Gentle reader, in this essay I present some of my thoughts about encouraging the research process within our Society. I have long pondered this topic. I offer my thoughts to you as points to ponder, argue, and digest. The intent of this essay is to generate discussion of new approaches to research and information evaluation within the SCA. And so, in the same spirit as Martin Luther nailed his '95 Thesis' to the door of the Wittenberg church, I offer this to you.

Possible, Probable, and Provable Research

The first line of the governing documents of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) states that the SCA "is a nonprofit educational organization devoted to study of the Middle Ages and Renaissance." This is the definition of our group, our identity and stated reason for being. Why then is research such an intimidating prospect for so many who investigate the academic side of the SCA?

One contributing factor to this discomfort is rooted in the current perception across the SCA that research is documentation. In actuality research is a process and documentation is a product of that process. This confusion leads to a feeling among members that research is intimidating and arcane. This view is compounded by the fact that many members and newcomers to the SCA are not well versed in the process of research. And, as a whole, the SCA does very little to demystify the process of research. With a few exceptions, the most common introduction in the SCA to the research process is ad-hoc and minimal.

Common tools supplied to members within the SCA to introduce research include sketched definitions of what constitutes various levels of resources and an introduction to information finding and library usage. With these tools members are told to document their project by seeking out the answers to the primary questions of 'Who, What, Where, When and How.' These methods may teach people where to find information and direct them towards the items they will need to know, but they create other problems.

For instance, the basic nature of the questions really only touches on the most elemental knowledge. Using these questions only the tip of the iceberg is discovered, and fledgling researchers may become frustrated when asked why they didn't present more in their documentation. Another problem in simply arming members with these questions is that the simple nature of the questions implies that history and social evolution can be encapsulated into discreet and well defined units.

Further, these questions on their own do not encourage further development. They lend themselves to short answers, which is often not the whole of the story. In general, the gathering of information is not the problem, but the tools that members are commonly given do nothing to help members evaluate or present what they have found.

To address these limitations of current practices we, the teachers and researchers of the SCA, need to add a new tool to the arsenal of the researcher. The tool should be simple, flexible, expandable, accurate and easily adapted to presentation of the information in other media. This tool should also be easily taught and work in conjunction with tools already established. All of these features are available in the "possible, probable and provable" approach to research.

The principles behind "possible, probable and provable" research are simple. Each piece of information is evaluated as it is found. A simple question is asked by the researcher to determine whether that particular fact, finding, or item shows if the object of the research was possible, probable or provable. This approach can also be used to define the credibility and applicability of a source in each situation.

Pieces of information are sorted into three categories. The category "possible" contains the pieces of information which demonstrate that an idea, process or item was known and/or produced in a given time period and place. This is a very useful category, especially in regards to information which was known in one period and culture, and not in another. Determining the "possible" acts as a guideline in the research process, and keeps the researcher from trying to find evidence of chopsticks in 14th century Norway.

The questions guiding the "possible" category are very simple. They are broad strokes designed to rough out the research topic. In keeping with the category, the questions are very general. Some questions the researcher might employ are: "Did they know how to do that?", "How did people solve this problem?", "What was the result of that?", and "Could this be accomplished given the level of technology?"

Often items in this category are "common knowledge," but that doesn't make the category superfluous. For example, it was possible with the technology of the times to make a pair of pants out of walrus hide. Medieval man had knowledge of sewing, tanning, and the walrus, but that doesn't mean it was common practice.

This leads us to the category of "probable." "Probable" items of information describe the historical context, social conditions, and alternate examples of the research topic. By observing this context, the researcher comes to know the materials, methods and processes involved in the manufacture, creation or development of his topic. This is the workhorse of all the categories, and often is the largest of the three.

Questions that help define items in the "probable" category are as diverse as the category itself. Items of information that answer questions on how this process was developed or its evolution from earlier forms start to build a context for the research. The researcher might ask questions like "Does this demonstrate how these were made?", "Does this information describe a process?", "How was it used?", "Was this a common practice?", or "Who would have owned this?"

Among the three categories the "probable" classification is unique, because it covers nearly every aspect of researching a topic. From social use of an item to creation and distribution. Information from archeological study can provide insight on manufacturing methods and skills. Anecdotal evidence, and a mix of primary and secondary resources fill this category. Unlike the other two categories, the probable category is filled with scales based on the question, "Just how probable is this piece of information?"

Items that fall into the "probable" may range from the very low to very high probability. At the lower end of the scale the researcher would be making a long leap in logic. And the resulting statement may be shaky or disprovable. With items of greater probability the logical lines flow easily and may appear seamless. However, the temptation to present information which is "highly probable" as fact must be resisted. The academic integrity of the research is not diminished by sound logic, but it can be damaged by the inaccurate representation of data. So learning to discern the probability of information items within this category and using them knowledgeably is important.

"Provable" is the third category within the system. Although this category might sound like the ultimate goal of the progression, this category can be the most restrictive of the three. The basic question of this category is "What does this information prove?"

This group is reserved for hard evidence. Items that may populate this category include extant items and archeological finds. The category also includes manuscripts and evidence from inventories or wills. Legal records, proceedings, and church accounts also populate this category. Although the assumption is often that the "provable" is the endpoint, in actuality the information within the "provable" category often acts as the foundation for research.

The categories work together to evaluate information as it is collected. This system can also be used to evaluate the resource which provides the information. This is an aspect of research that is often overlooked, but which can be easily addressed by the application of the same "possible, probable and provable" system. The use of "possible, probable and provable" goes beyond the customary classification of information sources which is used in the SCA. Most researchers in our society are indoctrinated in the defining of a resource as primary, secondary or tertiary. But then researchers often make the mistake of using a correctly defined primary resource in a situation where it is not appropriate.

Let us look at the "Book of Hunting" by Gaston de Foix as an example. This is a treatise on hunting written in the 14th century. This makes it by the commonly held definitions of resources in the SCA, a primary resource. The temptation researchers face is to immediately tip any information gleaned from a primary resource into the "provable" category. But we have to return to the original questions that define the category… "What does this prove?" By using this question as a sieve we can determine that this primary resource does prove some things, but is unlikely to prove others. So to use this specific resource as proof of exterior thrones or brocade patterns of the day would be inappropriate. However, it could easily be used to prove hunting practices or how practical manuals of 14th century Occitan France were illustrated.

So the researcher asks themselves is this resource demonstrating something possible something probable, or something provable. The evaluation of a resource could stop here, but in all truth it shouldn't. Researchers should be encouraged to look at whether the original writer or artist had an agenda or a bias in creating their work. For example, Philip Stubbes' "Anatomie of Abuses," written in 1583, provides a great deal of observed information on Elizabethan clothing and morals. But the reader should be aware that not every person dressed as described by Stubbes. And he spends most of the time ranting against fashions of which he, as a conservative, does not approve. Another example, are the character descriptions of Peter Martyr a Dominican friar who was murdered in 1252. Records are available from both sides of the Inquisition that depict this man's character. Neither side agrees with the other, and indeed it is important to know on which side of the debate the authors sympathies lie in order to judge the information that they provide.

The categories work together to evaluate information as it is collected, and to evaluate the resources used. Overall, "possible" defines likely starting points, "provable" provides the piers upon which new research is built and "probable" contains the realm of theory and logical progression. The use of these three categories helps to define and shape the researcher's work. Areas which need further research can be identified, as well as, likely new avenues of research.

This is where the flexibility and expandability of this approach comes into play. Being able to see what information falls into the "probable category and to evaluate "how probable" that information is, helps the researcher identify the information they need to find.

At this point the researcher can narrow the focus or expand the area of research. Expansion of their focus can lead the researcher into new topics. For example, initial research on the practice of fowling led to questions about retrieving, then to snares and knots, then to rope and twine making.

Alternately an example of narrowing the focus of questions in research might follow a path like this one: Was silk used in period?; Where was silk use in period?; Where was silk manufactured in period?; What was the silk industry in Florence like?; What were the silk laws in Florence in 1550? At each level the researcher can tighten the focus of their research.

As well as helping the researcher define and expand their research the "possible, probable and provable" approach can also help the researcher present the fruits of their labor. By using the "possible, probable and provable" research method in conjunction with well known tools of information gathering, a sense of organization is created as the information is gathered. This basic organization of information can be a boon to the researcher when the time comes to present their findings. When preparing a presentation the "who, what, where, when and how" questions provide a rough guide, but by incorporating the "possible, probable, and provable" elements the researcher gains a finer gauged tool for information presentation.

The "possible, probable and provable" method helps organize the information for presentation. As the researcher answers each question in the overarching "who, what, where, when and how" construct they can use the "possible, probable and provable" structure to organize their presentation. Within each category of larger question, for example "Where," the researcher can construct a narrative that moves through the categories of "possible, probable and provable". This ensures a logical flow to the presentation, and helps to structure any arguments or theories. Which, in turn, aides the audience in comprehension of the topic.

By instructing researchers in using the "possible, probable and provable" method of information gathering and evaluation the teachers and established researchers of the SCA would be providing newcomers to research with an improved framework to use in their efforts. This framework will expand their expectation of research beyond the basic realm of "who, what, where, when and how" questions. It would help to lower the chances of post project frustration by encouraging proper analysis of information as it is gleaned. It would serve as a basis for rebuttal of criticism, as a launching pad for debate and as an organizational tool to encourage the clear presentation of information that has been gathered. By adding the "possible, probable and provable" research method to the tools of the researcher we will be sending them well armed for the present and emboldened for projects yet to come.

So just what did the judges think?