To be a Great War student

[dfaulder]

I think that Ron in trying to take a "process view" gives a good perspective. It is what you do and how you do it that defines both whether you are a Great War student and how good a student you are, not the label which you apply to yourself. The same is probably true of historians.

I think there are a number of distinct aspects to the process of studying the Great War (or any other period).

The Feret. An ability to hunt for and find sources has to be critical; this includes not just knowing where to look but also developing a feeling for what sources should be available to be found. Sources are not just written works but also artefacts or even landscapes.

The sceptic. Having found sources, one then needs to be able to examine them critically and sceptically. For instance: are they genuine, are they biased, is there corroborating evidence? Should any sources be put to one side until we can be more certain of them?

The analyst. What do the sources actually tell us? We are viewing through 21st century eyes (20th century ones for most of us!), yet many of the sources were created by people with a different outlook - can we "walk in their shoes" to understand what they were trying to tell us?

The synthesist. Given the (often contradictory) meanings coming from these various sources, can we synthesise them into a number of alternative narratives (see previous discussions)? I think it is necessary to try and create multiple narratives because that stops us adopting tramline thinking whereby we try and fit every bit of meaning into a single narrative (with a good range of sources it is almost certain that some will be contradictory). Having multiple narratives (certainly at this stage) causes us to challenge the various narratives (self criticism if you like).

The author. Can we take all that comes out of the previous processes and produce a coherent document that will be of interest to someone else?

On a slightly different track:

The Open University (my only link being one of their students) is now publishing some of their material for free on their Learning Space website. The following may be of interest regarding history and World War One:

War memorials and commemoration This unit gives you the opportunity to practise good study techniques using the theme of commemoration and memorials. It will help you to begin to think about how form influences meaning in the arts and how ideas influence approaches to the humanities.

Visual Texts This unit explores the commemoration of war through treating two war memorials – the Sandham Memorial Chapel and the Royal Artillery Memorial – as 'visual texts'. By helping you to respond to visual cues the unit aims for you to develop your understanding of these memorials, not only as memorials, but as artefacts or 'made objects'. It does this through consideration of such factors as the location of the monument; its function and purpose; its symbolism or realism; use of materials and overall form.

Others may be found via the search of Arts and History listing.

David

[Dragon]

What seperates the experts and specialists from the amateur in your opinion.

Many of the replies so far have focussed on a competence-based assessment of what constitutes an expert. I suggest an alternative point of view, which is looking at the question in behavioural terms: that is, how the person with knowledge relates to those people who want or need or share the knowledge. If her or his opinion is sought by others, or if s/he is quoted as an authority, then s/he may be considered an expert.

Obviously this is relative, but then so is all expertise. Obviously, too, this may be transient, in that the expert may be surpassed by others, or evidence may emerge which changes her position, or s/he may simply fall out of favour.

I suggest that being a secret, closet expert, for example holding a vast amount of particular knowledge which is never shared with anyone at all, disqualifies one from being an expert. Being an expert is of necessity defined in relation to others.

[west coast]

To my knowledge, that is incorrect. I have seen period photographs of individuals wearing only the KSA. The KSA is always seen with one or both of the following campaign bars =

1) South Africa 1901 (to all ranks who served in SA between the dates: 1st January to 31st December 1901).

2) South Africa 1902 (to all ranks who served in SA between the dates: 1st January to 31st May 1902)

To complicate matters, the QSA also was issued with above two campaign bars (for those who qualified), but for individuals who, for some reason, did not qualify for the KSA. So, I'll surmise that it is this criteria that you refer to!

Im certain that there are more knowledgeable forum members who will be able to answer your question more indepth that I can.

Seph

boots, any refrence to the k.s.a that i come across clearly states that it cannot or never? be awarded without the q.s.a .

cheers again ,mike.