conclusion is made about the similarity of other features. . It is clear that in this case the range of known features of the object (phenomenon) with which the comparison is made should be wider than that of the object under study.

Historical comparative method - critical method. The comparative method and verification of sources is the basis of the historical "craft", starting with the studies of positivist historians. External criticism allows, with the help of auxiliary disciplines, to establish the authenticity of the source. Internal criticism is based on the search for internal contradictions in the document itself. Mark Block considered the most reliable sources to be unintentional, unwitting evidence that was not intended to inform us. He himself called them "indications that the past unintentionally drops along its path." They can be private correspondence, a purely personal diary, company accounts, marriage records, inheritance declarations, as well as various items.

In general, any text is encoded by a representation system that is closely related to the language in which it is written. The report of an official of any era will reflect what he expects to see and what he is able to perceive: he will pass by what does not fit into his scheme of ideas.

That is why a critical approach to any information is the basis of the professional activity of a historian. A critical attitude requires intellectual effort. As S. Segnobos wrote: “Criticism is contrary to the normal structure of the human mind; man's spontaneous inclination is to believe what is said. It is quite natural to take on faith any statement, especially written; all the more easily if it is expressed in numbers, and even more easily if it comes from official authorities.... Therefore, to apply criticism means to choose a way of thinking that is contrary to spontaneous thinking, to take a position that is unnatural.... This cannot be achieved without effort. The spontaneous movements of a person who has fallen into the water are all that is needed in order to drown. While learning to swim, it means to slow down your spontaneous movements, which are unnatural.

In general, the historical-comparative method has a wide range of knowledge. Firstly, it allows revealing the essence of the studied phenomena in those cases when it is not obvious, on the basis of the available facts; to identify the general and repetitive, necessary and natural, on the one hand, and qualitatively different, on the other. Thus, the gaps are filled, and the study is brought to a complete form. Secondly, the historical-comparative method makes it possible to go beyond the phenomena under study and, on the basis of analogies, to come to broad historical parallels. Thirdly, it allows the application of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method.

It is possible to compare objects and phenomena both of the same type and different types that are at the same and at different stages of development. But in one case, the essence will be revealed on the basis of identifying similarities, and in the other - differences. Compliance with these conditions of historical comparisons, in essence, means the consistent implementation of the principle of historicism.

Revealing the significance of the features on the basis of which a historical-comparative analysis should be carried out, as well as the typology and stages of the compared phenomena most often requires special research efforts and the use of other general historical methods, primarily historical-typological and historical-systemic. In combination with these methods, the historical-comparative method is a powerful tool in historical research.

But this method, of course, has a certain range of the most effective action. This is, first of all, the study of socio-historical development in a wide spatial and temporal aspect, as well as those less broad phenomena and processes, the essence of which cannot be revealed through direct analysis due to their complexity, inconsistency and incompleteness, as well as gaps in specific historical data. .

The comparative method is used also as a means of developing and verifying hypotheses. On its basis, retro-alternativism is possible. History as a retro-telling suggests the ability to move in time in two directions: from the present and its problems (and at the same time the experience accumulated by this time) to the past, and from the beginning of an event to its finale. This brings to the search for causality in history an element of stability and strength that should not be underestimated: the final point is given, and in his work the historian starts from it. This does not eliminate the risk of delusional constructions, but at least it is minimized.

The history of the event is actually a social experiment that has taken place. It can be observed by circumstantial evidence, hypotheses can be built, tested. The historian may offer all sorts of interpretations of the French Revolution, but in any case, all his explanations have a common invariant to which they must be reduced: the revolution itself. So the flight of fancy has to be restrained. In this case, the comparative method is used as a means of developing and verifying hypotheses. Otherwise, this technique is called retroalternativism. To imagine a different development of history is the only way to find the causes of real history.

Raymond Aron urged to rationally weigh the possible causes of certain events by comparing what was possible: “If I say that the decision Bismarck caused the War of 1866… I mean, without the chancellor’s decision, the war would not have started (or at least wouldn’t have started at that moment)… actual causality is revealed only by comparison with what was in the possibility. Any historian, in order to explain what was, asks the question of what could have been.

Theory serves only to clothe in a logical form this spontaneous device, which is used by every ordinary person. If we are looking for the cause of a phenomenon, then we are not limited to simple addition or comparison of antecedents. We try to weigh the own impact of each of them. To carry out such a gradation, we take one of these antecedents, mentally consider it non-existent or modified, and try to reconstruct or imagine what would happen in this case. If you have to admit that the phenomenon under study would be different in the absence of this factor (or if it were not so), we conclude that this antecedent is one of the causes of some part of the phenomenon-effect, namely that part of it. parts in which we had to assume changes.

Thus, logical research includes the following operations:

1) dismemberment of the phenomenon-consequence;

2) establishing a gradation of antecedents and highlighting the antecedent whose influence we have to evaluate;

3) constructing an unreal course of events;

4) comparison between speculative and real events.

Suppose for a moment ... that our general knowledge of a sociological nature allows us to create unreal constructions. But what will be their status? Weber answers: in this case we will talk about objective possibilities, or, in other words, about the development of events in accordance with the patterns known to us, but only probable.

This analysis in addition to the event history, it applies to everything else. The actual causality is revealed only by comparison with what was in the possibility. If, for example, you are confronted with the question of the causes of the French Revolution, and if we want to weigh the importance respectively of economic factors (the crisis of the French economy at the end of the 18th century, the poor harvest of 1788), social factors (the rise of the bourgeoisie, the reaction of the nobility) , political factors (financial crisis of the monarchy, resignation Turgot), etc., there can be no other solution than to consider all these different causes one by one, to suppose that they could be different, and to try to imagine the course of events that might follow in this case. As he says M.Weber , to "untangle real causal relationships, we create unreal ones." Such an "imaginary experience" is for the historian the only way not only to identify the causes, but also to unravel, weigh them, as M. Weber and R. Aron put it, that is, to establish their hierarchy.

The historical-comparative method is inherent in a certain limitation, and one should also bear in mind the difficulties of its application. Not all phenomena can be compared. Through it, first of all, the root essence of reality in all its diversity is known, and not its specific specificity. It is difficult to apply the historical-comparative method in studying the dynamics of social processes. The formal application of the historical-comparative method is fraught with erroneous conclusions and observations.

Historical-typological method, like all other methods, has its own objective basis. It consists in the fact that in socio-historical development, on the one hand, they differ, and on the other hand, the individual, special, general and general are closely interconnected. Therefore, an important task in the knowledge of socio-historical phenomena, the disclosure of their essence, is to identify the one that was inherent in the diversity of certain combinations of the individual (single).

Social life in all its manifestations is a constant dynamic process. It is not a simple sequential course of events, but a change of some qualitative states by others, it has its own dissimilar stages. The allocation of these stages is also an important task in the knowledge of socio-historical development.

A layman is right when he recognizes a historical text by the presence of dates in it.

The first feature of time, in which, in general, there is nothing surprising: the time of history is the time of various social groups: societies, states, civilizations. This is the time that serves as a guide for all members of a group. Wartime always drags on for a very long time, revolutionary time was a time that flew by very quickly. The fluctuations of historical time are collective. Therefore, they can be objectified.

The task of the historian is to determine the direction of movement. The rejection of the teleological point of view in modern historiography does not allow the historian to admit the existence of a clearly directed time, as it appears to contemporaries. The processes under investigation themselves, in their course, communicate a certain topology to time. The forecast is possible not in the form of an apocalyptic prophecy, but a forecast directed from the past to the future, based on a diagnosis based on the past, in order to determine the possible course of events and assess the degree of its probability.

R. Koselleck writes about this: “While the prophecy goes beyond the horizon of calculated experience, the forecast, as you know, is itself interspersed in the political situation. And to such an extent that making a forecast in itself means changing the situation. Forecasting is thus a conscious factor in political action, it is made in relation to events by discovering their novelty. So in some unpredictably predictable way, time is always pushed beyond the forecast.”

The first step in the work of a historian is the compilation of a chronology. The second step is periodization. The historian cuts history into periods, replaces the elusive continuity of time with some signifying structure. The relations of discontinuity and continuity are revealed: continuity takes place within periods, discontinuity - between periods.

Periodization means, therefore, to identify discontinuities, discontinuities, to indicate what exactly is changing, to date these changes and give them a preliminary definition. Periodization deals with the identification of continuity and its violations. It opens the way for interpretation. It makes history, if not quite understandable, then at least already conceivable.

The historian does not reconstruct time in its entirety for each new study: he takes the time that other historians have already worked on, the periodization of which is available. Since the question being asked acquires legitimacy only as a result of its inclusion in the field of research, the historian cannot abstract from previous periodizations: after all, they constitute the language of the profession.

Typology as a method of scientific knowledge has as its goal the division (ordering) of a set of objects or phenomena into qualitatively defined types (classes based on their inherent common essential features. The focus on identifying essentially homogeneous in spatial or temporal aspects of sets of objects and phenomena distinguishes typology (or typification) from classification and grouping , in a broad sense, in which the task of identifying the belonging of an object as an integrity to one or another qualitative certainty may not be set.The division here may be limited to grouping objects according to certain characteristics and in this regard act as a means of ordering and systematizing specific data about historical objects , phenomena and processes.Typologization, being a kind of classification in form, is a method of essential analysis.

These principles can be implemented most effectively only on the basis of a deductive approach. It consists in the fact that the corresponding types are distinguished on the basis of a theoretical essential-content analysis of the considered set of objects. The result of the analysis should be not only the identification of qualitatively different types, but also the identification of those specific features that characterize their qualitative certainty. This creates the possibility of assigning each individual object to a particular type.

All this dictates the need to use both a combined deductive-inductive and inductive approach in typology.

In cognitive terms, the most effective typification is one that allows not only to single out the corresponding types, but also to establish both the degree to which objects belong to these types and the measure of their similarity with other types. This requires special methods of multidimensional typology. Such methods have been developed, and there are already attempts to apply them in historical research.

METHODOLOGY OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH - 1) the theoretical provisions of historical science, which act as a means of discovering new historical facts or are used as a tool for knowing the past [V. V. Kosolapov]; 2) the theoretical basis of concrete historical research [N. A. Mininkov].

The methodology of historical research is a way of solving a scientific problem and achieving its goal - obtaining new historical knowledge. The methodology of historical research as a method of research activity is a system of theoretical knowledge, including the goal, objectives, subject, cognitive strategy, methods and methodology for the production of historical knowledge. This system includes knowledge of two types - subject and methodological. Subject theoretical knowledge is the result of specific historical research. This is theoretical knowledge about historical reality. Methodological theoretical knowledge is the result of special scientific research, the subject of which is the research activity of historians. This is theoretical knowledge about the methods of research activities.

Theoretical knowledge of the subject and methodological content is included in the structure of the methodology of historical research, provided that they are internalized by the methodological consciousness of the researcher, as a result of which they become the design and normative basis of research activities. In the structure of the methodology of historical research, such theoretical knowledge functions as cognitive "filters" that mediate the interaction between the subject and the subject of historical research. Such "prerequisite" or "out-of-source" knowledge is sometimes called patterns, which are a syncretic unity of the constructive and the conceptual. These are “images”, on the one hand, of the subject of historical research, and on the other hand, of the very process of its research.

In the structure of the methodology of historical research, the following levels can be distinguished: 1) a model of historical research as a system of normative knowledge that defines the subject area of ​​a particular scientific research, its cognitive strategy, basic principles and cognitive means; 2) the paradigm of historical research as a model and standard for setting and solving a certain class of research problems accepted in the scientific community to which the researcher belongs; 3) historical theories related to the subject area of ​​specific historical research, forming its scientific thesaurus, model of the subject and used as explanatory constructs or understanding concepts; 4) methods of historical research as ways of solving individual research problems.

It is necessary to distinguish between the concept of "methodology of historical research" and the concept of the methodology of history as a branch of special scientific research or a scientific discipline that has been formed within the framework of historical science in order to theoretically ensure the effectiveness of historical research conducted in it. The methodology of history as a branch of science, according to the Russian historian of the early 20th century A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, is divided into two parts: the theory of historical knowledge and the doctrine of the methods of historical thinking. In the 20th century, the subject area of ​​methodology as a scientific discipline began to include the principles and methods of historical research, the laws of the process of historical knowledge, as well as such non-methodological issues as the meaning of history, the role of the masses in history, the laws of the historical process. Currently, the methodology of history is considered as a scientific discipline that provides the organization of the research process in order to obtain new and most reliable knowledge [N. A. Mininkov]. Consequently, the subject of the methodology of history as a scientific discipline is historical research itself.

The selection of historical research as a subject of the methodology of history as a scientific discipline raises important questions: is this research expedient or is it of an arbitrary nature, what conditions determine the possibility of obtaining new historical knowledge, are there logic and norms for the research activity of a historian, is its process cognizable ?

The inner world of a historian always requires a certain freedom of creativity, it is associated with inspiration, intuition, imagination and some other unique mental qualities of a scientist. Therefore, in this respect, historical research as creativity is an art. At the same time, historical research, in order to be scientific, must be carried out in accordance with certain principles and requirements that a scientist must comply with. Therefore, freedom of creativity, "flashes of insight" in historical science inevitably coexist with the scientist's ideas about the necessary elements of purposeful cognitive activity. Therefore, historical research is not only scientific creativity, but also, to a certain extent, a craft, that is, a cognitive activity subject to certain regulatory requirements. The study of these norms, bringing them into a system of purposeful activity, its theoretical justification makes it possible to exercise conscious control over the process of concrete historical research, constantly improve its practice, and also transfer the experience of research skills and teach it. This is the direct practical significance of the methodology of history as a scientific discipline.

A. V. Lubsky

The definition of the concept is cited from the ed.: Theory and Methodology of Historical Science. Terminological dictionary. Rep. ed. A.O. Chubaryan. [M.], 2014, p. 274-277.

Literature:

Kosolapov VV Methodology and logic of historical research. Kiev. 1977. S. 50; Lappo-Danshevsky A.S. Methodology of history. M, 2006. S. 18; Lubsky A. V. Alternative models of historical research: conceptual interpretation of cognitive practices. Saarbriicken, 2010; Mipinkov N. A. Methodology of history: a guide for a novice researcher. Rostov n / D, 2004. S. 93-94: Smolensky N. I. Theory and methodology of history: textbook. allowance 2nd ed., ster. M., 2008. S. 265.

HISTORICAL RESEARCH - 1) a system of theoretical and empirical procedures aimed at obtaining new knowledge necessary to achieve the goals (3); 2) a special type of cognitive activity, the distinguishing feature of which is the creation of new knowledge (4). Historical research as a special type of cognitive activity is associated with cognitive modeling of historical reality, the purpose of which is to obtain new historical knowledge using certain scientific means and research activities. Historical knowledge as a result of scientific research represents various models of historical reality as its formally structured images or representations, expressed in symbolic form, in the form of the language of historical science. Since these models are formally structured images or representations, they contain certain errors in relation to the historical reality they reproduce. This is due to the fact that no model can reproduce all its aspects, and therefore this or that model always leaves something out of consideration, due to which some aspects of the historical reality being modeled are described and explained incorrectly. Since any formal system is either incomplete or contradictory, historical knowledge as a model of historical reality always contains an error associated with either an incomplete description (simple model) or an inconsistent description (complex model) of this reality. The error contained in the model is discovered as it begins to interfere with the solution of other problems associated with the modeled object. The scientific problems that arise due to such model errors encourage scientists to build new, more advanced models; however, the new models again contain errors, but with respect to other aspects of the historical reality being studied. Historical research as a professional activity is carried out in a certain cultural and epistemological context, and in order to be scientific, it must correspond to certain attributive features, such as: rationality; striving for truth; problematic; goal setting; reflexivity; objectivity; empiricism; theorism; methodology; dialogism; novelty; contextuality. I. and. how cognitive activity is a culturally organized and motivated activity directed at an object (a fragment of a historical

reality), therefore, the structure of historical research is the interaction-dialogue of the subject of historical research with its subject using such means as methodology, which determines the method of this interaction, and historical sources, which are the basis for obtaining empirical information about the subject of cognitive interest. Historical research is a certain sequence of interrelated cognitive actions, which can be expressed as the following logical scheme: the emergence of cognitive interest - the definition of the object of historical research - the critical analysis of the system of scientific knowledge about the object of historical research - the formulation of a scientific problem - the definition of the goal of research - the system analysis of the object research - setting research objectives - defining the subject of research - choosing the methodological foundations of research - determining the body of sources of empirical information - implementing research activities at the empirical and theoretical levels - obtaining new conceptually completed scientific knowledge. Cognitive interest in a certain fragment of historical reality, called the object of historical research, acts as a motive for research activities. Critical analysis of the system of scientific knowledge about the object of historical research allows us to formulate a scientific problem, and after its completion - to reflect on the scientific novelty of historical research. Critical analysis of the system of scientific knowledge, which implies the establishment of its authenticity, allows us to formulate the scientific problem of historical research as a question, answering which the scientist intends to obtain fundamentally new scientific knowledge. The scientific problem, without which, in principle, scientific research itself is impossible, sets its goal, which makes it possible to determine the boundaries of the subject area of ​​historical research. The content of the subject of historical research is determined by its tasks, the formulation of which is carried out within the framework of the methodological consciousness of the scientist on the basis of a preliminary system analysis of the subject area of ​​research. This analysis involves the construction of a cognitive model of the subject area of ​​historical research as a whole, makes it possible to express it in a system of basic concepts, set tasks and define the subject of research in the form of a list of questions, the answers to which make it possible to implement a cognitive research strategy aimed at obtaining new historical knowledge on based on a representative base of sources of empirical information with the help of the most effective methodological guidelines associated with the solution of a particular class of research problems. This kind of methodological guidelines, or scientific paradigms, developed within the framework of various models of historical research, determine certain cognitive actions of a scientist in the course of its implementation. In their structure, one can single out actions related to: a) obtaining representative empirical information from historical sources (source study level); b) obtaining scientific facts based on empirical information, their systematization and description, creation of empirical knowledge (empirical level); c) with the interpretation and explanation of scientific facts, the development of theoretical knowledge (theoretical level); d) conceptualization of scientific empirical and theoretical knowledge (conceptual level); e) presentation and translation of scientific historical knowledge (presentation and communication level).

A.V. Lubsky

The definition of the concept is cited from the ed.: Theory and Methodology of Historical Science. Terminological dictionary. Rep. ed. A.O. Chubaryan. [M.], 2014, p. 144-146.

Literature:

1) Kovalchenko I. D. Methods of historical research. Moscow: Nauka, 1987; 2) Lubsky A. V. Alternative models of historical research: conceptual interpretation of cognitive practices. Saarbriicken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2010; 3) Mazur L. H. Methods of historical research: textbook. allowance. 2nd ed. Yekaterinburg: Publishing house Ural, un-ta, 2010. S. 29; 4) Rakitov A. I. Historical knowledge: Systemic-epistemological approach. M.: Politizdat, 1982. S. 106; 5) Tosh D. Striving for the truth. How to master the skill of a historian / Per. from English. M.: Publishing house "The whole world", 2000.