Books, Articles, and the Historian

When thinking about the uses of books and articles, the similarities between them often overshadow their differences in terms of how they are used in research. The more important similarities and differences emerge after putting aside the obvious differences of length, accessibility through electronic databases or compilations, and the fact that often the article would have been written - and it can sometimes show in the writting - under tight time restraints. Structually, often, books and articles have many of the same characteristics; introduction, historiography, statement of principle argument(s), body, and conclusion. The length of the articles, however, makes them an ideal starting point for any research.

Scholarly reviews help determine the value of books, or lack thereof, by critically evaluating the principle arguments and the evidence presented. Introductions in books also, often evaluate other scholarly works, but with less intensity. Pertinent information about the author of a book may also be included in a review if this information could potentially affect the level of objectivity.

It is important to note that the authors of articles (and reviews) usually have books published on the same subject. In the case of dissertations, the author may have expanded their idead into the form of a published book. A good example would be Dr. Morrell's 1991 dissertation "Britain Confronts the Stalin Revolution" which he would later restructure and publish as a book by the same name in 1995.

Books are not written with the constraints of time and length associated with articles and reviews. While containing all of the structural elements of the article, the book evidences far more research on wider subject matters. Simplified, the book contains greater knowlege, while an article contains more in depth analysis of specific issues often contained within the books.

What is gained by books and articles are critical evaluations of other publications - more so with articles - and by extension a long list of sources to add to the research "to do" list. This is acconplished either by taking key authors out of the historiography sections, or from the footnotes and the bibliographies.