I’m currently writing a paper about the historiographical works of Richard Hofstadter and I would be grateful for any advice that anyone would be willing to provide. Thank you!
Use of primary sources, dispose of historiographic model to the base, for example, the Annals School, Microhistory, Cultural history, Metahistory. I sugest to read Kurt Danziger, "naming the mind". http://www.kurtdanziger.com/
Hello Tristan - I'd suggest you looking for models of other historiographical reviews that you find illuminating or enjoyable to read as possible models. These can be found in 'Festschrift; publications - books or collection of writings published in honour of a scholar - often as introductions. Whilst there is a biographical element to historiographical reviews, in general it is mainly about the work.
What is the story and range of Hofstadter's contributions?
What themes run through his work through his career?
Is there a difference between early and late Hofstadter?
Who influenced him?
What fields and/or historiographical debates has he contributed to?
Can the impact of his work be measured? (in citations or influence on others direct or indirect)
What do you like most about his work?
What is the most significant feature or legacy of his work?