The starting point for this paper is a general interest in the faint presence of methodologically oriented analyses within the history of education. The methodology of history of education is a rare term on the map of scientific categories (likewise the theory of history of education). One can multiply reasons for such situation, pointing institutional deficiencies of science or stressing the fact that this term is for some researchers unwelcome and should be criticized. Although such statements are worth tackling, the present considerations focus on different research trail, being an analysis of obstacles for crystallization of the methodology reflection within history of education. These are, e.g., the lack of paradigmatic clarity and also definitional instability of contemporary methodology of history as such. Nevertheless, one should not treat this situation as disadvantage, rather as a need of different historical imagination. Responses to this need should be developed and potential contexts of such historical imagination are presented in the final part of this paper.

The article discusses the bases of the contemporary concept of the theory of sources. I have made an attempt at re-interpreting this basic concept of historical methodology based on the semiotic concept of signs and reality.

Source – Source Studies – Method in the Research of Aleksander Gieysztor

This paper describes how Aleksander Gieysztor consciously worked on mastering the research methods of history already during his studies; it presents the diversity of research issues he undertook and shows various types of historical sources (written, archaeological and folklore) that Gieysztor used in his work.

The essay deals with Montesquieu’s methodology of history. My crucial assumption is that Montesquieu intends to cultivate history as science. In the 18th century this ambition meant that he wanted to use the analytical method in the field of history. His works include many examples of the successful exploitation of analysis. Since the philosopher does not consider his methods, my aim will be to extract from his works the ideas that stand behind his historical investigations. In other words, I am going to answer how history can be practiced as science (in the Enlightenment sense of this term). First of all, I am going to explain why analysis was – and still is – so efficient in a realm of natural phenomena. My point will be that it indicated to early modern scientist how they should conduct their experiments. On the other hand, experiments give advantage to scientists due to the fact that they are able to construct and control their object. To put it differently: analysis and experiments are efficient because truth and action are convertible. Now, my crucial question is: ‘Are historians capable of gaining advantage over their objects as physicists are?’ Giambattista Vico, for example, agrees. According to him, researchers can comprehend historical events because history is man-made. Some parts of Montesquieu’s works indicate that he shares Vico’s assumptions. Hence, historians are able to scrutinize past factors, and they can perform thought experiments. Such experiments are means for validating and abolishing hypotheses by using counterfactuals.