1981
DOI: 10.2307/2504558
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Myth of Historical Evidence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1990
1990
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Others (the instrumentalist-constructionist school) regard historians as taking present-day objects or events and explaining their existence by constructing an account of the past (Hurst, 1981).…”
Section: Methodological Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Others (the instrumentalist-constructionist school) regard historians as taking present-day objects or events and explaining their existence by constructing an account of the past (Hurst, 1981).…”
Section: Methodological Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a sense, Porter presents a bridge between realist-empiricist historians who first collect evidence and then build accounts of the past, and instrumentalist-constructionist historians who take present-day objects or events and attempt to explain them by means of accounts of the past (Hurst, 1981). Rather than Barzun's (1974) view that history is narrative-specific and non-analytical, Porter can be more closely aligned with Degler's (1987) view that explanation is a fundamental feature of history and that interpretation, rather than just a 'factual' story, must be undertaken.…”
Section: Prior Research and Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In delivering this historical perspective, we have adopted an instrumentalist constructionist perspective where we reflect on contemporary events and interpret them through accounting for the past. By analysing the past, we seek relevant knowledge to inform the present (Hurst, 1981; Previts et al, 1990a). In particular, we seek to understand how past patterns of behaviour have shaped PMSs and accountability practices in the AHES (Previts et al, 1990a).…”
Section: Methodological Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%