Sorry to bother everyone with such a personal question, but I've really been struggling with the organizational piece on my research paper and desperately needed a little advice. Basically, our assignment is to create a historical argument using primary sources with a unique topic to argue a thesis. It's a huge assignment and many students fail it every year.
For my topic, essentially, I'm trying to set up an argument that the popularity of Monopoly (the game) was a reaction to the frustration of Americans during the Depression and New Deal. I'm struggling, though, with the setup as far as how to best structure my argument. I've considered first establishing the context for the Depression/New Deal era, then moving into the contrast between its effects on the rich and the poor, then introducing Monopoly. I would start with its Georgist origins before pivoting to the changes made prior to the Parker Bros. release. From there, I would discuss its rise, and how the role of the winning Monopoly player paralleled the role of the "winning" upper class. I also considered maybe moving into interpretations of how that reflected the class tensions of the time. Do you think that structure would work? If so, is there any crucial element that you'd include that I seem to be missing? It seems like looking for some form of reaction from Americans to the game could be helpful, but what form that could take is a mystery to me. Again, any and all feedback would be incredibly appreciated. I'm also REALLY struggling with sources to back my claim, so any ideas for where to look for that would be lifesaving. Thank you all so much in advance!
Hey there!
I'm really sorry your teacher hasn't given you guidance on how to write a history research paper in the first place. FFS.
So, uh, the thing is...you're trying to go about this backwards. You have a belief, and now you want to prove it and don't know how (sources, argument structure, etc). This doesn't work so well, especially because you don't actually know yet if you're right!
The way good historians work is, we start with a body of sources and come up with an argument out of them. This is a good way to (a) make sure your sources actually support your point (b) not try to argue something MASSIVE in scope, which is also what you've set out for yourself here. ;)
(Don't worry--I speak for everyone at AskHistorians when I say we have ALL been exactly there and done exactly what you're doing. Most of us with a lot more experience writing history behind us, ROFLOL.)
If I were you in this case, I'd say "Okay, I want to write something about Monopoly in the Great Depression. I don't know what I will ultimately argue, but that's my general topic." Then I'd go looking for secondary sources on this. It could be Monopoly, Parker Brothers, entertainment during the Great Depression, history of board games, vacations to Atlantic City (or just, what was Atlantic City like at the time? what did "Boardwalk" conjure up for people? How about the Utilities--who had running water in their homes?) etc. Read the articles.
But also: mine the footnotes! They will direct you to other secondary sources. They'll direct you to primary sources. (But be ready for a lot of them to be in archives somewhere--you might end up relying fairly heavily on quotes used by other scholars or artwork reproduced in their books and articles).
Keep reading. See what other people are arguing. You'll work your way to a thesis. And at that point, the structure of your paper will be a LOT easier to figure out.
Was this clear enough? Let me know if you have questions!