Guidelines for Writing a History Research Paper

A. General Rules.

1. Must use at least 5 sources (books or articles, not encyclopedias, electronic dictionaries, etc., unless these are used to supplement the books/articles). At least 2 of these sources must be recent (1980s or later).
2. Sources must be from USF library or they must be made available upon request of the instructor so that he/she may check the appropriateness of citations. If the documentation cannot be checked, your instructor may not accept the paper.
3. If at all possible, use primary sources (some of these you can obtain from the WWW).
4. Sources must be clearly cited in the text. Note: history majors who have had the Doing History/Social Sciences Seminar are responsible to format according to Rampolla. All others may follow the format as explained in this paragraph. When a direct quote is included, it must have quotation marks around it with a citation of the source in parenthesis afterwards. Example: "Dante shared with most of his contemporaries a tendency to see everything as a sign, figure symbol, or allegory of something else" (Wilcox 52). ["Wilcox" is the author's name and "52" is the page on which the quote is to be found.]
5. Sources must also be cited if principal ideas in a sentence or paragraph derive from one particular work. If you got the main idea from one specific author, but paraphrase it, you do not have to put it in quotes, but you DO have to note that it came from that author. Example (using the same ideas as above): Dante, just like other medieval writers, described the world in allegorical terms: every thing stood for something else. (Wilcox 52)
6. Quotes that are longer than 1 sentence, or 4 or more lines, should be set in a block format. They should be single-spaced and indented for the length of the quote. A citation (just like above) should appear at the end of the quote.
7. A full bibliography of all works cited must be included at the end of the paper. Sources should be listed alphabetically according to the author's last name. Follow the format for citation as demonstrated below:


Wilcox, Donald. In Search of God and Self: Renaissance and Reformation Thought. Boston:
        Houghton Mifflin,1975.

Note: Titles may be put in italics or underlined. Articles (either from journals or books), however, should be cited as follows:

Chamberlain, "Moralism, Justification, and the Controversy over Methodism," The Journal of Ecclesiastical History
        44 (October 1993): 652-678.

Sources from the World Wide Web should be cited with the author (if there is one), the title of the page (if there is one), and the FULL URL (the address where it can be found). An example follows:
 

• "Guidelines for Writing a History Research Paper," University of St. Francis.  <http://www.stfrancis.edu/hi/papergui.htm>.  June 2001.

B. Procedures for writing papers.

The following are requirements in preparing history papers:

1. Proposal. Decide on a topic and write a proposal. This should include your thesis question, your approach to the topic, and a preliminary bibliography. You will be asked to explain your proposal to the class, and the class will be asked to give feedback on the proposal. The instructor will evaluate the proposal and return it to you with comments.
2. Rough draft. After your topic has been approved, research your paper carefully and write a rough draft. Keep in mind the rules for writing a good paper. This first draft will be reviewed by both fellow students and the instructor.
3. Writing Center. After the instructor has reviewed the rough draft, and you have made corrections and changes, have the paper proofread by the Writing Center. This is a requirement. It is wise to have more than one person proofread it (and always someone other than yourself), but you must at least take it to the Writing Center.
4. Final draft. When you have corrected your rough draft and taken it to the Writing Center, put together a final draft and turn it in at the required deadline.
5. Failure to fulfill all the steps. Your paper grade will be reduced by one letter for every step above (including taking it to the Writing Center) that you miss. Late papers may be marked off, or if they are too late, not accepted at all.

C. Plagiarism.

D. How to write a good paper.

• Coming up with a topic and researching that topic.
1. Find a subject that interests you (that is, narrow down the possibilities).

--for example: Napoleon. It might be best to start this process by researching what sources are available. Go to the library online catalor and look under "Napoleon" and see what possibilities there are. Then check WorldCat and/or Illinet outside of USF.
2. Narrow the topic even further.

--for example: Napoleon's success
3. Ask a question. It is usually best to frame your paper in terms of a question which can be answered--this gives you a reason for the paper and a direction to proceed.

--for example: was Napoleon really a military genius? Or did he succeed simply because he took risks?
4. Research that question and come up with a thesis. A thesis is a point that you will try to prove or demonstrate in the paper. It is of supreme importance that your paper have a good, solid thesis. This is the heart of your paper and you will not do well if you do not have a significant thesis.

--for example: "This paper will demonstrate that Napoleon was clever, but not a genius. He was simply luckier than most people, and he was able to inspire confidence. Had he lacked these, he would not have gone very far at all."

• Writing the paper. The old maxim is good: say what you are going to say in the introduction, say it (and prove it) in the body of the text, and say what you said in the conclusion.
1. Begin with an introduction which clearly states the thesis. The introduction can do a lot of things (e.g., tease the interest of the reader, give back- ground information, etc.), but it must have a strong thesis statement.

--for example: "Napoleon. The mere name evokes awe. Generations of people have admired him as one of the greatest generals ever to have commanded an army. But does he deserve that reputation? This paper will try to answer that question, and it will show that Napoleon did, indeed, have some traits that most people do not, but these did not include extraor- dinary tactical shrewdness. Rather, Napoleon's "greatness" derived from two factors: his ability to inspire confidence in his men, and sheer luck."
2. Text. The main body of the paper should argue the thesis: it should make points which support the thesis and substantiate them with evidence. Argue as logically and thoroughly as you can-- build a case as if you were a lawyer before a judge and jury. Make sure that you cite your sources for evidence. Minimize direct quotations. There are only 2 reasons to quote a source directly: 1) if it comes from a primary source (that is, if a person in the time you are writing about said something which proves your point), and 2) if the author has said something so well that you can't possibly say it as well (but this should be relatively rare). If a direct quote is 4 lines or longer, it should be put into a block format: indented, single-spaced (and no quotation marks).
3. Conclusion. The conclusion should draw everything together. It should summarize the paper and reemphasize the thesis. Don't just write your thesis statement again, but remind the reader what you have proved.

--for example: "The record is clear: Napoleon's military skills have been significantly overrated. Napoleon was no better a general than many others of the time. What distinguished Napoleon from his contemporaries (not to mention generals through the ages) was his charisma and good fortune. But these could only carry him so far. His charisma was already wearing thin by the time of his last campaigns. And his luck ran out for good on the field of Waterloo."