Going to the Source

Brown and Shannon's introduction to scholarly journal articles gives us a rather basic yet meaningful understanding of what a scholarly journal article is and why it is useful as an historian. I found that their list of the pros and cons of scholarly journal articles was informative, but not entirely comprehensive. I couldn't help but think of a few other pros and cons, which may or may not be obvious. Journal articles are extremely accessible in today's world, as anyone with access to the Internet also has access to thousands of scholarly articles through online databases, such as JSTOR, etc. They are easy to search for, and to search within, again thanks to our modern technology. Another con that I usually find myself cursing when looking for a good scholarly article in my research is that due to the brevity of these articles, the topics are almost always extremely narrow. For example, if I am researching a topic such as "The Second Great Awakening", I am able to find very few articles. However, if I search "Charles Grandison Finney in Rochester New York 1825-1827", I will have much better luck. Essentially what I am getting at is that as an amateur historian and student, in which I usually find myself researching more broad topics, the information in journal articles can be far too specific for my research purposes.

In addition to the authors' discussion of scholarly articles, they include Elizabeth Fenn's article on biological warfare in 18th century America. I found the evidentiary discussion within this article to be interesting. While I understand that it is important to recognize any lack of evidence when making historical claims, and in this case in writing a peer reviewed article, it seems from my point of view that Fenn's argument is made less valid by her constant reiteration of the controversy around the evidence, or of the lack of available evidence. Personally, I thought that all of her examples, which for the most part came from primary sources such as letters, diaries, and other written, first hand accounts, were solid. While some were rumors published in local papers, or other less substantial accounts, she does write from a basis of primary source support. She includes many examples of cases in which biological warfare was present across the United States and even in Canada, or at least where a strong case can be made for its presence. Overall, I found her supporting evidence for the purposeful spreading of small pox rather convincing. While I am not sure I completely agree that these activities were as commonplace as she claims, and I am no expert on this subject, I do find her article and her use of primary source documentation substantial. I also feel that her article could have been more convincing if she would have limited the number of times she discussed the controversy over this subject and her lack of evidence.