历史学研究理论是什么

‘壹’ 历史学科研究的理论和方法都有哪些

主要史学理论和史学研究法总结
一.主要史学范式(史观)
史学范式是史学家研究历史的范型和模式，是历史观和方法论的统一，也是史学观点、史学范畴和史学方法等有机集合体。高中新课标程式下的史学范式已从单一走向多元，由传统单一的阶级斗争范式(或称革命史范式)，发展为阶级斗争范式、文明史范式、整体史范式(亦称全球史范式)和现代化范式等四种史学范式。这些新的史学范式，提高了历史研究的框架性认识.
1.文明史范式(通史顺序)
文明史范式认为:人类历史从本质上说是人类文明发展的历史，人类文明的发展及其人类自身的文明化是人类历史发展的基本线索。人类创造、积累文明的过程及其所获得的成果是历史的基本内容。人类文明由物质文明、精神文明和政治文明构成，三者在相互作用、协调互补中交替促进、共同发展。
例:请利用1949年到1956年的历史事实来分析“由物质文明、精神文明和政治文明构成，三者在相互作用、协调互补中共同发展。”?
2.全球史范式(经济一体化全球化)
全球史观，又称整体史观。他们把人类社会历史发展视为一个有机整体，是从分散发展到整体发展的过程。在这一进程中重视交往、强调交往在人类历史发展进程中的作用，生产力的发展和世界各地区交往的发展是人类历史发展的两条主线，建立在生产力发展基础上的世界各地区交往的发展是推动人类社会从分散走向整体发展的决定因素。
例:请分析16世纪到19世纪的欧洲是如何加强与世界各地区交往的?并以此分析其对欧洲及世界发展的影响。
3.近(现)代化范式
现代化是以商品经济为特征的工业文明取代以自然经济为特征的农业文明的结果，它主要表现为经济领域的工业化和市场化、政治领域的民主化和法制化、思想领域的理性化和科学化。
例:请从现代化范式的角度分析1840年到1949年的中国的历史，以此说明这一时期中国近代化的发展。
4.革命史范式(阶级斗争)
革命史范式作为中国近代史学界从20世纪50年代至80年代占绝对主导地位的理论范式。其理论基础源于马克思主义关于社会基本矛盾的学说。根据这一学说，在阶级社会里，两大对立阶级之间的矛盾，最集中地反映了该社会发展阶段的基本矛盾，考察和研究阶级矛盾、社会基本矛盾的运动发展，便能把握住历史发展中最本质的内涵，揭示历史发展的内在规律性。
例:请从革命史范式出发研究1919年到1956年的历史(提示:分析社会主要矛盾)

‘贰’ 历史学是什么

历史学类专业教育教学应坚持以马克思主义为指导，培养学生具有坚定正确的政治方向、扎实的理论基础、广博的历史知识、深厚的人文素养、敏锐的问题意识与思辨能力，掌握历史信息搜集、考证与分析的基本方法，能在历史过程和现实处境中考察特定的历史现象，记录、搜集和处理相关信息，形成合理的见解，以开放和包容的眼光理解人类社会生活及其价值观念的复杂性和多样性，能在高等和中等学校及相关科研部门从事历史学教育与研究，适应国家社会经济文化发展的需要。

‘叁’ 历史学的是研究什么和什么的科学

是研究自然史和人类社会史两方面的。

历史学的定义从内涵上可归纳为两种。
广义的“史学”是对“史”进行同时合训而产生的“史有二义”的统一体，包括：（1）完全独立于人们的意识之外的人类过往社会的客观存在及其发展过程，和（2）历史学家对这种客观存在和过程及其规律的描述和探索的精神生产实践及其创造出来的产品。狭义上的史学不包括前者，而专指后者。
狭义上的史学是一种精神生产实践及其创造的属于观念形态的东西的统一体。就其性质而言，因历史学家们考察的角度和出发点的不同，而有“活动”说、“学问”或“学术”说、“知识体系”说、“科学”说、“艺术”说和“一半是科学，一半是艺术”说、“整合”说等等不同的界定。

‘肆’ 历史学是什么

历史学，简称史学，是研究包括人类社会一切问题在内的科学。

西周就有作册、史某的说法，史在西周就是记录人员，在中国古代记录历史有皇家和民间之分，西周金文、唐顺宗实录、宋太宗实录、明实录是皇家史学的典范，史记则是民间史学的代表作，历史学是中国古代皇家教育的重要内容。

然而，在20世纪七十年代后，随着所谓后现代思潮的兴起，西方史学界出现了较为激进的理论家，如海登-怀特等，从语言学和修辞学等角度分析历史书写的结构，主张历史与文学并没有本质上的区别。

‘伍’ 历史学研究什么

历史学研究什么？

历史学（history），简称史学，是专门研究历史的学科，一般而言，其专指整理与研究人类有文字以来所留下的文字与图像纪录的学科。

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.