To what extent is the knowledge we produce determined by the methodologies we use discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

As humans, we are pushed to analyse the world around us and come to conclusions about it, to answer the many questions we ask ourselves. Methodologies play an important part in the production of knowledge, which is the search for answers and explanations of our world, both material and immaterial, that surrounds us. Methodologies are a holistic approach to how research should be conducted and consist of all methods used by scientists and historians in their production of knowledge. Methods, instead, are the individual pieces that make up the methodology, and are the specific tools used by researchers: for example the use of an instrument to measure a variable in physics. Exploring whether methodologies have an impact on the production of knowledge is extremely relevant, as it allows researchers to gain a more mindful approach when choosing them. In both the Natural Sciences and History, a common methodology that allows us to reach knowledge that is closer to truth, exists. This essay will explore how methodologies impact production of knowledge in History and the Natural Sciences, and how, often, inadequate methodologies will negatively impact the production of knowledge, although there are other instances in which other factors have a major influence.

In the Natural Sciences, the methodology used is universal: all scientists adhere to the scientific method. I had an opportunity to engage with this methodology in my Physics IA, which explored how temperature affects the fall time of a magnet in a copper pipe. I first observed this phenomenon in class, then made observations by dropping a magnet through a tube and changing its temperature by immersing it in cold water. I then conducted an experiment with precise measurement in order to analyse the data and reach conclusions. The results followed many predictions, and the magnet slowed down as the pipe was cooled. The correct analysis of the physical phenomenon resulted from the correct application of the scientific method, which enabled me to reach knowledge that was certain. It is widely accepted that the process of observation, making hypotheses, testing them and then reporting results, as I, alongside countless other scientists have gone through, is the best method to produce knowledge that achieves the highest degree of certainty through an explanation of empirical evidence. For this reason, it is a requirement that for any research to be considered scientific, it must follow these steps.

However, there are instances where tools used have a negative impact on production of scientific knowledge even if the scientific method is respected. This is because scientists, as all humans, can incur into common biases, such as confirmation bias . An example of this is Bharat Aggarwal, former Distinguished Professor at the University of Texas, who resigned after fraud was discovered in 65 of his papers . One of these, which researched the effectiveness of curcumin pills as a treatment for cancer, published in 2010, was retracted in 2016 because “the data integrity had become questionable . To gather his evidence on the effect of the pills on cancerous tissues, Aggarwal used imaging as a tool. However, he managed to re-use images from control groups or manipulation of images, to show different experimental conditions. This is an instance in which it is possible for a scientist to reach the pinnacle of the community by falsifying research . Despite the fact that the general methodologies were in accordance with the scientific method and the papers were peer- reviewed, the production of knowledge was still hindered. This is because there are no strict and widely accepted conventions on the tools used by scientists. This has an impact on the certainty of the knowledge produced, and it is a consequence of the methodologies. This is because, in the Natural Sciences, tools are needed in order to implement the scientific method, and flaws can emerge as a consequence of methods used. A relevant consideration that has to be made in the Natural Sciences is that some projects go forwards, while others get blocked off at an initial stage because of funding. This prevents some knowledge from being investigated, regardless of methodologies. One example is Project Prometheus, NASA’s attempt at developing nuclear powered space propulsion, launched in 2003, but cancelled in 2006 due to other demands on NASA’s budget - flying the Space Shuttle and paying a servicing mission to the Hubble Space telescope . The project’s budget shrank from $252 to $100 million from 2005 to 2005, devoted to closing existing contracts7 . Methodologies of research, which adhered to the scientific method, had no impact on the cancellation, and the project got through Phase A (Missions and Systems Definition), proving how methodologies were sound. However, its cancellation had an impact on the production of knowledge in that field, as limited research could be carried out, showing how other factors impact the production of knowledge. This is especially true for expensive and specific projects such as this, which require extensive and large sums of money.

Much like evidence in the Natural Sciences, sources are the basis for the practice of History, and it relies on them for the production of knowledge that occurs in it. Historians, when pursuing knowledge in their field, have to choose a certain methodology to follow in order to analyse the sources at their disposal. A widely accepted methodology exists - it takes into account various perspectives, considering a combination of primary and secondary sources. This is explored in the History Paper  , which analyses 4 sources on the same topic, in one example, Japanese expansion. The paper consists of two secondary sources, written by Jonathan Spence and Chang-Tai Hung, analysing Japan’s actions in Manchuria and two primary sources, a speech by Jiang Jieshi and a cartoon. The paper asks to evaluate them in their origin, purpose and content, compare and contrast them, and then write a short essay, in which the production of knowledge happens. Considering different sources from diverse perspectives allows a historian, or student, to give a complete evaluation of the topic and reach knowledge that has a fairly high degree of certainty, and represents the accepted methodology in the area of knowledge of History.

However, historians incur in issues with this apparently flawless methodology. In my studies in History, I have been able to experience this first hand. During research for my IA, which focussed on how the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) was used as a diplomatic endeavour in the 1980s between the United States and the Soviet Union, I noticed how some sources showed perspectives that supported my thesis, while others contradicted it. From the American side, it seemed as if the ASTP was a diplomatic endeavour, and, because American archives were more readily accessible compared to Russian ones, sources that proved my thesis could be analysed easily. One of the few Russian documents I could access was a translated letter by Brezhnev received by the White House in 197510. I could not directly access any internal Russian memoranda, because they were in Russian archives or they were classified. This shows how historians researching topics such as the Cold War are affected in their methodology by the availability and accessibility of sources. Historiography and sources are often polarised, showing american perspectives. This has an impact on the production of knowledge because some perspectives have not been considered, as the methodologies didn’t allow that.

As History is mostly based on the interpretation of events, schools of thought have developed inside of it. These provide historians with frameworks in which to work, which prioritise certain happenings over others, in order for the historian to successfully write History. A marxist historian will foreground class struggle and economics, while a historian from the Annales school prioritises analysis into demography, culture and mentality This selection of certain perspectives will cause a determined interpretation to arise from the analysis of a certain historical situation. Even if a historian operating inside of a school of thought had a theoretically flawless methodology that enabled to reach knowledge with a high degree of certainty, the school of thought would impact the production of knowledge. This is because it sets some initial boundaries for the historian in order to select the nature of the sources to be considered, and even if multiple perspectives are analysed, the outcome of the research is still dependent on the initial sources chosen, which in turn depends on the school of thought in which the historian operates. This shows how, in certain circumstances, production of knowledge is independent of the methodologies in the area of knowledge of History, because it is impacted by other factors, such as the framework in which the historian operates

In conclusion, methodologies have a significant influence in the production of knowledge in both the Natural Sciences and History. This is because methodologies provide the basis from which the scientist or the historian develops their research and ultimately reaches their knowledge: starting from a flawed methodology will inevitably impact the outcome. Despite the fact that both areas of knowledge have a conventional methodology, there are various instances in which this common methodology can be flawed, as shown in this essay, and this has a negative impact on the knowledge produced. However, in both areas of knowledge, other factors have a significant influence, and are mostly contextual: for scientists, it is the necessity to obtain funding in order to back their research, while in History, it is the framework and school of thought in which the historian operates, because it foregrounds or backgrounds certain aspects of History. This shows how we are all part of a human society, and this has an influence on our perspectives and the work we produce..

• Ackerman, Todd. “M.D. Anderson Professor under Fraud Probe.” Houston Chronicle, 24 Feb. 2012, https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/article/M-D-Anderson-professor-under- fraud-probe-3360037.php. Accessed 14 Feb. 2023.
• Berger, Brian. “Prometheus, ISS Research Cuts Help Pay for Shuttle and Hubble Repair Bills.” Space.com, 12 May 2005, https://www.space.com/1068-prometheus-iss-research-cuts-pay-shuttle- hubble-repair-bills.html.
• Black, Jeremy, and Donald M. MacRaild. Studying History. Palgrave, 2017.
• Brown, David W. “NASA’s ‘Nuclear Option’ May Be Crucial for Getting Humans to Mars.” Scientific American, 22 Jan. 2022, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasas-nuclear-option-may- be- crucial-for-getting- humans-to-mars/. Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.
• Danto, Arthur C. “Narrative Sentences.” History and Theory, vol. 2, no. 2, 1962, pp. 146–179. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2504460. Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.
• Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, Letter from Leonid Brezhnev to Gerald Ford (October 10, 1975).
• Guiney, P., W. Goodfellow, AND Timothy J. Canfield. An Overview of Confirmation Bias in Science: Examples and Opportunities for Improvement. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) SCICON2 – SETAC North America 41st Annual Meeting, November 15 - 19, 2020.
• Grens, Kerry. “Seven More Retractions for Cancer Researcher.” The Scientist, 10 Aug. 2016,https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/seven-more-retractions-for-cancer-researcher- 33041. Accessed 14 Feb. 2023.
• Harsgor, Michael. “Total History: The Annales School.” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 13, no. 1, 1978, pp. 1–13. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/260089. Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.
• International Baccalaureate, History SL/HL Paper 1, “The Move to Global War”, 8 May 2018
• “Journal Retracts 7 Papers by MD Anderson Cancer Researcher Long under Investigation.” Retraction Watch, 22 Feb. 2016, https://web.archive.org/web/20160923154122/http://retractionwatch.com/ 2016/02/22/journal-retracts-7-papers-by-md-anderson-researcher-long-under-investigation/.
• Maidansky, Andrey D. “The Logic of Marx's Theory of History.” Russian Studies in Philosophy, vol. 51, no. 2, 2012, pp. 44–82., https://doi.org/10.2753/rsp1061-1967510202.
• Prometheus Project Final Report. NASA/JPL. October 1, 2005.