Practicum Precept Discussion Guide
To prepare to contribute to a
discussion of a common reading in the precept, consider the following:
1. Who is the author of the
work and what is the basis of the author’s authority? Authority for a scholar generally derives
from the quality and quantity of previous works, the scholar’s academic
position and rank, and the author’s scholarly awards and honors. One can use Google to try to find the
author’s curriculum vitae (this refers to his/her resume; it is often abbreviated
to vita).
2. When and in what journal or with what publishing house was the work
published? A more recent piece should signify the most recent research
and mastery of the previous research; the distinction of the journal or the
publishing house might indicate the quality of the research and/or the
professional standing of the author. The
most prestigious journal in the discipline generally is the American Historical Review; Latin
Americanists publish there but also in such competitive journals as the Journal of Social History, Comparative
Studies in Society and History, etc.
The most prestigious journals in the field of Latin American history
include the Hispanic American Historical
Review, the Journal of Latin American
Studies, the Latin American Research
Review, and The Americas; Luso-Brazilian Review is a more
specialized journal. The most
prestigious publishing houses for Latin American history are Cambridge
University Press and Stanford University Press; other presses of great prestige
include the university presses of
3. What is the setting or context of this article? The time and place of
the publication might influence the author’s approach or perspective (e.g., an
author from one of the Allied nations might be particularly critical of a
dictator if writing about one during World War II).
4. What kinds of primary sources does the author use? One must be aware of the types of sources
(e.g., personal correspondence, official correspondence, a diary, a memoir, a
later account by a participant, a later account by a witness, a contemporary
newspaper account, a parliamentary debate, etc.) and how (or whether) they are
appropriate to understanding what happened and why. A critical issue beyond the types of sources
is the balance of them – would they provide insight into all the appropriate
sides of a conflict or a disputed account?
5. On what types of secondary sources does the author rely? Do they seem to be appropriate? Do they seem to be all the relevant ones?
6. What is the problem
or issue that the author is examining? What central argument, or thesis, does
the author make in response to this problem?
7. Is the author’s bias apparent? If it is, does it clearly distort the
analysis? In what ways? Bias can be apparent in choice of sources, in
language use, in conclusions without convincing evidence, and so on.