O kulturę dyskusji naukowej

• Authors: Olejnik Karol
• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

During historic studies, students have to complete a curse Introduction into research, that is made light of by them very often. Except the historical workshop, they get to know, among others, how should be written the review of historical books, so they could improve their academic workshop, as well as ability to present and defence own thesis. Reviews divided into two types: reporting and polemical. These first ones seek to pay attention of the scientists environment to a new book. The second type has a more complex structure. An author of this kind of review is obliged to confront a discussed book with his/her own knowledge. The obligation is to point out all errors and distortions, from incorrect subtitles, to inappropriate conclusions. As a result, a debate on a particular issue develops. The exchange of ideas brings increase of knowledge on the topic. Unfortunately, more often the review is reduced to personal, not essential attacks. In place of an objective discussion on facts and an interpretation of sources, it comes to the reprehensible behaviour. The author appeals to historians, taking part in scientific debates, for remaining the proper tone of the statements and for focusing on the topic. To write a good polemical review it is necessary to possess an appropriate state of knowledge on the topic. Only then it is possible to criticize other author’s conclusions. But books written badly and including obvious errors, should be eliminated on the initial level of the publishing process. In author’s view this is a task of publisher houses.

• Publisher: Ośrodek Badań Historii Wojskowej Muzeum Wojska w Białymstoku
• Journal: Studia z Dziejów Wojskowości
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 1
• Pages: 11-20

Contributors

author

Olejnik Karol

• Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Wyższa Szkoła Nauk Humanistycznych i Dziennikarstwa w Poznaniu