History Students, Historians, and the Reference Desk (Oh my!)

     As a matter of full disclosure I feel it is important to admit that I am, in fact, a historian. I am not a professional historian—as there is nobody currently paying me—but I do hold both a BA and an MA in History. Further, I worked for two years as a TA at the Kent State Department of History and also spent many a sleepless night crafting my contribution to the field. Somebody in technical services even had the unenviable task of adding my thesis to KentLink.

All matters of personal history aside, on with the topic of the day.

     I believe that assisting history students and historians can be a daunting task for reference librarians who either spent little time in a post-secondary history classroom or, for whatever reason, simply hate history. As there is very little that I can comment the latter, I will instead do my best to elucidate those who may fall into the former.

     First I would like to address the sources that history students and historians (simply known as 'historians' from this point). Historians will make use of anything and everything. From government documents to the reports anthropologists; from diaries and journals to pieces of clothing; from furniture to newspapers; and from suits of armor to magazine ads—historians, much like anthropologists, take a holistic approach to their work. If, for example, a historian was researching the signing of the Declaration of Independence they could easily use all the resources listed above and countless more. In fact, were a librarian in a hurry simply tells such a historian that, "The history of the Americas can be found in the E-F range," that historian would have received little useful help.

     Historians tend to spend most of their time in a library looking at materials categorized in every section except History. The reason for this is two-fold: the intricacies of methodology and range of topic. Instead of speaking in generalities and risk losing point in ethereal vagaries, I will use my previously mentioned thesis as an example. Historians are well-versed in historiography—the study of writing in history—but when it comes to learning about methodology, much of what is taught comes from different professions: english, anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc. In my own case I created a paradigm of two theories, from two different schools of thought. Neither of these theories came from historians. Next it is necessary to consider the complexity of topics in historical research. What follows is the subject list from the catalog entry for my thesis:

Trials (Murder) -- Ohio -- Youngstown -- 19th century -- Case studies

Trials (Murder) -- Ohio -- Youngstown -- 19th century -- Public opinion -- Case studies

Murder -- Investigation -- Ohio -- Youngstown -- 19th century -- Case studies

Journalism -- Objectivity -- Ohio -- Youngstown -- 19th century -- Case studies

American newspapers -- Social aspects -- Ohio -- Youngstown -- 19th century -- Case studies

crime; murder; tramps; nineteenth-century; Youngstown; objectivity; executions; newspapers; sensationalism; narrative history; urban history

Sterling, Charles, -1877 -- Trials, litigation, etc

Now I am in no way an expert in all of these areas yet to write about the event that I was studying, I had to (quickly) develop enough contextual expertise in the law, journalism, labor, and criminal justice in order to test and support my argument. I spent a lot of time in libraries looking for resources created for lawyers, journalists, and sociologists. This has also been the case with many historians that I have known. Much of the in-field ready happens early and often leads them to their topic, but once they enter the research phase they will spend most of their time with primary sources and secondary sources from outside their field.

     Fortunately, most reference librarians will not have direct involvement with primary resources for historians as these are typically housed in archives. If there is one thing a historian will chew your ear off about it is their primary sources. Likely, and of you who looked at the history sub/reddit will have already noticed that.

     Academic reference librarians can feel out of their depth when presented with a student looking for information about liquid crystals, fluid dynamics, or any other subject we feel less than versed in. These moments are actually good things because they force us to ask more questions of the user to make sure we are giving them the right information. History, however, is something that most people think they know pretty well which may lead us to feel comfortable and question the user less. 

     After reading all this (I hope that I kept some of you until the end) just sit and ponder for a minute the hidden complexity and twists that could occur when a patron says, "I need sources for a history paper that I'm writing about the Declaration of Independence." The complexity of history is a good reminder of why we are continually reminded about and practicing our reference interview skills: because a question that seems simple is often the most difficult to answer.