Can those of you in the world of academia can tell me if historians and political scientists approach their analyses differently? Do they use different tools, emphasize different aspects of human behavior, etc.?
Here’s why I ask: I was a political science major in college, with a very narrow focus on political philosophy from Plato through the Enlightenment - I also did an independent study on utopian communities. I remember almost none of it now, but at the time I was a great student; the lowest grade I received on any exam or paper was an A-.
During that same period, I took a history course on colonialism by Britain/ Spain/ Portugal/ Holland in Africa and Asia. Ironically, I remember more from that course than any other class I took; I loved it! However, I struggled to get a B in the class. Whatever I wrote, the teacher didn’t like. Somehow, the way I thought just didn’t seem like the way historians think. I was stunned. The papers I wrote reflected the way I thought and wrote, with great success, in my poli sci classes.
This all happened in the late 1970s, so I can’t provide much detail beyond that. However, I’ve always been curious as to what might have been behind the stark difference in my performance. The obvious theory is that historians are much smarter than political scientists 
However, I don’t think that’s true, at least I hope not.
Any insights, anyone?
Obviously political philosophy is an exception but I had the impression that modern political science is mostly a quantitative/statistical field while history is primarily qualitative.
Hmm. I am a historian of sorts (one book published), and a tireless researcher on local history. I am, however, not a college trained historian. So… I don’t think history has much to do with philosophy.
I seek facts, lost accounts, buried artifacts, never seen photos. I comb old newspapers for stories about long forgotten events. I call up descendants of past local historical figures to see if they have anything interesting in the attic.
The only analyzing I do is to stand next to a windswept grave and stare into the distance and try to imagine it wooded and desolate, and ask, “Why did they stop and build here”?
I think you are looking for “bigger” history then what I find interesting. But that is still my stance, we report, not analyze.
Dennis
So maybe my problem was that I wasn’t “nitty gritty” enough - hard to say, but it is an explanation consistent with the facts available. Although I remember feeling like the professor liked “big ideas” - just not MY big ideas.
Historians like to change things. For example they seem to think people talked differently back in history - listen to the way they have people talk on historical documentaries!
Seems to me people would have talked in the same tone of voice as they do now!
Also they seem to think people in history were dumb and could not possibly have done anything on their own - like build pyramids, etc. Actually they were just as smart as we are today - just lacking our modern tools and equipment.