Historical Analysis is the primary goal of both students and historians. History is more that a simple narrative. The discipline is less concerned with the who and what of an incident, focusing instead on why and how certain events played out. It is all about interpretation, argument, and the consequences. To do history properly, or to complete a good historical analysis, one must first use the right evidence, then assess it correctly (which means understanding its relationship to the particular situation), and finally draw meaningful and appropriate conclusions from said evidence.
We can only learn to use the tools that we need to analyze history. The history you love to read may seem to have a simple and straightforward narrative, but creating this story is much more challenging than you would think. It is important to make informed decisions when writing history. We must first read the primary sources and then weigh up any inevitable conflicts. You may recall a conflictive event from your own personal history, like a traffic accident or an argument between two friends. Didn't all the people who were there–both sides of the story, witnesses, authorities–report it differently? The story you told about what happened was seamless, and you didn't have to worry about which reports or points were the most important. Even leaving a certain turning point vague (it's unknowable because of what he/she has said) reflects your audience's expectations.
In our case, there are guidelines or rules that we follow when making these decisions. The next chapter contains sections that provide detailed information on reading primary sources. To compare the value of a source with other sources, it is important to be well-informed about the historical context of that source, the creator's outlook, and its circumstances. In order to discover what actually happened, historians need to learn more about these circumstances in order to be able evaluate the impact they have on the information revealed by a source. The sources left behind by each actor at a particular historical moment are influenced by their cultural biases. It is the historian's job to make these differences meaningful for their readers by weaving them into their analysis. In order to create a single story, historians must take into consideration a wide range of viewpoints and compare different ideologies.
History students and historians must know how to handle their sources and tell a compelling story that will help us understand ourselves and our past. Humans are curious about the causes of certain outcomes, and whether or not a previous actor or an event is comparable to that of a modern actor or even event. "What made Martin Luther King Jr. an activist when others had failed before?" The Civil Rights Movement was a similar movement to Black Lives Matter. What is the similarity between the Coronavirus and 1918 flu pandemics? What did the first feminists believe? Even minor details can reveal important facts. ("How did Mothers Against Drunk Drivers play out, or the Gun Rights Movement, or …, in my Texas home town?")
In essence, historical analysis involves analyzing cause-and–effect relationships, taking into account the interactions and effects of individuals, influential thoughts, and diverse mindsets. It's about finding out which facts are combined to create a coherent narrative that can help us better understand ourselves and others. These understandings can, and do, change over time. Here's where your history interests and you come in. We must always remember that any analysis we have of a person or an event is only a preliminary or temporary one. History is about analyzing the evidence available and drawing meaningful conclusions. New evidence (including yours!) and new perspectives are always welcome. It is possible that new evidence and perspectives (including yours!)
In the end, it was noted that an important part in historical analysis is integrating a new understanding of historic events and actors to history as written. We do not wish to "reinvent or retell" the story. Researchers cannot ignore past historical writings even when they offer new perspectives or discover new evidence. To build knowledge, they must instead link their new understandings with older scholarship. The linkage can be a direct challenge of past explanations or it could provide a nuance in the older work. A scholar may use new evidence in order to show a shift in time periodization (the rightward shift of the Republican Party actually began before Ronald Reagan's campaigns) or to highlight the importance of certain actors. In order to expand knowledge and scholarship, historians choose research subjects with a view toward incorporating By finding or developing new sources, we can add to our knowledge.