Painting of Peter Misch by D. Molenaar surrounded by some of Peter Misch’s paintings, displayed at the Department of Geological Sciences (now Earth and Space Sciences), University of Washington
On 8 December 2021 our own Dr Rudolph Ng, Lecturer in Global History, presented a fascinating paper tracing the extraordinary journey of a young geologist who fled Nazi Germany in 1936 and then taught for a decade in wartime China, before making a successful postwar academic career in the United States. If you missed the paper, we have a recording available, so do get in touch with one of us (rudolph.ng@port.ac.uk, robert.james@port.ac.uk, fiona.mccall@port.ac.u)
Misch’s narrow escapes from the Holocaust and the Japanese invasion of China (1937), his capture by the Chinese Nationalists (1942), and the impending Communist takeover in China (1946) highlight the tumultuous reality of academic pursuits in wartime. While conventional wisdom suggests scholarship suffered in war zones due to geographical displacements and lack of material necessities, this paper examines how teaching and research often flourished under such challenging circumstances. Misch’s story not only demonstrates his personal resilience and scholarly passion, but also how academics collaborated creatively, in the most trying conditions, in order to save lives and continue with their research.
Emily Jays graduated in Summer 2021 with a 2:1 in History and Sociology. Her dissertation was titled “Transgressing Gender Norms and National Identities Through Dress: Three 20th Century Case Studies”. This explored how clothing was used by flappers within 1920s America, butch lesbians and transgender women in post-1950 Britain and Muslim women and the veil in French Algeria and modern day France. She is now studying a Master of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Portsmouth, with an intersectional approach on the relationship between working-class women, higher education and their habitus. She is about to start the process of applying for PhDs, in which she hopes to do abroad.
Last year, I presented my undergraduate dissertation research at the British Conference of Undergraduate Research (BCUR). My experience, from initial interest to the conference itself, was nothing other than positive. I had applied for another conference about which I had spoken with one of the History team at Portsmouth, Mike Esbester; because of this he informed me of the BCUR. I was somewhat sceptical due to it being a multi-disciplinary conference, however I thought I would have more regrets not applying than doing so and not being accepted. Before I submitted my application, I informed Mike and my personal tutor, Natalya Vince, that I wished to apply, and they were on hand straight away to help me with my abstract. A few back-and-forths via email of abstract drafts and my application was ready to go. This really helped me go into the process feeling confident and knowing that I had given my best work, and whatever the outcome would be I would be fine.
Silent film actress Colleen Moore was considered the archetypal flapper in films like Flaming Youth (1923) and (above) We Moderns (1925).
A few weeks later I found out that I had been accepted into the conference and would be presenting my ideas and research – I was over the moon about it! From there – Mike, Natalya and Julian Ingle (Deputy Head of the University’s Academic Skills Unit) helped massively in preparing my presentation and making it the best it could possibly be. There were a few practice runs with other students who were also in the conference watching, as well as times when tutors from the department came to watch and give their feedback. Of course, this was all done over Zoom which at first was a strange experience but you soon get used to it. Seeing the faces of my tutors pop up on the screen to come and watch my presentation was so comforting and their feedback was invaluable. The communication from Julian, who led us UoP students through the process, was second to none. We were aware of what was needed from us and what was happening at all times, as well as his vast experience to give us feedback.
The conference itself was so enjoyable and it was great to see other subjects and perspectives from students all over the country. We had a group chat over the 2 days which was lovely, as we could all communicate and cheer each other on when we were due to present. The only negative thing I can say is that it would have been so much fun to have gone to Leeds for a few days and had the full experience. With that being said, the BCUR team’s organisation was fantastic and the whole thing run over Zoom was seamless.
The cover of Rebel Women (1960) by Harry Whittington.
One of the most important things I have taken from the conference was that by presenting a part of my dissertation, it really allowed me to solidify my line of argument. By speaking my research aloud for others, who perhaps are not familiar with that part of history or the subject itself meant I had to ensure there was clarity in my presentation and argument. Although of course this took up extra time near the end of the year, the process helped significantly and my writing of my dissertation was better for it, as I achieved a first!
Another way in which the process benefitted me significantly is my confidence in my own research and ability. To be chosen to present but also receive a positive response to my work from my tutors and those at the conference was a great feeling, particularly as my subject was relatively niche and others were intrigued. Being amongst other researchers was a great buzz and very inspiring, which has given me the boost to apply for a PhD in the near future after my MRes this year.
If anyone was unsure about applying, I would tell them to just do it. Every part of the process was a learning experience and the whole time was extremely enjoyable. I have absolutely zero regrets. Thank you to the University of Portsmouth team and my tutors for their support and encouragement!
In this post, UoP senior lecturer in history Dr Fiona McCall talks about her new book Church and People in Interregnum Britain, bringing together new research from scholars across Britain and further afield on the profound religious changes which took place after the British Civil Wars and how people responded to them.
From 1642-5, England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland, endured the first in a series of devastating civil wars, which split communities ideologically, politically and religiously. These wars have been termed ‘the last of the wars of religion’ by leading Civil War historian John Morrill.[1] In 1645, as the first Civil War approached its end, and the religious reformists gained the upper hand, a second Reformation took place which profoundly changed British society. Before 1640, there had been only one religion allowed in England, and that was the Church of England. After 1645 the Church was effectively dis-established, and Godly puritan practices promoted in parish churches and everyday ordinary life. The aim was to make the Church in England more like other Calvinist ‘reformed’ churches in places like Scotland and Geneva. Some people welcomed these changes, like Lady Brilliana Harley, who wrote in a letter to her son in 1641, that she looked forward to those things being reformed which burdened the conscience of God’s children and had ‘longe trubeled the peace of the church.’[2] Others sought even more radical religious change. New religious beliefs and practices emerged, horrifying traditionalists, who experienced these as times of madness and trouble. Historians continue to debate the extent of the social disruption that resulted, and the impact of Godly ideals.
My first book, Baal’s Priests, the Loyalist Clergy and the English Revolution (2013) looked at the impact of the Civil Wars on the clergy who supported the losing side.[3] In 2015 I gained British Academy funding for a project looking at traditionalist resistance to religious change. Included in that funding were funds to run a conference, ‘The people all changed: religion and society in Britain during the 1650s’, held at the University of Portsmouth on 15-16 July 2016. Because of the significance of the political changes and military events of this period, the social and religious aspects of the period tend to be neglected by historians. Social historians often prefer to concentrate on what the Annales school of history termed the longue durée, centuries rather than decades, and there has become a tendency for research projects to either end in 1640 or start in 1660, or to treat the seventeenth century as if the disruptions of its middle years hardly mattered. The aim of the conference had been to help to change this, by drawing together researchers working on the records of this period. These tend to require specialist knowledge because political and religious administrative structures were not the same as before 1640, and kept altering still further, another reason why research into the interregnum has been more limited than it might be.
We were really lucky to attract the pre-eminent social historian of the period, Professor Bernard Capp from the University of Warwick, to give one of the keynote papers at the conference.[4] When thinking about publishing the papers presented at the conference, we also benefitted greatly from a suggestion made by Professor Dave Andress, to put forward a proposal to the Institute of Historical Research New Perspectives series. This is a book series commissioned and edited by the Royal Historical Society and published for the Institute of Historical Research by the University of London Press. It specialises in publishing the work of early career historians. Many of the contributors to our conference fell into that category. Happily, Bernard agreed to write an introduction for the volume, and took a very hands-on attitude throughout the process by commenting on and even editing the different contributions. I also had considerably assistance from Dr Andrew Foster, now at the University of Kent but formerly at the University of Chichester, who runs an early modern studies group based in Chichester in which I participate. Andrew and Helen Whittle, another member of the group, both contributed chapters for the book. I also found two additional contributors to the volume amongst fellow-attendees at two 2017 conferences I attended: the British Churches 1603-1707, at the University of Kent, and Religion and Conflict in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods, at Nottingham Trent University.
The final volume includes chapters from eleven contributors. Some relate to the administration of the interregnum church, the role of Oliver Cromwell in ecclesiastical affairs, efforts to survey parish churches with a view to reform, and on the problems of parish record keeping during this period. There were chapters on the clergy of Sussex, Dorset, Warwickshire and Wales, and on moral discipline in Scotland. Contributors came from the Victoria County History, and from the Universities of Warwick, Kent, Leicester, West of England and as far afield as Sydney, as well as my own. My own chapter looked at how the regime, having abolished the church courts, turned to the secular courts to police religious matters.[5]
Dutch engraving satirising Oliver Cromwell’s role in the church, 1651, British Museum, 1871,1209.975.
What will the volume contribute to our understanding of the period? Firstly individual chapters show how committed the reformers were to bringing in their own particular brand of religion. In appointing clergy to parishes, Cromwell had a very active role, assuming the powers of the king, and taking them even further.[6] The regime had very high ideals, setting out to improve the way churches were run and to get rid of anything they considered ‘superstitious’, or similar to the Catholic church, like bishops, the book of common prayer, religious imagery, organs and choirs. They made changes in the way baptisms, funerals and particularly marriages were conducted, bringing in laws to say people could only be married by a justice of the peace, and not by the clergy. But many people opposed these changes. Keeping things under control politically via a large army made the regime hard-pressed for money; funding religious improvements often meant taking money from ex-royalists, who naturally were not too happy about this.[7] To make the changes work, the regime had to remove a significant proportion of the clergy who supported the King or traditional ways.[8] Parishioners did not necessarily like the changes either: those who supported reform were probably only a minority, if a significant and determined one. The reformers were particularly keen to enforce sabbatarianism, where everyone went to church twice on Sunday, with no working, dancing or playing sports. In Bristol they even turned off the water supply on Sundays to prevent people using it.[9] I found plenty of evidence of resistance to this policy, whether from groups of boys playing football or walking on Scarborough beaches, or weavers in Exeter working on Sunday behind locked doors.[10] Quite frequently physical violence was involved. Some groups, like the Quakers, who emerged in this period, were opposed to any form of religious organisation, to clergy and to churches, and caused problems by interrupting and disrupting church services. All this led to a lot of turbulence and instability: one of the most interesting findings for me was the high turnover of clergy, indicative of a somewhat troubled parish life.[11] Although the majority of clergy survived in post, many had to deal with attempts to displace them, or otherwise make their life difficult.
Southwick church, north of Portsmouth, 16th-18c interior.
All this challenges the impression, which I still find repeated in history books, that religious life continued on pretty much the same as normal despite the reforms. Yes, some things didn’t change: parish churches were administered by churchwardens as they had been before, for example. Where parishes had previously been served by puritan clergy, services wouldn’t have looked so different to what people were used to. Other aspects were quite different. The Book of Common Prayer, previously required to be used in church services, was banned; a few churches may have tried to continue using it, but there’s little evidence it was used widely, at least in public. Private baptisms became more common in this period, probably because people wanted to have Common Prayer used for this important religious rite.[12] In places like Suffolk, where there had been an organised campaign to remove images and break stained glass windows, churches would have looked different.[13] Cathedrals and larger churches were often in a sorry state, as were those churches which had been involved in civil war fighting, including several in Hampshire. Portsmouth Cathedral had its tower destroyed by Parliamentarians firing from Gosport during the siege of Portsmouth at the start of the Civil War; at Alton the church was the centre of a civil war siege, ending with the royalist commander being killed in the pulpit.[14]
The only stained glass left after the visit of iconoclasts to the church of Clare in Suffolk were these images of the sun and moon, probably left because they were non-religious images.
To quote Bernard Capp’s final conclusion, the interregnum church, fond of controversy, assailed by both traditionalists and radicals in religion, with its many vacant parishes and dilapidated churches, was ‘not one to inspire enthusiasm’.[15] Yet it did mark a watershed for the state of religion and morality in Britain. Attempts by the puritans to tighten moral order proved counter-productive, permanently damaging the system of moral control previously in place. There was a democratization of religious belief which made it very difficult for the state to continue to tell people what to believe. The return of the Church of England after the Restoration of 1660 restored traditionalist ways, but non-conformists, confirmed and solidified in their own groupings and religious beliefs which had flowered under the turbulence of the interregnum, were resolved to have little part in it.
[1] J. S. Morrill, The Nature of the English Revolution (London: Longman, 1993), 68.
[2]The Letters of the Lady Brilliana Harley (London: Camden Society, 1854), 110.
[3] F. McCall, Baal’s Priests: The Loyalist Clergy and the English Revolution (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013).
[4] B. Capp, England’s Culture Wars: Puritan Reformation and its Enemies in the Interregnum, 1649-1660(Oxford, 2012).
[5] F. McCall, “Breaching the Laws of God and Man: Secular Prosecutions of Religious Offences in the Interregnum Parish, 1645-1660”, in F. McCall (ed.), Church and People in Interregnum Britain (London: University of London Press, 2021), 137-170.
[6] R. Warren, “The Ecclesiastical Patronage of Oliver Cromwell, c. 1654-60, in McCall, Church and People, 65-86.
[7] A. Craven, “Soe good and godly a worke’: the surveys of ecclesiastical livings and parochial reform during the English Revolution”, in McCall, Church and People, 41-64.
[10] M.Y. Ashcroft (ed.), Scarborough Records 1640–1660 (Northallerton, 1991), 261; Devon Heritage Centre, ECA, quarter sessions order book, 1642-60, fo. 351v, 23 March 1656/7.
[11] See Helen Whittle’s chapter on the Sussex clergy, H. M. Whittle, “The clergy of Sussex: the impact of change, 1635– 65”, McCall (ed.), Church and People, 111-136.
[12] P.M. Kitson, ‘Religious change and the timing of baptism in England, 1538-1750’, Historical Journal, 52 (2009): 292.
[13]The Journal of William Dowsing, ed. T. Cooper, (Woodbridge: The Ecclesiological Society, 2001).
[14] G.N. Goodwin, The Civil War in Hampshire, 1642-45and the story of Basing House (Alresford: Laurence Oxley, 1873).
[15] B. Capp, “Introduction: Stability and flux: the Church in the interregnum”, McCall (ed.), Church and People, 18.
Many people instinctively blame King Charles I for the British Civil Wars. So recent UoP history graduate Connor Scott-Butcher’s decision to use his dissertation to challenge the idea, perpetuated by the regicides, that Charles was a “man of blood”, and the weight of historical argument ranged against him, always seemed to me a risky and provocative proposition. Below, Connor writes about how he went about his research. He gave a few sleepless nights to his supervisor, as well as himself, but the result was a balanced and well-structured argument, based around extensive use of contemporary primary sources. – Dr Fiona McCall.
My topic for my dissertation was a thorough examination of the role/responsibility of King Charles I in the events leading up to the outbreak of the English Civil War in 1642. In particular, I looked at rebalancing the roles of multiple individuals, rather than the historical blame that has been placed on King Charles I.
Bust of King Charles I by Louis François Roubiliac (1759), Wallace Collection, S23, photograph by Luke Mckernan, Wikimedia Commons
The topic of the Civil War had stuck with me from A-Level. My fascination for the period, as well as the added passion of my teacher, Mr. Andrew Brown, was what inspired me to study history at university in the first place. The reign of Charles I, with personal rule and civil war was particularly interesting, partly due to the decadence of the period and partly because war is almost always fascinating. What stayed with me was the idea that at every hurdle, the King appeared to be undermined by his Parliament, pushed or even bullied into legislation or war. This simple idea, of Charles I being ‘bullied’ by his Parliament, never left me and with a little bit of careful refining, the question of balancing responsibility was what I ended up trying to answer.
To begin my research, I started by going through the relevant literature on the period from the 1630s and early 1640s, examining the politics and religion of the period. The English Civil War has been written about for centuries, so I began with the best historians from the 1970s onwards: John Morrill, Conrad Russell, Lawrence Stone, Clive Holmes, and many more. This provided a broad knowledge of the politics and religion of the 1630s and 1640s and although this was useful to a project of this complexity, with so much information, it was often hard to narrow down the question. Under the watchful eye of my supervisor and mentor, Dr Fiona Mccall, I was able to thin out the research to examine the balance in terms of the political and aggressive actions.
English Civil War Society parade to commemorate the execution of Charles I, 27 January 2019, Wikimedia Commons
While religion was definitely important to the period, I felt it best to take a secular examination of the subject. The significance of choosing political and aggressive actions, is that in the historiography, the pair rarely cross. I could have chosen to only write about one of them, but instead I choose to look at it from both intertwining sides in order to re-examine the distorted, one-sided view. This is where the history has lacked and where my examination differs from those who came before me.
When I began searching for my sources, I feared how Covid would impact my access to things. I began my research by looking through the National Archives and the State Papers Online. I was fortunate enough to find that in spite of Covid, things appeared relatively accessible and the institutions I contacted were very forthcoming. I was sent a whole collection of sources from the library at Yale University, sources from the Isle of Wight Archives, and even access to a few ledgers when the British Library reopened in early 2021. My search was quite extensive, with the National Archives Discovery search engine proving the best way of finding locations of primary sources. Some were taken from books, both physical and thankfully some out-of-copyright digital versions, while House of Commons journals were easily accessible online. For the printed pamphlets and depositions, I was able to use JISC Historical Texts Online system to track down digital copies of the original works. I even went to the extent of trying to find the Papers of the Earl of Holland, a key player, which after a back and forth with Bonhams auctioneers reached a dead end. Despite the Covid situation, I was rather surprised at how much is out there, which rather put me at ease.
With all the primary sources and secondary readings, it gave a clearer image of the issue of the dichotomy of ‘King Pym’ and King Charles as too narrow a view of the period, giving greater light to the actions of other players on both sides: William Strode, Arthur Haselrige, Sir John Hotham, Queen Henrietta Maria, Colonel George Goring, and Henry Jermyn, to name a few. The ideas of Parliament as principled and Charles as not, was somewhat switched, with pressure, fear and often imprisonment being used by Parliamentary ‘radicals’ to impose law, against the principle of liberty and parliamentary freedom, whilst Charles, though weak to stop his court or oppose his wife’s demands, demonstrated principle and compromise in areas such as Strafford’s execution and the Militia Bill, against the claims of past historians who placed responsibility for war solely or mostly on Charles’ shoulders.
The Earl of Strafford, going to his execution, engraving with etching by J. Rogers after the painting by Paul Delaroche (1797-1856), Wellcome Collection, 43468i
The whole process was the most amazing amount of fun and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It took many months of work (and a few sleepless nights) but I loved every second of it. Whether it was because of the passion for the subject, the fascinating journey of searching archives and libraries, scurrying through the corridors of the British Library for example, or the fact that I had an enthusiastic, ever-helpful mentor who made the whole thing a joy, I could not have wished for a better thesis to have written.
Third-year student Ashleigh Hufton writes about the experience of presenting her undergraduate research at the British Conference of Undergraduate Research. Because of the pandemic, Ashleigh had to get to grips with presenting on Zoom a process she found nerve-racking but a very worthwhile learning experience. Ashleigh’s dissertation research, ‘Social Differentiation and the Polite Society: Food and Dining in Seventeenth-Century England’ looked at how food culture became symbolic of identity, social status, and power during the seventeenth-century. The type of food consumed, how it was consumed, and what it was consumed with, strictly defined which part of the social scale individuals fell in to. Taking the lead from French food culture, the elites and middling sorts manipulated the use of richer foods and politer dining methods to differentiate themselves from those below them on the social scale.
Silver-gilt Spoon, Victoria and Albert Museum, M.325-1962, 1670
After seeing Mike Esbester’s email about the British Conference of Undergraduate Research, I initially did not think that I had the confidence to present my research to a broader audience. Yet, after having a conversation with my dissertation supervisor Katy Gibbons I decided to apply (and I’m glad I did!). The application process began with writing a 250 word abstract outlining what my research was, and why I wished to present it at the conference. Still at this point, I was very apprehensive and nervous.
After my abstract was accepted, the next step was to create presentation slides and prepare to present my research at the conference. At this point, Julian was very responsive to emails. He helped with creating and preparing the presentation slides, and was a first port of call for any questions or queries. This helped ease the nerves and made me feel more relaxed towards the process!
Prior to presenting on the day, we had a run through on Zoom to help us get a taste for what the day itself would be like. We were also provided with a schedule of the presentations on the day. I felt very prepared and ready before I presented – which was very different to how I felt when I first applied! The University’s lecturers were incredibly supportive and clearly wanted to see you succeed. This made the application process, and presenting on the day, much less scary and nerve-wracking!
Although we presented and prepared for the conference through Zoom, and not in person, the experience was still just as rewarding and valuable. From participating in the conference, I have gained a lot of confidence in my own research and presentation skills. This applies to both historical research and presenting to broader academic fields. Having the opportunity to present my research at the BCUR has also prepared me for further historical study, such as the MA course I start in September 2021. The experience has allowed me to understand how historical research can apply to society, outside of University. Not only this, but having to condense my 10,000 word research project into a ten minute presentation helped me define and clarify the overall argument of my undergraduate dissertation. Both writing my dissertation and presenting at the BCUR have been beneficial for my undergraduate research and my confidence in my historical skills.
My advice for future students, looking into applying for the British Conference of Undergraduate Research, is to go for it! The amount of support and valuable skills that I have gained from the experience alone is worth it. It is not only a great thing to put on your CV, but it has helped me demonstrate my enthusiasm for historical study and research within my Masters application. It is a beneficial experience to reference in life after university and will make you stand out in future postgraduate or job applications! All in all, I would say the experience was valuable, exciting and rewarding.
By James Farrar, final-year history student at the University of Portsmouth. James’s supervisor Dr Fiona McCall writes:
James was an exemplary dissertation student, always ahead of schedule in planning and carrying out his dissertation work, making him ideally placed to advise others on how to go about it.
James’s dissertation, ‘“This creature not deserving mother’s name”: Female Transgression and Cheap Literature in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Britain’ investigated how the different degrees of female transgression, everyday and extraordinary, were perceived and written about in cheap literature of sixteenth and seventeenth century Britain. He found that everyday female transgression, like scolding, was often treated with humour and even gave women apparent agency, despite the reality of their subjection. But, as James argues, literature and reality were not synonymous and the attitudes expressed in cheap print towards certain types of female transgression, like crossdressing, greatly differed between literature and reality. Serious female transgressions like murder and infanticide, although rare in real life, were latched onto by the media, demonising these women and characterising them as inhuman monsters.
This blog is about the dissertation. Hello? Still there? Good. You’re now already on the right track.
Yes, the prospect of 10,000 words is daunting at first but remember these words encapsulate your research interests and give you the best chance to shine. The History team is fantastic at breaking-down each element of this assessment from conception to conclusion. You will never be left in the dark about how to complete it. Unless you have a power cut of course.
“Let’s start at the very beginning” (thanks Julie Andrews). Don’t worry about choosing a firm topic too early. Before I started my degree, I thought I would write about Stalin as I was fascinated by totalitarianism from my time at school and college. What I hadn’t anticipated was studying a module about the underworld and deviant behaviour during my second year. The frankly thrilling nature of this module changed everything. The content covered eventually inspired the topic of my dissertation to be about transgressive women and cheap literature in early modern Britain. A bit different from comrade Stalin, right?
What this demonstrates is that you do not need to have a firm idea of what to do and rigidly stick to it. Changing your topic from an initial idea is not a bad thing; in fact, it can be a sign of progression and a realisation of what now stimulates you more as a degree student. Look at the content of the modules you have been studying and see if there are any particular areas that inspire you. This can be a good way to go. However, this is not the only path to choosing a topic. Some students write dissertations about parts of history barely covered in their modules. So, don’t think just because you haven’t learnt about something means you cannot write a dissertation about it. Therefore, talking to lecturers is vital.
Lecturers know you and always have your interests at heart. My dissertation would not have been what it is without the constant support from the very beginning to the very end by my tutor and then supervisor, Fiona. No question or idea is stupid. Rome was not built in a day. Lecturers will help you develop a topic that stimulates your interests and that is also viable regarding the research you will need to carry out.
Now that you have picked your topic, research is required. This will make you feel like a true historian. To quote our very own Thomas Rodgers, start with the “big books”. These are the works that provide the best concrete overviews of your topic. For instance, a ‘big book’ for my topic was Joy Wiltenburg’s Disorderly Women and Female Power in the Street Literature of Early Modern England and Germany. You see how this hit the nail on the head for my topic? You should be able to find these types of books from reading lists of the module(s) that are relevant to your dissertation. Your supervisor will be able to recommend them too, as Fiona did for me in this instance. Another idea is, to quote Thomas again, “follow the footnotes”. If you read a point in a book or article that you think is perfect, look to see where it came from and the chances are you have found another very relevant secondary reading. I would also suggest jotting down any reading that may be relevant even if you have some doubts. This way you create a sufficient reading list which you can prioritise as you see fit.
From secondary reading comes the hunt for primary sources. Look at the primary sources from appropriate modules and recommended databases and archives from reading lists. Your supervisor will be able to guide you to the right places. It can take a while to find sources that fit the description of the Holy Grail but they are out there. Patience and perseverance are key here. I am naturally impatient but by logically going through, found the sources that resulted in my dissertation being what it is. Don’t be daunted by this process, it can just take time.
Writing the dissertation is an adventure. Artefact 1 is what you will tackle first, outlining what you will argue, how the chapters will be structured, and highlighting key historiography. Planning well will see you through this. Chapter one discusses much of your historiography. I found it challenging to talk about everything, so this is about prioritising. Some historiography sets the scene whereas other parts support it. Chapters two and three involve the primary sources and place them in a framework of historiography. Initially, I got bogged down on chapter two as I wasn’t sure whether to structure the chapter source by source or thematically. Fortunately, Fiona was able to advise me the latter.
Not all the points I concluded with were the ones I thought I would end with. It is good to remember the dissertation is a malleable entity. For instance, I found that certain primary sources did not feature the punishing of transgressive women. With Fiona’s encouragement and support this became a very important revelation for me as this only came to my attention from analysing and writing. The final product will not be exactly what you imagined but you will be glad of this.
The whole process of the dissertation can be scary, especially writing it. However, you must remember that the entire degree up to this point has provided you with a solid foundation; the skills and knowledge to step into, what is for you, uncharted territory. However, all lecturers have come out the other side and possess the ability to guide you. The fact that you are now here proves you have got it in you.
Now go out there and show the world what historians can do.
