歷史學研究理論是什麼

『壹』 歷史學科研究的理論和方法都有哪些

主要史學理論和史學研究法總結
一.主要史學範式(史觀)
史學範式是史學家研究歷史的范型和模式，是歷史觀和方法論的統一，也是史學觀點、史學范疇和史學方法等有機集合體。高中新課標程式下的史學範式已從單一走向多元，由傳統單一的階級斗爭範式(或稱革命史範式)，發展為階級斗爭範式、文明史範式、整體史範式(亦稱全球史範式)和現代化範式等四種史學範式。這些新的史學範式，提高了歷史研究的框架性認識.
1.文明史範式(通史順序)
文明史範式認為:人類歷史從本質上說是人類文明發展的歷史，人類文明的發展及其人類自身的文明化是人類歷史發展的基本線索。人類創造、積累文明的過程及其所獲得的成果是歷史的基本內容。人類文明由物質文明、精神文明和政治文明構成，三者在相互作用、協調互補中交替促進、共同發展。
例:請利用1949年到1956年的歷史事實來分析「由物質文明、精神文明和政治文明構成，三者在相互作用、協調互補中共同發展。」?
2.全球史範式(經濟一體化全球化)
全球史觀，又稱整體史觀。他們把人類社會歷史發展視為一個有機整體，是從分散發展到整體發展的過程。在這一進程中重視交往、強調交往在人類歷史發展進程中的作用，生產力的發展和世界各地區交往的發展是人類歷史發展的兩條主線，建立在生產力發展基礎上的世界各地區交往的發展是推動人類社會從分散走向整體發展的決定因素。
例:請分析16世紀到19世紀的歐洲是如何加強與世界各地區交往的?並以此分析其對歐洲及世界發展的影響。
3.近(現)代化範式
現代化是以商品經濟為特徵的工業文明取代以自然經濟為特徵的農業文明的結果，它主要表現為經濟領域的工業化和市場化、政治領域的民主化和法制化、思想領域的理性化和科學化。
例:請從現代化範式的角度分析1840年到1949年的中國的歷史，以此說明這一時期中國近代化的發展。
4.革命史範式(階級斗爭)
革命史範式作為中國近代史學界從20世紀50年代至80年代占絕對主導地位的理論範式。其理論基礎源於馬克思主義關於社會基本矛盾的學說。根據這一學說，在階級社會里，兩大對立階級之間的矛盾，最集中地反映了該社會發展階段的基本矛盾，考察和研究階級矛盾、社會基本矛盾的運動發展，便能把握住歷史發展中最本質的內涵，揭示歷史發展的內在規律性。
例:請從革命史範式出發研究1919年到1956年的歷史(提示:分析社會主要矛盾)

『貳』 歷史學是什麼

歷史學類專業教育教學應堅持以馬克思主義為指導，培養學生具有堅定正確的政治方向、扎實的理論基礎、廣博的歷史知識、深厚的人文素養、敏銳的問題意識與思辨能力，掌握歷史信息搜集、考證與分析的基本方法，能在歷史過程和現實處境中考察特定的歷史現象，記錄、搜集和處理相關信息，形成合理的見解，以開放和包容的眼光理解人類社會生活及其價值觀念的復雜性和多樣性，能在高等和中等學校及相關科研部門從事歷史學教育與研究，適應國家社會經濟文化發展的需要。

『叄』 歷史學的是研究什麼和什麼的科學

是研究自然史和人類社會史兩方面的。

歷史學的定義從內涵上可歸納為兩種。
廣義的「史學」是對「史」進行同時合訓而產生的「史有二義」的統一體，包括：（1）完全獨立於人們的意識之外的人類過往社會的客觀存在及其發展過程，和（2）歷史學家對這種客觀存在和過程及其規律的描述和探索的精神生產實踐及其創造出來的產品。狹義上的史學不包括前者，而專指後者。
狹義上的史學是一種精神生產實踐及其創造的屬於觀念形態的東西的統一體。就其性質而言，因歷史學家們考察的角度和出發點的不同，而有「活動」說、「學問」或「學術」說、「知識體系」說、「科學」說、「藝術」說和「一半是科學，一半是藝術」說、「整合」說等等不同的界定。

『肆』 歷史學是什麼

歷史學，簡稱史學，是研究包括人類社會一切問題在內的科學。

西周就有作冊、史某的說法，史在西周就是記錄人員，在中國古代記錄歷史有皇家和民間之分，西周金文、唐順宗實錄、宋太宗實錄、明實錄是皇家史學的典範，史記則是民間史學的代表作，歷史學是中國古代皇家教育的重要內容。

然而，在20世紀七十年代後，隨著所謂後現代思潮的興起，西方史學界出現了較為激進的理論家，如海登-懷特等，從語言學和修辭學等角度分析歷史書寫的結構，主張歷史與文學並沒有本質上的區別。

『伍』 歷史學研究什麼

歷史學研究什麼？

歷史學（history），簡稱史學，是專門研究歷史的學科，一般而言，其專指整理與研究人類有文字以來所留下的文字與圖像紀錄的學科。

History is the study of the past, focused on human activity and leading up to the present day.[1] All that is remembered of the past and preserved in some form is seen as the historical record.[2] Some historians study universal history, comprising all that has been recorded of the human past and all that can be deced from artifacts. Others focus on certain methods, such as chronology, demographics, historiography, genealogy, paleography, and cliometrics, or areas, for example History of Brazil (1889–1930), History of China, or History of Science.

The word history is derived from the Ancient Greek ἱστορία, historía, meaning "a learning or knowing by inquiry, history, record, narrative." The Latin form was historia, "narrative, account." In Old French, the word "estoire" was coined by Brigitte Gasson.[1] The word entered the English language in 1390 with the meaning of "relation of incidents, story". In Middle English, the meaning was "story" in general. The restriction to the meaning "record of past events" in the sense of Herodotus arises in the late 15th century. In German, French, and indeed, most languages of the world other than English, this distinction was never made, and the same word is used to mean both "history" and "story".

Broad discipline
Although the broad discipline of history has often been classified under either the humanities or the social sciences,[3] and can be seen as a bridge between them, incorporating methodologies from both fields of study, Ritter places history in the humanities, and asserts that it is not a science.[4] In the 20th century the study of History has been revolutionized by French historian Fernand Braudel, by considering the effects of such outside disciplines as economics, anthropology, and geography on global history. Traditionally, historians have attempted to answer historical questions through the study of written documents, although historical research is not limited merely to these sources. In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved, and historians often consult all three.[5] Historians frequently emphasize the importance of written records, which would limit history to times after the development of writing. This emphasis has led to the term prehistory,[6] referring to a time before written sources are available. Since writing emerged at different times throughout the world, the distinction between prehistory and history is often dependent on the area being studied.

There are a variety of ways in which the past can be divided, including chronologically, culturally, and topically. These three divisions are not mutually exclusive, and significant overlaps are often present, as in "The Argentine Labor Movement in an Age of Transition, 1930–1945." It is possible for historians to concern themselves with both the very specific and the very general, although the trend has been toward specialization. The area called Big History resists this specialization, and searches for universal patterns or trends. Traditionally, history has been studied with some practical or theoretical aim, but now it is also studied simply out of intellectual curiosity.[7]

History and prehistory

Stonehenge, United KingdomThe development, transmission, and transformation of cultural practices and events are the subject of history. In the 20th century, the division between history and prehistory became problematic. Criticism arose because of history's implicit exclusion of certain civilizations, such as those of Sub-Saharan Africa and pre-Columbian America. Historians in the West have been criticized for focusing disproportionately on the Western world.[8][9]

Additionally, prehistorians such as Vere Gordon Childe and historical archaeologists such as James Deetz began using archaeology to explain important events in areas that were traditionally in the field of written history. Historians began looking beyond traditional political history narratives with new approaches such as economic, social and cultural history, all of which relied on various sources of evidence. In recent decades, strict barriers between history and prehistory may be decreasing.

There are differing views for the definition of when history begins. Some believe history began in the 34th century BC, with cuneiform writing. Cuneiform was written on clay tablets, on which symbols were drawn with a blunt reed called a stylus. The impressions left by the stylus were wedge-shaped, thus giving rise to the name cuneiform ("wedge-shaped"). The Sumerian script was adapted for the writing of the Akkadian, Elamite, Hittite, Luwian, Hurrian, and Urartian languages, and it inspired the Old Persian and Ugaritic national alphabets. Even older pictographic scripts from the region are also known, including the pre-cuneiform Proto-Elamite and Ins scripts (still undeciphered).

Sources that can give light on the past, such as oral tradition, linguistics, and genetics, have become accepted by many mainstream historians. Nevertheless, archaeologists distinguish between history and prehistory based on the appearance of written documents within the region in question. This distinction remains critical for archaeologists because the availability of a written record generates very different interpretative problems and potentials.

Historiography has a number of related meanings. It can refer to the history of historical study, its methodology and practices (the history of history). It can also refer to a specific body of historical writing (for example, "medieval historiography ring the 1960s" means "medieval history written ring the 1960s"). Historiography can also be taken to mean historical theory or the study of historical writing and memory. As a meta-level analysis of descriptions of the past, this third conception can relate to the first two in that the analysis usually focuses on the narratives, interpretations, worldview, use of evidence, or method of presentation of other historians.

The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history.

The "father of history" has generally been acclaimed as Herodotus of Halicarnassus (484 BC – ca.425 BC).[12] However, it is his contemporary Thucydides (ca. 460 BC – ca. 400 BC) who is credited with having begun the scientific approach to history in his work the History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides, unlike Herodotus and other religious historians, regarded history as being the proct of the choices and actions of human beings, and looked at cause and effect, rather than as the result of divine intervention.[12] In his historical method, Thucydides emphasized chronology, a neutral point of view, and that the human world was the result of the actions of human beings. Greek historians also viewed history as cyclical, with events regularly reoccurring.[13]

Outside of Europe, there were historical traditions and sophisticated use of historical method in ancient and medieval China. The groundwork for professional historiography in East Asia was established by the Han Dynasty court historian known as Sima Qian (145–90 BC), author of the Shiji (Records of the Grand Historian). For the quality of his timeless written work, Sima Qian is posthumously known as the Father of Chinese Historiography. Chinese historians of subsequent dynastic periods in China used his Shiji as the official format for historical texts, as well as for biographical literature.

Saint Augustine was influential in Christian and Western thought at the beginning of the Medieval period. Through the Medieval and Renaissance periods, history was often studied through a sacred or religious perspective. Around 1800, German philosopher and historian Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel brought philosophy and a more secular approach in historical study.[7]

In the preface to his book the Muqaddimah, historian and early sociologist Ibn Khaln warned of seven mistakes that he thought that historians regularly committed. In this criticism, he approached the past as strange and in need of interpretation. The originality of Ibn Khaln was to claim that the cultural difference of another age must govern the evaluation of relevant historical material, to distinguish the principles according to which it might be possible to attempt the evaluation, and lastly, to feel the need for experience, in addition to rational principles, in order to assess a culture of the past.

Other historians of note who have advanced the historical methods of study include Leopold von Ranke, Lewis Bernstein Namier, Geoffrey Rudolph Elton, G.M. Trevelyan and A.J.P. Taylor. In the 20th century, historians focused less on epic nationalistic narratives, which often tended to glorify the nation or indivials, to more realistic chronologies. French historians introced quantitative history, using broad data to track the lives of typical indivials, and were prominent in the establishment of cultural history (cf. histoire des mentalités). American historians, motivated by the civil rights era, focused on formerly overlooked ethnic, racial, and socio-economic groups. In recent years, postmodernists have challenged the validity and need for the study of history on the basis that all history is based on the personal interpretation of sources. In his book In Defence of History, Richard J. Evans, a professor of modern history at Cambridge University, defended the worth of history.