The Where: The Foci of Historical Studies

Historians can look at topics and events a number of different ways. The foci of where historians direct their attention will yield differing histories of even the same event. When considering where historians look, we focus on the scope of history and the view of history.

Scope of History

The scope of a historical investigation determines how wide a net the historian casts in finding sources and may reflect how influential the historian sees the topic or event. This, in turn, influences the interpretation made. Let us consider immigration policy during World War II to understand the foci of historical studies. We could look at the effect of U.S. immigration policies on Los Angeles. To do so, we would probably use some federal or national sources and local sources, like newspapers, diaries, and interviews of people in Los Angeles. This would be a local scope of study. We could broaden this to explore the effect of these policies on the entire American Southwest, using state and local sources in that region. This would be a regional study. Other regional studies would be studies of the Midwest, the South, or the West. Another alternative would have the historian examine national sources, using federal documents as well as many states' documents. National-level publications, like national newspapers, would help to chart the effect of immigration policy nationally. This would be a national study. We could make this an international study by focusing on the effects of immigration policy during World War II on Mexico. Thus the scope of study could be local, regional, national, or even international, but whatever it is, the sources must align with the scope of study. You cannot use only local sources and claim to be doing a national study.

When historians use a national scope, they are, by default, arguing that the topic had significance and influence at the national level. Likewise, local studies usually do not have national significance because the historian only explores the much smaller, local level, such as a city or community. However, sometimes a local person or event may have national impact. For instance, Jane Addams and her Chicago-based Hull House (a community reform organization aimed at assisting working-class immigrant women at the beginning of the twentieth century) were important beyond Chicago for the leadership and example they set in handling urban reform issues. Similarly, the 1925 Scopes Trial, which pitted evolution against creationism, was broadcast across the United States and was not just important in the state of Tennessee. Historians sometimes argue that local events exemplify a national issue. In this case the historian may rely most heavily on local materials but still pepper the research with relevant national sources to show how his or her localized topic stands as an example of a broader national trend or issue.

View of History

How a historian views a topic is related to the scope. The topic can be viewed from a top-down perspective or a bottom-up perspective—it just depends on where the historian looks. Let us again use our example of immigration policy during World War II to understand the view a historian takes. A top-down view of immigration would focus on the bigger picture about policy. A bottom-up view would focus on the people, their work, and their lives—in particular, the laborers themselves rather than famous people like labor leaders or presidents. Simply pursuing a local scope of study, however, would not always lead to a bottom-up perspective. One could examine the local aircraft industry in Los Angeles in terms of its growth and economic impact on the city without considering the lives of the aircraft factory workers.

The view historians take—either top down or bottom up—influences what is studied and the documents or sources used. A top-down view would focus on government policies, institutions, and influential people—the movers and shakers of the time and place. Government documents, letters, memos, materials from influential organizations and people, and widely read publications would be sources used. A bottom-up view considers common people and uses their documents: letters, diaries, oral interviews, as well as documents that get at the local culture, such as those produced by local organizations, clubs, churches, or other agencies that influenced the lives of the common people in a community.

Beyond helping to determine the sources used, the views historians take also provide a perspective on what historians think is important about the past and who they think effect change. Is it the little guy that makes change happen (the common person), or is it bigwigs (government and business leaders and their policies, for instance)? A historian's view (top down or bottom up) indicates to readers how he or she interprets history. Does the historian see institutions and influential people and policies as influencing the course of history, or does he or she see a give-and-take between people and policies? When reading historical research you should determine where the author's foci are to help you in understanding his or her interpretation.