2.1 Finding the topic

First, it’s essential for all researchers to find a stimulating research topic, with a theme or question which genuinely interests them, which they believe to be important, and for which they have suitable aptitudes and interests.¹

Hence those who can’t do advanced maths should not choose quantitative economic history; those who can’t read French and have no time to learn should not specialize in French history; and so forth. Some institutions will help early career researchers to improve recondite skills (such as medieval Latin for historians) or to learn a new one from scratch. Such opportunities help to improve access to sub-fields with special requirements. Indeed, all chances of learning new skills are to be welcomed. Sometimes people surprise themselves by overcoming old inhibitions (or dismissive remarks from others) to blossom in unexpected ways. However, basic interests and aptitudes should still be borne in mind. Research projects can also take many literary forms. Taking these points into account, someone seeking to write empathetic narratives about individual experiences should not sign up for a mathematically complex study in econometric history – or vice versa.

Because finding the right research topic is so crucial, it’s wise to take time and to consult over options. Many academics, archivists, librarians and museum curators are happy to discuss possibilities and make suggestions. And researchers should consult their own central inclinations, thinking hard about which area, or period, or type of history they find most fascinating. People are sometimes inspired by personal experience, or by a great teacher, or by an inspiring book. Or simply by a great research question.

The chosen topic should then have some significance that makes it worth pursuing throughout a long project. It could address an issue of contemporary concern. Or a controversy within the historical literature. Or a new theme which the researcher plans to highlight. Yet it is simultaneously essential to bear in mind that the precise topic is likely to be subtly – and sometimes not so subtly – refined and adapted in the course of research. It is a relatively common experience to begin grappling with the original sources, only to discover that unexpected possibilities are revealed while expected options falter. Knowledge creation thus proceeds in dialogue with the historical evidence.

One practical point to consider is the location of the key archives or source collections for any given topic. A project that requires extensive travel to distant locations will be hard to complete without both financial support and extended periods of dedicated time. Digitization has made many sources newly accessible en masse. Yet it has also raised the allure and prestige of distant archives.²

In some cases, researchers claim that their research topic found them, as it were. They may wish to explore themes in their own family or community history which have been ignored or under-studied in traditional studies, yet are crying out for attention. Or there may be issues which the researcher considers to have been treated with bias and which await a seasoned reconsideration.

Or they may simply have made a lucky find. Sometimes researchers do stumble across previously unknown sources relating to an important theme. It’s called research ‘serendipity’ (a wonderful stroke of luck – an abstraction coined by Horace Walpole in 1754, borrowing from an old Persian tale of the fortunate princes of Serendip). Nevertheless, self-knowledge still applies. Potential researchers who have found marvellous new sources should consider whether their systematic study falls within their own capacities. If yes, then all well and good. If not, then it’s best to alert another researcher or an appropriate archive to the marvellous new sources and to find another great topic instead.

Long-term projects often develop in unexpected ways. And the eventual answers may not be those anticipated at the start. But that’s the whole point of research. Starting is not the same as arriving. One project that mushroomed was commenced in the 1980s by Edmund Green, then a postgraduate in London, now a freelance scholar and Liverpool University Research Fellow. He wanted to disprove the late E. P. Thompson’s analysis of working-class radicalism in late eighteenth-century Westminster.³ Green’s work gradually extended into a lifetime’s study, covering the entire electoral history of metropolitan London from 1700 to 1850. On the way, as it happens, Thompson’s analysis of working-class radicalism was confirmed. Yet the project moved well beyond its initial target, illuminating an active electoral culture, operating at parliamentary, municipal and ward levels. Moreover, Green discovered evidence for hundreds of local elections, hitherto unknown to historians.⁴ His project is a great example of how a finite question can open many research doors.

An alternative example shows how an unexpected documentary find has raised major political as well as historical issues for debate. While researching his MA thesis, Nick Draper encountered in Britain’s National Archives full accounts of the recorded ‘reparations’ paid to slave owners after the abolition of slavery in 1833.⁵ Eventually, he and other colleagues greatly expanded the project. They established the ‘Legacies of British Slave-Ownership’ database.⁶ That authoritative resource now shows how profits from the Caribbean plantations, with their enslaved workforces, percolated through the British economy – and into the household accounts of many a stately country mansion. The evidence is also directly relevant to current arguments about ‘reparations’ or equivalent acknowledgement to the descendants of the great historical injustice of enslavement – a big outcome from one documentary find.

Once a research project has been launched and funded, it’s important for both student and university that the project be completed. For that reason, many institutions give careful warnings at the start. Big research projects are not for everyone. They take time. They require mental effort. They can be mentally isolating (though tutors try to prevent that from happening). And they can prove depressing if things don’t always go well. It’s as well to confront such realities at the very start. Then those who decide to continue have had fair warning. And, hearteningly, many apprentice researchers declare that they do have the motivation to overcome all obstacles. That’s the best response. It marks the kindling of the burning desire – and the motivation to keep going throughout the long haul. And – just to stress again – finishing a big project takes years of effort. Many plans are short-term things: a matter of weeks or months. This one takes years.

Ultimately, researchers themselves have to supply the burning desire to undertake the task. Supervisors can and do exhort, encourage and offer training.⁷ Yet the main motivation has to come from within.⁸ Potential researchers sometimes then ask: how burning should the burning desire be? Maybe not a total conflagration from the very start. Yet it should be a genuine self-tended spark that can gain strength as things proceed. Whatever the chosen theme, there should be one who believes in its significance throughout: that is, the person tending the flame.

2.2 Finding the sources

BUT! Before finally deciding, the second requirement is that there must be sufficient and relevant original sources accessibly in existence or (in some statistical subjects) capable of being compiled/calculated, which will enable the study to be completed within a finite period of time.

Of course, not all forms of historical writing have to be based upon original sources. Textbooks, overview essays, book reviews – these are all valuable contributions in their different ways. Yet original research needs original sources. In other words, historians seek evidence which has not yet been studied in depth or which has been viewed, perhaps cursorily, some time ago and is ripe for reconsideration.

By the way, there is no limit to the range of materials that count as historical sources. Everything and anything from the past can be studied systematically. Historians don’t have to confine themselves to documents in archives. Instead, the golden rule is to cast the net widely. There are amazing quantities of untapped and under-used original sources out there, waiting to be found in archives, libraries, museums, art galleries, monumental buildings and so forth. ‘Going fishing’ will find a number of duds but also great treasures.

A research topic works best with a conjunction of good research questions and a good stock of relevant sources. Both are needed. Furthermore, for those wishing to proceed to a doctorate, the sources should be relatively accessible and sufficiently substantial and cohesive to make writing a big study feasible in a finite number of years. It’s also helpful to think ahead about possible career pathways. Giving projects a focused comparative dimension may improve a researcher’s portfolio in the eyes of future employers. (Supervisors’ advice can be especially helpful here.) By contrast, at post-doctoral level, it’s fine to collect scattered sources on difficult topics, taking twenty years to amass fragments of material. It adds zest to research to have some apparently ‘impossible’ subjects in mind. And sometimes such scattergun projects bear magnificent fruit.

Yet the postgraduate researcher needs to be more practical (funding and time are not limitless) and more immediately focused. Learning how to make and sustain a thesis is a finite task. Again, it’s good to take time and to ask many experts for advice. Matching topics and sources together is a necessary first stage in what may become a major quest. As a result, it’s a time of exploration, when the research kindling is being assembled, for eventual igniting into fire.

2.3 Finding a supervisor

Third, then, both topic and relevant sources need to be matched with an inspiring, pro-active supervisor. Such a mentor need not be an absolute world expert on precisely the chosen subject. Indeed, there can be problems if the specialist research fields are too closely overlapping. On the other hand, it’s helpful if the supervisor has a good general understanding of the relevant field.

Direct face-to-face discussion is much the best way to find such a mentor. And it’s quite acceptable to talk to more than one person before deciding. A four-year research partnership is a big undertaking. It’s worth taking time to decide who can best provide help and personal inspiration. Email enquiries can also be used as a preliminary filter. If a potential supervisor’s first response is a claim to be too busy, too grand or too lacking in interest to meet a new researcher, then the relationship is not likely to thrive.

Some institutions are happy for supervisors and prospective PhD students to agree that matter between themselves – after which the student of course has to make a formal application and gain acceptance. But some other places expect candidates to apply ‘blind’. In that case, researchers simply submit an application to one or more places where they would like to enrol.

Only when accepted are they allocated to a PhD supervisor by the department or faculty. In such cases, it’s important to make a fairly quick assessment as the relationship develops. The first term or semester should be taken as a testing period. If things are not going well at the end of that trial time, then the postgraduate organizer should be informed, in as calm and polite a manner as possible. Incompatible matches can go sour – and the longer they are left unchanged, the more problems may emerge. It can be difficult to raise such issues with a supervisor who is viewed as an authority figure; but it is much better for everyone to get things right from the start.

A different set of considerations need to be kept in mind when making applications: namely, the need to find research funding. The situation here can be fast-changing. So the onus is upon the researcher to hunt around, using ingenuity and enterprise. The annual Grants Register provides an excellent starting-point.⁹ The Institute of Historical Research also produces an invaluable list of potential sources of funding.¹⁰ Important institutional sources include Britain’s research councils (the Arts and Humanities Funding Council (AHRC); the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)).¹¹ Funding for doctoral study from the councils is now organized through regional consortia of universities. Many institutions also fund degrees on their own behalf, as do local and national educational charities, and specialist research foundations such as the Wellcome Trust for health/medical history.¹²

Furthermore, large-scale externally funded projects can often include support for doctoral students as part of a bigger programme. These initiatives then provide a perfect research environment by creating a ready-made community of people with shared scholarly interests. Yet it is important that researchers consult their own aptitudes and motivation before applying. Working on someone else’s project might deliver an income, but success in the role depends upon being able to contribute genuine energy and enthusiasm.

Styles of supervision have changed mightily over the years. Old-style supervisors were not always effective. Now, however, a pro-active partnership is the ideal, and systems for monitoring supervision are much more robust. It’s perfectly okay to ask potential supervisors about their supervisory strategies, and what results they have had with previous supervisions. If they look blank and can’t reply, then the new researcher should beware. At the same time, allowances should be made for young academics who are new supervisors. They are often very keen and inspiring, learning the ropes alongside their research students. And all will be helped by the departmental or faculty code of practice, which now advises on standard procedures.

2.4 Seeking positive support, not empty prestige

When making the choice of institution or supervisor, there may also be socio-psychological pressures, perhaps from friends and family, to find the most outwardly prestigious person as a supervisor, or the most traditionally prestigious institution as an academic home. Such moves are defended as being ‘realistic’: planning for one’s future career by associating with ‘the best’. But such thinking can lead to later problems. Sometimes prestigious academics in established posts are too busy. Or sometimes the prestigious institution is too complacent about its appeal and leaves students to sink or swim in isolation. Hence applicants who go for ‘prestige’ without other supporting benefits – a caring supervisor who has time to supervise – will find that they are left with nothing other than fool’s gold.

Needless to say, the world of research is not in practice a perfect meritocracy. That state of affairs obtains partly because opinions differ as to how to identify the best candidates for historical research, and partly because, sad to relate, some old-style patrons still like to collect obedient ‘followers’. It is also true that institutions of higher education have still not managed to escape entirely all racist, sexist and classist attitudes which prevail (and are contested) within the wider society.

Nonetheless, a belief in scholarly merit does underpin the world of research – and provides its lifeblood. In recent years, well-meaning attempts have been made to regularize and make accountable systems of appointment and selection. Embryonic historians are not best identified by the schools they attended; or by the families from which they come; or by their social, religious or ethnic backgrounds more generally. They are identified by their aptitudes and enthusiasm.

It equally follows that research success will not come simply from having a famous supervisor or from belonging to a famous research institution. In the spirit of meritocracy, therefore, a new apprentice needs to find the best supervisor for the research project in hand, who can provide a mix of both organizational support and intellectual engagement.

2.5 Summary: ‘owning’ the project

To recap: researchers need interesting and challenging big themes or research questions to investigate, which they believe are important, whether politically, culturally or academically. They need good, accessible and relevant sources. And they need competent and intellectually challenging supervisors. Working together is positively bonding. The ideal is thus to generate a shared camaraderie, which helps everyone through a long project. Finally, researchers should individually ‘own’ their chosen history projects, so that they can explain them clearly to the wider world. And, best of all, do so with genuine zest.

1. 1  See A. Brundage, Going to the Sources: a Guide to Historical Research and Writing (Hoboken, N.J., 2018); D. Silverman, Doing Qualitative Research: a Practical Handbook (London, 2009); J. Felton et al., The Professional Doctorate: a Practical Guide (Basingstoke, 2013); and a classic account by M. Bloch, The Historian’s Craft, transl. P. Putnam (Manchester, 1954, 1967).

2. 2  L. Putnam, ‘The transnational and the text-searchable: digitized sources and the shadows they cast’, American Historical Review, cxxi (2016), 377–402.

3. 3  The debated proposition was the propensity of working-class voters in the 1790s to vote for radical candidates who supported parliamentary reform: see E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (London, 1963; 1968 edn), pp. 491–514.

4. 4  E. M. Green, P. J. Corfield and C. Harvey, Elections in Metropolitan London, 1700–1850, Vol. I: Arguments and Evidence; Vol. II: Metropolitan Polls (Bristol, 2013); Eighteenth-Century Political Participation and Electoral Culture project (dir. M. Grenby et al.) at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

5. 5  <https://web.archive.org/web/20220209083404/https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/project/draperinterview> [accessed 9 Feb. 2022].

6. 6  <https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/project/details> [accessed 29 April 2021].

7. 7  J. McMillan, Using Students’ Assessment Mistakes and Learning Deficits to Enhance Motivation and Learning (London, 2016); R. J. Wlodkowski, Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: a Comprehensive Guide for Teaching All Adults (San Francisco, Calif., 2017).

8. 8  F. Coombes, Successful Self-Motivation (London, 2011); A. Tannock, The Self-Motivation Workbook (London, 2015); and a huge literature on self-improvement.

9. 9  A crucial source is Palgrave Macmillan’s annual publication, The Grants Register 2019: the Complete Guide to Postgraduate Funding Worldwide (2019), available online: <https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781349958092> [accessed 29 April 2021].

10. 10  <https://web.archive.org/web/20190403052731/https://www.history.ac.uk/history-online/grants> [accessed 9 Feb. 2022].

11. 11  <https://web.archive.org/web/20220318041734/https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/> [accessed 18 March 2022].

12. 12  <https://web.archive.org/web/20220117201811/https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/schemes/four-year-phd-programmes> [accessed 17 Jan. 2022].