Sang Bing: Well-written and well-written- How to write historical papers

Source: Anti-Japanese War Studies, No. 4, 2021, notes omitted

The author, Sang Bing, is a professor at the School of History, Zhejiang University

On how to write a good historiographical essay, I have talked about some ideas before. Since it is mainly oriented to new entrants, priority is given to the top priorities, and it is generally limited to basic issues such as the smoothness of text expression. Writing a good academic paper on history is by no means so simple, and the editor-in-chief and the journal hope to further explore more specific and in-depth aspects, such as how to refine words. Only in this way, we must first solve the criteria for judging what constitutes a well-written historical paper, otherwise each of us will say something different, and we will not be able to write.

Research and teaching are not inextricably linked. Nowadays, all parties advocate that universities should focus on lectures first, believing that lectures are the way to teach and educate people, and scientific research is the teacher's own business. Correspondingly, the student's main energy should be devoted to attending lectures, automatic and autonomous learning, and instead secondary. This runs counter to the spiritual thrust of Cai Yuanpei's succession and transformation of Peking University before May Fourth. Cai Yuanpei's view is that universities must pay attention to academic theory, so they only do two subjects of arts and sciences, and the rest of the technical disciplines should be changed to specialties and stripped away. Teachers must have research to attend classes, and lectures cannot be taught blindly according to the script in order to guide students to gradually enter the research state. Correspondingly, students cannot just passively listen to instruction, but take the form of automatic and self-directed learning as the norm. Since the Establishment of the Academic System since the Qing Dynasty, the transition from ordinary students below junior high school to specialized studies at the university level has been completed at the higher school or university preparatory stage, so the change in learning style after entering the university is a natural thing, and there is no difficulty. One of the drawbacks is that students often do not attend classes, such as Peking University, where most of them are auditors or eavesdroppers. Although most of the formal students do not attend classes, there is no lack of learning and exploration spirit, Gu Jiegang is to listen to the drama for two years, and hear a legend of Meng Jiangnu, which can show the law of governing history more than ancient history.

If the main form is to take the class, whether the lecture is good or not will naturally become an important indicator of examination. The question is how to determine good and bad criteria for research-based university lectures. There are three types of teachers, teaching, solving puzzles, and enlightening the way. Jin Yudi further divided the hierarchy, believing that primary school teachers can teach, secondary schools can solve puzzles, and universities should be enlightened. The so-called Ming Dao, according to Chen Yinke's interpretation, is the source of the teaching of the Taoist system, and by extension, it is the ins and outs of learning and its interconnection, that is, the source of the examination mirror and the discernment of chapter scholarship. Based on this, it is rare to be able to be fully competent and enjoyable. Later, the students' memories were mainly based on whether they sounded good or not, and it was difficult to distinguish whether they spoke well or not. Generally speaking, the higher the degree of the teacher, the more difficult it is for students to understand, the so-called in-depth and simple, either can be encountered but not sought, or catered to the customs. Therefore, it is often not good to speak well, and it is often not good to speak well. Nowadays, most of the so-called good classes are good Internet celebrity courses, but if you take the good listening as a model, I am afraid it is difficult to be popular with such popular reviews as the Hundred Pulpits. As for whether to speak well, unless it is a common sense basic course, the same level has a difference in the effect of listening to or not, if the academic connotation is high, the more advanced it is, the fewer people who understand it, and the incomprehension may be caused by speaking too well. The lectures that are really acclaimed and acclaimed are hardly recorded.

Similar to the difference between good lectures and good speeches in class, there is also a distinction between writing a paper well and writing well. History is inconclusive, and good historiography papers naturally have different styles. In other words, papers with very different words may all be well written. Different masters study the same problem and write papers on the same topic, which must show a variety of colors, not a thousand faces. In the teaching, I have repeatedly talked about the different writing styles of several modern history researchers, which can be said to be very different. One of them is Mr. Kim Chong and Mr. Mr. Kim's writings are written in vernacular and rarely in white. Generally speaking, pure vernacular texts are not strong enough in reasoning, and second, the text is inevitably lengthy. But Mr. Kim's article is not only not boring, but also contains truth. If you don't have the heart to cultivate, it will be difficult to reach such a state. Of course, too white still has room for refining words. Recently, Mr. Jin himself mentioned that Hu Sheng had asked him to delete the superfluous word "of", which made the article look more concise. Adding adverbs to virtual words is the magic trick of people on how to write a good vernacular text, in fact, the difference between words and whites is not just as simple as adding or subtracting some word categories. As for the reasoning side, one of the reasons for advocating vernacular literature in the early days is that it is difficult to reason, but in fact, the strength of reasoning between literature and white may be stronger. Fu Sinian, who advocated vernacular literature, wrote historical treatises, sometimes even using all literary languages, which showed its convenience. Words as almost straightforward but reasonable and powerful as Mr. Kim's are rare.

The text is related to the content in the form of the dao, the stylistic text, etc., but the main content determines the form. The quality of academic papers is basically determined by the high level of research. A good performance of the text can make the article look good, but it does not play a major decisive role in whether the paper is well written. Whether or not a good historical or related academic paper can be written is whether the author has three main conditions at the research level: First, fully grasp the prior research of the predecessors. Second, fully grasp the relevant information. Third, properly understand the question of history itself. You must have all three aspects in order to lay the foundation for writing an academic paper.

A comprehensive and effective grasp of advance research is indispensable to determine the starting point of an academic research and its position in the entire development context, otherwise it is either wishful thinking or aimlessness without knowing where to start and where to work. It is also the beginning of an academic paper. This natural thing may not be implemented. Reviewing past research, many treatises have no prior research at all, as if they are all self-made, and the reader has no way of knowing whether the problem studied has been explored by previous people, according to chronological order, who has contributed to what extent in what aspects, and what state of research on this issue will be presented when the author begins to study, and how the author will carry out his own unique research plan. The vagueness of the starting point makes the study elusive. In the past, some foreign scholars said that the best way to study China was to start with Japanese treatises, and Chinese scholars regarded it as a great shame. In fact, this statement is not necessarily to ignore the contributions of Chinese scholars, but a large number of treatises are mixed, and there are many contributions of people who are not advanced at all, which are mixed with a large number of low-level repetitions, and even the degree that has been reached by predecessors is not enough. This has caused headaches for foreign scholars, especially those whose native language is alphabetic, when they begin to study established problems. Starting from The Japanese Treatise, after all, Japanese scholars have the convenience of the Kanji cultural circle, and they can sort out the relevant research of their predecessors through their hands.

Or in view of the excessive writing in the academic circles and the high degree of self-confidence, they simply do not look at the research of their predecessors and start from scratch. Although the knowledge is good and the shot is extraordinary, after all, it is difficult to completely avoid falling into the quagmire of repeated research, so that it is inevitable that there is a suspicion of plagiarism.

Dissertations have hard rules on the explanation of previous research, but they cannot grasp how to discuss the prior research, and various biases are generated. Some people claim that they have no special works before them, but in fact there are several relevant monographs, and they are neglecting to find them; some deliberately take care of him left and right, quote a large number of them, and miss the most direct and important treatises; the most common is to write a review, worried about hanging up a leak, suspecting of irregularities, preferring to fill in a bunch, not daring to let go of one, listing a list of various treatises, and still unable to grasp the existing progress and their own starting point. Narrative research must focus on their own themes in chronological and hierarchical manner to explain the contributions related to this topic, and be able to clearly present their starting point. The overview narrative, as if all the space had been filled, had to be constantly denigrated with a proviso, or else it seemed to have nothing more to say.

The first research can not only clarify the starting point, but more importantly, it can show what value and development prospects their research orientation has in the entire research context, that is, whether the problem awareness is clear and clear.

Whether and to what extent the relevant historical materials are mastered varies from person to person. According to Professor Naoki Koma, it is generally possible to grasp 80 to 85 percent of the material in 50 percent of the time, and 50 percent of the time to grasp more than 50 to 10 percent of the material, and 5 to 10 percent of the material to be encountered and unattainable. The problem is that without going through the stage of reading books, finding information is like walking at night with candles, it is pitch black, I don't know where the edge is, how much material is in hand, and there are countless in my heart. Those who have read books and know how to start from the table of contents and do it properly may see that fifty percent can sell, and it is generally good. Otherwise, it is always like a blind man touching an elephant.

The material is collected a lot, and if it cannot be properly interpreted, it is equivalent to not mastering it. Interpreting materials should compare different records as much as possible, dredge the relationship between the left and right of the front and back, and try to use external forces as little as possible at the writing stage, including other disciplines and extraterritorial academic circles. Don't always see the meaning in the material and feel uninteresting, turn a blind eye, but find out the meaning from the unrelated middle of the eight rods to add, that is really meaningless. Therefore, the degree of mastery of material is directly proportional to the amount of reading, but not necessarily proportional to the amount of material obtained for a specific specific problem.

Blindly using the method of finding materials to do research, without looking at the stage of reading, every time you change a topic, it is like starting from scratch, doing it, but I have an understanding of several topics that I have done, and I am still at a loss about the whole of history and the interconnection of various parts. And history is a coherent whole, narrow and deep study, it is difficult to avoid bias. Therefore, the study of experts was originally criticized. After the end of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, Wang Zhonghan said, "Those who have cured history in the late and recent past are likely to be called experts. Whoever rules a certain dynasty, that is, only knows one or two things of a certain dynasty, but does not know the profit and loss of a certain dynasty's system and its evolution, and his writings and arguments will be chiseled through many appendices. Later, Qian Mu further criticized: "Since the Republic of China, Chinese academia has been divided into categories and experts, which is very different from the traditional Chinese study of confucianism. Repeat to the ancient books, do not fit in. This will have a great impact on the future development of scholarship. "Advocate the use of existing sub-disciplines, the integration of old books, and the pursuit of their understanding." The way of experts is becoming more and more narrow, and it is impossible to know the distribution of types and priorities of materials by looking at other related studies, it is impossible to grasp the margins and proportions of materials, and it is impossible to establish a systematic understanding of historical facts based on materials. If your own research is only superficial, even the current industry is not easy to grasp properly.

To understand historical issues, of course, it is necessary to grasp the relevant research of predecessors and fully possess relevant information, but in general, unless you personally start, it is difficult to recognize the position in all aspects, so it is naturally difficult to judge whether it is superior or not. If you have mastered the relevant research of your predecessors and possessed enough materials, if you do not practice properly, even if you have written a monograph or work, you may not really understand it in the relevant field. Mistakenly believing that it is simple and easy to clarify historical facts, forcing the understanding before the facts have been clarified, or even sacrificing the facts to understand, it is inevitable or far-fetched to follow, or to suppress the clichés, and no matter how good it is written, it is only a specious superficial article, and it is impossible to form a deep and appropriate understanding of the historical issues studied themselves. Using such historical knowledge as the basis for judging relevant research is not only impossible to judge, but also may reverse right and wrong.

The premise of writing well is to see whether it is good or not, as long as you can distinguish between high and low, imitation can also be practiced. If you can't see the good or the bad, you will be able to step by step, get it bad, and you will go astray, and unconsciously go forward bravely on the crooked path. Therefore, if you want to write well, you must have the conditions of the first three aspects. Some people worry that the historical understanding is incorrect but popular, and feel that efforts should be made to reverse it. In fact, the people have always talked about the Three Kingdoms according to the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms", and it is impossible to read the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" universally as the basis for talking about the Three Kingdoms. It would be too heavy for them to talk about the Three Kingdoms according to the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Their needs are different, there is no need to force uniformity, and it is harmless. The problem now is that it is influenced by the Internet self-media, coupled with the behavior of some mainstream media is not without the suspicion of confusing the public, and the multitude of people in the community is gradually affecting the academic circles. However, those who lack self-confidence in the academic circles are shaken by it, cannot defend themselves, and inevitably cater to the trend of the times, and also talk about the Three Kingdoms in the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms", which is the real worry.

If the above is the premise basis for a good historical paper, then the specific judgment of the quality of the text, that is, whether it is good or not, is somewhat subjective. The controversy over whether Chen Yinke's historical treatises are well-represented is a major example, and Hu Shi, Qian Mu, Qian Zhongshu, and others have criticized them from different aspects, and Qian Mu's opinions also involve the quality of the content of the papers. However, Cheng Qianfan and others have an understanding and sympathetic explanation, and some people further promote it from the perspective of "ups and downs of literary history". Different from the perception of the literati, many historians read his articles and feel that they are both in line with historical facts and timeless in rhyme, and they can't help but clap the case. Such a vast difference makes people wonder how much of the parties involved in the litigation are mixed with the private assumptions played by the topic.

Generally speaking, a good historiographical paper must be able to return to the historical scene and explore the relationship between the left and the right according to the original space-time position. Anything that is divorced from the established space-time position and its connections, combined with a backward external architecture, and then divided into several aspects for example, will not be good in general. As far as historiography is concerned, good writing is not only natural in the literal, but more importantly, the material and the facts are interconnected, revealing the connections behind them through appearances, and can be retested. If it is only self-justified in words, it is not difficult to say that there are many modern and modern historical materials and complicated historical events. However, the so-called proof is not difficult, and the disproof is also easy, and it is impossible to penetrate the self-contained theory of materials and historical events, and even if it seems that the head is the Tao, there are many situations that are inconsistent with the history of materials. It's just that it's not easy to see without special training.

Similar to the Qing Dynasty scholars who often pointed out that the documents of the past were not easy to refer to, and they were good at changing words, limited by their own knowledge and pressure from all sides (such as checking and regulations of relevant departments), editors and reviewers always liked to change the text, rather than distinguishing between scribble and characteristics. This has caused great trouble to the academic community. Both Chen Yinke and Qian Zhongshu had resolutely opposed unauthorized reforms based on later norms. However, this kind of atmosphere is becoming more and more intense, if the name is hidden, the words of everyone in the Republic of China period are selected to test the current scholars, and it is likely to be changed to the whole article. Language and writing should be personalized, and most of the rules are out of the back, using the later rules to force the previous style, is tantamount to cutting enough to fit, using the current rules to constrain the play of personality, like a cocoon of self-binding. Therefore, standardization often leads to mediocrity, and once the personality is erased, it will be full of craftsmanship and impatience. If the text is to remain flexible and lively, to avoid rigidity, it cannot be the same.

Nowadays, the academic community has insufficient motivation to achieve fame, and the devotees are slow to shoot, and the historical papers published in various academic journals account for about four kinds of historical papers, that is, taking a degree, promoting the title, doing projects, and competing for hats, these several situations have the pressure to publish quantitative indicators (in fact, the purpose of shipping is to produce people, hinder the shipment of people, can only improve personal livelihood, academic meaningless), have to find ways, utilitarian color is stronger, lack of learning is indispensable to transcend the consciousness. Self-disciplined people can also follow the right track and strive to improve, otherwise it is inevitable to take advantage of the camp. And the publications have their own good qualities, the editors are not uncertain, and the external review "experts" are also more separated, and it is inevitable to see the suspicion of hilarity, so they speculate on their preferences, vote for their preferences, and self-consistent papers are popular.

The so-called self-consistency, that is, its topics, arguments, arguments, arguments, seem to be related to historical events, but in fact, according to the self-determined logic to set up the theme and discuss it, all the connections are reconstructed through its imagination. Because the title does not come from the facts, and is free from the constraints of specific time and space connections, the article itself seems to be prominent, clearly organized, echoing back and forth, and the style of writing is smooth. However, if we examine it in the system of prior research, various materials, and the correlation of historical events, it is not difficult to find that if what is said and historical events are separated from each other, it is plausible, even as a kind of historical understanding, it is difficult to stand. Chen Yinke and others have long realized that historical twists and turns are complicated, and if they are too clear, they will inevitably be distorted. Historiography, on the other hand, cannot be exchanged for distortion in exchange for rationalization. However, because people often confuse the connection and distinction between history and the history of social development, they turn the presentation of history into a means of expressing their chest, and an understanding based on a simplistic appearance of historical events, just like building a tower on sand, may collapse at any time.

On issues such as these, expert reviews are often not easy to find, and the text alone is judged in terms of text, because the arguments are prominent and the arguments seem to be powerful, and many times they feel that they are well written. Such abnormalities have probably become the norm, and there is a mandatory question for doctoral students in the previous examination, that is, to list ten monographs on the subjects examined and select one of them. Although this question is equivalent to a full open book, most of the books listed by the candidates every year are not good, and the ones selected for evaluation are often the worse ones. In their view, there is no doubt that the selection must be a good book, and the selection and evaluation of the best book. It can be seen that it is probably common for individuals to feel likes and dislikes, and so on. When Liang Qi surpassed the world, some people pointed out that he led the trend in his early years, and in his later years, he was pushed by the trend, but in fact, he blindly faced the trend of leading the times for the new, which was not necessarily much smarter than changing with the wind.

If there is no or lack of grasp of prior research, relevant materials and historical facts, the only way to judge whether the paper is well written in terms of text can only judge whether it is well written, but not whether it is well written. Especially in the face of self-consistent papers, they often feel that they are well written and cannot see the problem. Don't say that most editors are full-time, even experts in a certain field, in the face of all-encompassing manuscripts, it is difficult to judge. Such a situation is already quite common in the external review of dissertations and journal papers. Regardless of the level of evaluation, it does not properly reflect the true level of the paper. If the relevant fields are generally not done well but there is still self-consciousness, there is still room for improvement, if you do not do well but are confident in your own knowledge, not only can not distinguish between good and bad, but also will cause negative screening, resulting in self-consistent superficial articles flooded, so that the really good research results can not be read, can not be accurate, is the great sadness of the academic community.

(Editor-in-Charge: Gao Yingying)