angela j

PrimaryResearchPaperProposalGuidelines2021-1.pdf

GENERAL GUIDELINES

THE RESEARCH PAPER PROPOSAL1 HIST 500

THE RESEARCH PROJECT PROPOSAL Presentation of an acceptable proposal is not the beginning of the work on the research project. Rather, it marks the end of the first major stage of the research process. Before a proposal can be submitted, the student must have identified an appropriate research problem and developed realistic ways of exploring it. The student should realize that preparing the proposal is both a formal and an intellectual exercise. Therefore, all aspects of the proposal should be prepared as carefully as possible. An example of a historical research project proposal is included as an appendix to this guide and students are strongly urged to examine this document.

INTRODUCTORY READING The most efficient way to explore a topic and to test one’s interest is to read about it. In the initial stages, the reader skims or surveys a broad variety of materials with the purpose of gaining background knowledge in several fields of inquiry. As a rule, much of this introductory reading may not be directly related to the final research project proposal. Nonetheless, the reader is advised to make a few brief notes on each work read – author, title, publisher, date, and a brief synopsis of the most interesting points – so that the material can be found again if it is needed later. Journal essays, surveys, general histories, reviews, and specialized bibliographies are useful sources for the exploration of many topics. Textbooks and research papers from previous courses also will help in gaining sufficient background to begin identifying a suitable research problem. At the beginning of this reading, you should establish a consistent method of documenting the research. Again, for each item, record full bibliographical information, and make reference notes of some sort. Few things are more exasperating than the discovery that the documentation on a significant piece of research datum is missing. A methodical recording of the necessary information in a computer file, though tedious, should save much time and discomfort at later stages in the research process. HOW DO YOU CHOOSE A RESEARCH TOPIC? It is most important to begin with an area or a topic of genuine and lasting interest. In general, candidates choose their research topic on the basis of prior reading and personal experience and, like any large undertaking, this one is easiest to approach if broken down into smaller steps. Your first step should be simply to brainstorm: make a list of topics that might interest you. They may be related to papers you have written for earlier courses, to your reading, or to issues raised in connection with your work. Let the

NOTE: This guide is excerpted from A. Benson, D. Ostrowski, and D. Spetter. A Guide to the ALM Thesis, 6th ed., General Editor, S. Weaver Schopf. Cambridge: Harvard University Extension School, 2003.

list take shape over several days or weeks until you have a number of topics. Then go down the list and rank the topics in order of preference. Step two involves refining your list. Take a blank piece of paper and write a short overview detailing what you know and what you would like to find out about the topic. It will be helpful to keep the following questions in mind:

 What has been said about this subject already?

 Which aspects of this topic remain unexplored or unresolved?

 Do any questionable or erroneous assumptions characterize the previous writings on this topic?

 Is there a particular method or approach to this topic that might shed new light on it? Writing in this way tests your interest and also suggests how much you need to discover in order to begin to prepare a proposal on the chosen topic. If, for example, you are interested in medieval architecture but find that you cannot think of a single cathedral you know well, then you have a lot of work ahead of you, and you may want to rethink the topic. If your short overview proves to you that the topic is not worth pursuing, move to the next on your list of interests and write briefly again, and so on, until you feel satisfied with the topic you have selected. Once a general research topic has been chosen, the next step should be to find ways to limit it, give it clearer focus, and shape it into a tightly defined research problem or question. If the problem is too broad, the research is likely to remain superficial. There will simply be too much material for you to investigate. Conversely, the topic may be so narrow that not enough material exists to do it justice. You may find yourself fascinated by a particular topic but discover that there is only one article on it and that it is written in a language you do not read. It is then wise to choose another topic. All this does not mean, however, that the research topic cannot deal with important issues. It should. But the mark of a careful and competent researcher is to know how to pick the proper angle from which to approach an issue. Consider, for example, the history of utopias. No research project could possibly encompass all the ramifications of this topic. Instead, the investigator might examine utopias created in a particular period or country, or the psychological or economic ramifications of particular utopian systems. Alternatively, one might focus on the utopia created by a single author – Thomas More, for example, or B. F. Skinner – evaluating it within the context of a specific social theory. Here are some examples of topics that were at first too broad or unfocused and were subsequently narrowed or focused by the student:

Unfocused: “The American Constitution” Focused: “Definitions of Libel under the First Amendment to the Constitution” Unfocused: “American Expatriate Artists”

Focused: “Three 19th-Century American Expatriate Artists and Their Critical Reception Abroad: Sargent, Whistler, Cassatt”

Unfocused: “The Falklands War and Its Impact on the World” Focused: “The Falklands War and Its Impact on the British General Elections of 1983” Unfocused: “The Effect of Decreased River Pollution on Animal Life” Focused: “The Growth of the Cormorant Population on the Charles River Since 1980” Unfocused: “Early Intervention Programs” Focused: “The Effect of the Healthy Start Program on Infant Mortality in

Massachusetts” Unfocused: “The Effects of Weather on Culture” Focused: “The Impact of El Niño on the Chimu Culture of Peru from 1000 to 1300 AD:

A Comparison of Meteorological and Archaeological Data” Unfocused: “Humor in Chaucer” Focused: “Chaucer’s ‘Cook’s Tale’ and ‘Miller’s Tale’: A Comparison of Their Style,

Genre, and Comic Function in The Canterbury Tales” Unfocused: “Can Computers Be Used in Psychological Testing?” Focused: “The Potential Utility of Computerized Adaptive Testing in the Domain of

Personality Assessment” Unfocused: “Photography of Niagara Falls” Focused: “Stereographic Photography of Niagara Falls: The Forgotten Works of

George Barker, Charles Bierstadt, and George E. Curtis” For many, developing a specific research problem out of a more general topic is perhaps the most difficult and important phase of the entire research project. Also, it should be mentioned that first version of even a well-defined research problem may be modified or amplified in one way or another over the course of the investigation. One never knows entirely what will be found until the research is complete. But a clear focus at the outset is essential for the project to succeed at all.

GENERAL FORMAT FOR THE PROPOSAL The style and content of the proposal, typically twelve to eighteen double-spaced and typewritten pages, will depend upon the specific research problem and method. Again, an example of a history research project proposal is included as an appendix to this guide and it should be consulted by the student before beginning. Each proposal should have a title page that includes the information included in the sample document in the appendix. In terms of content, all proposals should include the following:

 Tentative Title

 Research Problem  Definition of Terms  Background of the Problem  Research Method(s)  Research Limitations  Working Bibliography

Tentative Title - The first section, the tentative title, probably should be written last. A successful title will emerge only after it has been determined, often by trial and error, just what the investigator hopes to accomplish. The title should be specific and clear; you may want to accompany it with a subtitle. Ideally, it should summarize the research problem with efficiency and style. Avoid titles that are pretentious, vague, or wordy. Expressions such as “An Investigation of” are redundant and should be omitted. Titles of just one or two words, on the other hand, are too brief to indicate the scope of the research problem. An overall rule is that the title should be explanatory but concise when standing by itself. Here are some examples of poorly worded titles that were effectively revised:

Original: “An Investigation of the Possibility of improving the Tax Method of Many Massachusetts Cities and Towns for Raising Revenue to Cover Rising Expenses for Public School Education in Those Same Cities and Towns” (Too wordy)

Revised: “Improving Education Funding through Local Tax Revenues in Five Massachusetts Municipalities”

Original: “The Need for World Order” (Too vague) Revised: “The Peace-Keeping Role of the United Nations in Lebanon since 1980” Original: “The Beckoning Hand: Gestural Poetics in the Neglected Early Verse of

Emily Dickinson, with Special Attention to the Theme of Mute Entreaty” (Too wordy and mannered)

Revised: “Gesture in the Early Poems of Emily Dickinson” Original: “Some Aspects of Animal Behavior in Monkeys” (Too vague) Revised: “Group-Foraging Behavior in Cercopithecus erythrotis”

Research Problem - The statement of the research problem should be precise. Unless the problem includes specific sub-problems, this section should not exceed two to four pages. The first paragraph of this section should briefly introduce or set in context the subject of your research. Then, simply state the problem or question the research will explore. Later, in the “Background” section of the proposal, you can describe more fully the sources to be used in analyzing this position and making the argument. The statement of the research problem must include a clear question, a suggested hypothesis, supporting evidence (that is types of sources with which to test and/or validate the hypothesis), and the conclusions and broader implications of your research. It cannot simply present a description, like a book report. It

should begin by asking a significant question, such as “Why did John F. Kennedy win the 1960 presidential election?” It should then present an answer to that question – an answer referred to as the “hypothesis”– from the Greek word meaning to suppose:– such as “John F. Kennedy won the election because of his superior performance in television debates.” Next, it includes the evidence in favor of the hypothesis and shows logical flaws in alternative hypotheses. Finally, the conclusion of the study shows that you have considered the further ramifications of your hypothesis, in light of the evidence: “Kennedy won the election principally because of his television performance but also because of superior campaign polling: a dual emphasis that would reshape the nature of all subsequent U.S. presidential campaigns.” When we refer to the conclusions you anticipate reaching, we mean the broader implications of your hypothesis, the “so what?” of your project’s findings. We do not mean that, as in ordinary expository writing, you should merely reiterate your hypothesis to conclude your paper. You do not, of course, actually have to present all of the evidence here (one paragraph or even two is far too short for that). You should, however, indicate what kind of evidence you intend to rely on and present an example or two to illustrate exactly how you expect the evidence to corroborate your hypothesis. In other words, the brief statement of the research problem should be like a road map, showing both where you intend to go and how you intend to get there. In short, consider the following when contemplating the research problem:

1. Question (What is the question you seek to answer?) 2. Hypothesis (What is the tentative answer that your study will test?) 3. Evidence (What source material will you use to test your hypothesis?) 4. Conclusions/Broader Implications (What are the research implications for further study?)

Since defining a suitable research project subject is perhaps the hardest step in shaping a proposal, it is not surprising that this summary statement of the research gives researchers the most difficulty and is most often sent back for revision. A principal reason for this is that many students fail to understand that the research problem is not the same thing as a research topic. Knowing how to select a problem that is both inherently interesting yet capable of being answered within limited space requires careful thought and considerable attention to detail. So, what, exactly, do we mean by research problem? We mean that the proposal should make a clear point. And, as we have seen, making a point, in turn, involves asking and answering a question. Furthermore, a research problem will suggest one or more subsequent questions to the skillful investigator. Similarly, your research problem should raise a question for the reader. If you are not sure whether it does or not, try rephrasing the stated topic in question form. A student might wish to write about the use of the United Nations to solve world conflicts. Is this a research problem? No. You can, of course, make something of a question out of the topic by asking: “How is the United Nations used to solve world conflicts?” But this merely invites a description of the UN’s role. A true problem would be: “What prevents the United Nations from being more effective in solving world conflicts?” Or, “Would

the United Nations have contributed more to world peace if it had remained outside the conflicts in, say, Africa?” Each of those questions demands an explanation, not a description. There is no puzzle involved in asking what the UN does. At best, you would answer with a list of functions. A research problem never involves description alone. The research problem must not only involve a question, but a focused question. Not every question is an appropriate one, because not every question can be answered within the time and page allotment or with the research materials readily available to the students. “Why did the American women’s movement begin in the 1960s?” This question is too broad to permit a satisfactory answer. A better question would focus on a single person or issue: Betty Friedan, or the founding of NOW, or the starting of Ms. magazine. A research problem must involve original research. At its center, the point of research is not simply to put together the views of other people, in the form of a series of book reviews and article reviews – what some have aptly named “the book report approach.” Although a legitimate stage in virtually everyone’s research project, this method alone does not constitute true research. In addition, the project must show independent thinking. This is another reason to keep the question tightly focused…you cannot do original thinking on a subject if it has not yet been adequately defined. Finally, a research problem involves not simply a tightly focused question and original research, but an answer to that question based on original thinking. You should try to make a well-reasoned point to substantiate the hypothesis advanced in your research project. It can be equally productive to look for evidence that opposes as well as supports your hypothesis and to deal with this information directly – e.g., conflicting critical interpretations of a complex novel, or government statistics that seem to contradict your own numerical data. If the hypothesis remains credible in the face of opposing evidence, you can defend your argument with perhaps even greater confidence and authority. Think of yourself not so much as a lawyer arguing a case as a judge evaluating the evidence on both sides of an issue in a trial. Through this kind of disinterested exploration of a question, the skilled researcher arrives at a position of relative certitude and is thus more likely to persuade the reader of the validity of his or her conclusions. To recapitulate, your research project asks a question and answers it with a proposition or hypothesis supported by evidence, which may or may not include empirical research, but must include original thought. What do we mean by “original thought”? We do not mean that you must think of something that no one else has ever thought of before. We do mean that you should come up with a hypothesis and offer supporting evidence in the research project that does not rely solely on the authority of others to support your point. You have not proved that the United States government should reduce its budget deficit simply because you can quote eminent professors who say that it should. You can demonstrate it only by bringing forward evidence and arguing the case on your own. Similarly, it is not enough to cite English critics who say that Robert Frost is a fine poet; you should be able to offer and comment on examples of Frost’s verse and its unique linguistic or structural features in order to defend this point of view. The argument, in other words, involves an interpretation that is your explanation of why things are the way

they are and offers evidence that you have gathered, the sum total of which should make a contribution to our knowledge and understanding of a particular subject. Definition of Terms - In this section, all important terms and acronyms should be explained, especially those that may be ambiguous, not readily understood, or used in a special way. Examples include such terms as “romantic revolutionary,” “embargo trope,” “aggression,” or “negative reinforcement.” Often when you have worked closely with a topic for a while, it becomes difficult to believe that any terms could be ambiguous, since you think you have a clear idea in your own mind about what they should mean. If you are unsure which terms need definition, show your proposal to a friend or associate and solicit their opinion. In the social, biological, and behavioral sciences it is especially important to establish operational definitions. “Crime,” for example, might be defined by police reports, victim reports, vital statistics, arrest reports, self-reports, or direct observation, or it might be defined as some composite measure of these instances. “Old age” would be defined as twelve years for dogs, but twelve days for the mayfly. How you define such operational terms will considerably affect the conclusions you reach in your research project. Be sure also that you will be using these terms in a consistent fashion; the way you define “crime” in Part 1 of a research paper should be the way you still define it in Part 3, unless you have good and explicit reasons for not doing so. Background of the Problem - The fourth section, the background of the problem, should explain the origins of the research question or problem, drawing on your preliminary reading. In the background section, you should review what has been done already in this area of research and the way(s) in which the proposed project will differ from earlier work. You should show that you are familiar with the major current opinions or interpretations concerning the problem you have chosen so that you do not simply duplicate existing or outdated research. The background section, usually several pages in length, must be directed specifically to the research problem and must indicate the carefully documented views of experts. The aim is not to provide simply a general overview of the topic or to present a string of references to others’ works. Rather, it is to demonstrate that a specific problem has been identified and to show its relationship to the research of other investigators. If, for instance, you were writing about George Orwell, you should mention the work of his principal biographer, Bernard Crick, and show how your views about some aspect of Orwell’s work differ from, corroborate, or extend Crick’s views, as well as those of several other recent critics of the Orwellian texts on which you intend to write. Longer than the statement of the research problem itself, this section must be well organized. Others’ research should be considered in a systematic fashion, according to topic, date, perspective, or some other logical means. It cannot be an unorganized mass; it must have some obvious flow, a sense of continuity, and an overall theme or point(s). In order to write the research project itself, you will have to impose order on large amounts of material and here, once more, significant attention to detail is required. Once you have established the focus of your own research in relation to this prior scholarship, one or more detailed examples should be presented that illustrate how your approach to the subject will

illuminate it. These examples also demonstrate that you have begun to envision the kind of precise analysis expected in the research project itself. Research Methods and Research Limitations - Depending upon the research problem, the two sections on methods and limitations might well be combined. These parts of the proposal describe the procedures in the investigation, as well as their limitations. What kinds of materials will be used? Are they readily available? Can you read written materials if they are not in English? Are translations available? What kinds of difficulties will there be in sampling or collecting physical evidence? What standards of certainty can be expected? Is your sample size adequate? Will you need statistics? If so, which statistics? These are the issues you should address and answer here. Especially for empirical research, you might wish to treat these sections separately, describing in detail the proposed subjects, apparatus, and procedures. Your proposal will be judged not only on the basis of its hypothesis but also on the proposed methods of data collection. Will you be using questionnaires? Observation? If an original measuring device is to be used, a draft should be included, accompanied by a statement of the intended sampling procedure and a plan for establishing its reliability and validity. Note that you will also need a backup plan if the new measuring device does not prove to be a viable assessment. Once you have collected the data, how will you analyze it? You must explicitly show how the data collected will test the proposed hypothesis. Make sure you have thought out all the steps involved in your research before you begin. Without exception, all research is limited in several ways. There are internal or formal limitations, such as the materials and procedures used, the ways in which critical terms are defined, the scope of the problem explored and of the applicability of the results. And there are external limitations as well, governed by constraints upon one’s time or pocketbook; the inability to travel to special collections, museums, or libraries, or to speak or read other languages; or to consider an evolving political situation beyond a certain date. These limitations should be acknowledged; indeed, identifying them may help you to focus your topic. However, problems such as time and money difficulties do not relieve you of the responsibility of designing a study that can adequately test your hypothesis and measure its results. Proposals that include no mention of limitations suggest that the candidate has not really gone beyond a superficial consideration of the subject. This section of the proposal, therefore, will require considerable thought. But close attention now to these and related questions will save you much time and discomfort in later stages of research and writing. Working Bibliography - The working bibliography should be selective. It should not simply include all the materials that might conceivably be used in the finished research. Rather, it should demonstrate that you have actually read the sources you cite, know which further sources you will need to consult, and why. The bibliography, in other words, represents an interim tally of your progress. The working bibliography should include most of the materials that will actually be used in the finished research project. It should list under two separate categories all works cited in the proposal (Works Cited); and all works identified that the researcher intends to consult in further research and writing (Works to Be Consulted). Sources within these various categories can be further divided into primary and secondary

works, or according to the various media they represent (books, journals, recordings, interviews, on-line databases), if you wish to do so. Titles listed under one rubric should not be repeated in another. A word of advice, on occasion, some students have tried to satisfy the requirement for a working bibliography by simply appending a printout of titles generated by a computer search in the area of their topic. This is not acceptable. Students should not haphazardly compile a lengthy but meaningless bibliography. The bibliography should represent actual work done, and it should reflect an organized approach to the research problem. Further, the working bibliography should be prepared in the precise form required for a finished research project which, for our purposes, is in accordance with the Chicago style manual. Additional Sections - You may feel that the proposal requires additional sections in order to explain your research fully. With respect to historical research topics, the proposal also may include a tentative outline of the proposed chapters of the project, a chronological list of the works published by the historian on whom you might focus, or a discussion of alternate approaches to the research problem. You should feel free to add whatever supplementary sections you deem essential. The one rule you should respect is that of brevity: do not pad the proposal with extraneous charts or long digressions simply to lend it an imposing bulk. Good research is clear and concise.

COMMON RESEARCH PROPOSAL PROBLEMS The most frequent single problem with research proposals is the failure to adequately focus the topic. This point cannot be stressed too strongly. What is meant by adequately focus? Perhaps it is easiest answer to this question is by pointing to topics that would be considered inadequately focused. A topic lacks focus if:

 It deals with a complex issue studied over an entire century or more, e.g., “Anglo-American diplomacy from 1880 to 1980” instead of a more manageable “Anglo- Anglo-American diplomacy from 1880 to 1890.”

 It deals with the complete works of a prolific author, e.g., “The novels of Henry James” rather

than a more manageable The Golden Bowl and The Ambassadors.

 It focuses on general rather than on specific problems, e.g., “Urban housing” instead of a more manageable “The Pierce Housing Estate.”

- NOTE -

Items included in the Working Bibliography and the final proposal should be annotated – that is accompanied by a brief description of the work’s contents and value for the investigation –

and formatted in the Chicago style.

 It asks no question or presents no hypothesis, e.g., “The marsupials of modern Australia” rather than “Can the marsupials of modern Australia compete successfully with eutherian mammals?”

Another reason for rejecting research proposals is that the student has not determined how the principal question can be answered or the hypothesis tested. Suppose that you have decided to investigate why the quality of secondary education in American inner cities is lower than that in more affluent suburbs. Further suppose that your hypothesis is that educational quality is directly related to the amount of money spent per pupil. How will you measure educational quality in testing this hypothesis? By comparing grades of inner city and suburban high school students? Or would you need a standardized test like the SAT? Does that test seem too culturally biased? For your proposal to be acceptable, you would need to select one or more methods for testing your hypothesis and provide a defense for them. Some questions are virtually unanswerable and should therefore be eliminated, e.g., “How did Coleridge’s opium addiction influence the imagery in his poem Kubla Khan?” or “Would the U. S. have become involved in the Viet Nam War if JFK had lived?” A final scenario that presents problems is when the proposal lacks the proper format or consistently demonstrates sub-standard usage of English. Be sure that all the sections required by the Guide have been included in the proposal and that your spelling, grammar, usage, and typing are accurate. Since the proposal is a graduate level project standards for English usage are correspondingly strict. In short, correct grammar, spelling, format, citations, and a meticulously proofread text are essential.

APPENDIX

Sample Research Proposal

Note that this document is provided solely to put forth the correct, mandatory formatting and structure for this specific assignment.

AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Charles Town, West Virginia

A Research Project Proposal

Submitted By

John Doe

Student Number

HIST500 A001 Spring 12

Submitted to the Department of History

Date

Tentative Title

I propose to title the research paper “The Naval Battles for the Solomon Islands: The

Significant Lessons Learned by the United States Navy and Applied Throughout the Campaign.”

II.

Research Problem

Many notable authors, such as Samuel Eliot Morison, Ronald H. Spector,2 and Edwin P.

Hoyt,3 have written accounts of the naval battles of the Solomon Islands, often providing blow-

by-blow chronologies of the actions. Each author describes the battles in detail and discusses the

ships and planes lost in action. These accounts briefly mention American errors in strategy,

tactics, weapon design, and deployment, but almost all accounts fail to detail what was learned

from these errors, what training improvements were achieved, how plane and ship construction

was altered, and when the results of these lessons were put into action.

Historian and author Samuel Eliot Morison is unquestionably the foremost expert on the

naval history of World War II. In his work History of United States Naval Operations in World

War II,4 Morison provides in Volume 5 a chronological account of the naval battles that

supported the Guadalcanal campaign. He expends great energy and exacting effort to ensure

2 Ronald H. Spector, Eagle Against the Sun: The American War with Japan (New York, Vintage Books, 1985). 3 Edwin P. Hoyt, The Glory of the Solomons (New York: Stein and Day, 1983). 4 Samuel Eliot Morison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, 15 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1947–1962), vol. 5: The Struggle for Guadalcanal: August 1942-February 1943.

Note that for purposes of this assignment, the Research Problem section (below) should mention at least three other authors who have previously written on your topic, and a brief discussion of the particular work’s contribution to the literature on the subject.

accuracy of detail. Each engagement describes ship and plane movements in graphic detail.

Names of various officers and sailors, along with their accomplishments or failures, are well

documented. Yet, he too makes relatively few comments regarding the lessons learned from the

battles or their impact on future battles of the campaign.

Using Morison’s chronology as a basis, the research project will take his work a step

further. It will address the significant lessons the United States Navy learned and applied

throughout the battles of the Solomon Islands. I will investigate the following questions: How

did the campaign affect the combat loading of ships and the landing of supplies? How was the

use of radar improved throughout the campaign? What improvements were made in naval

firefighting and damage control? How did the United States develop better tactical use of

destroyers and cruisers? What improvements were made in the development and deployment of

torpedoes? How did these battles affect ship and airplane construction programs?

My hypothesis is that as a result of inexperience, poor training, faulty weapons, and

inadequate planning, the United States Navy learned many valuable but costly lessons.

Throughout the campaign the Navy gradually made improvements and modifications based on

learning from these mistakes. Naval command and individual officers developed better training,

communication, organization, and operational planning based on these battles. In the United

States, the experience of veterans was instrumental in designing better ships and planes. Success

was aided by the United States possessing both the desire and the means to make these rapid

advancements, while the Japanese often lacked both. By the conclusion of the naval battles of the

Solomon Islands, the United States Navy had made dramatic improvements in various areas of

naval warfare and set the stage for future successes in the Pacific.

To test this hypothesis, I will use Morison’s seminal work History of United States Naval

Operations in World War II, specifically volume 5, The Struggle for Guadalcanal. I will follow

his chronological approach to battles of the Solomon Islands, with specific focus on the

significant lessons the United States Navy learned and applied throughout the battles. I will

compare and contrast primary and secondary sources through the use of Naval Action Reports

and military documents relating to various battles. I will also consult civilian sources that address

these specific topics in order to provide further technical and statistical details.

III.

Definition of Terms

“The Naval Battles of the Solomon Islands”: the significant battles between the Allies

and the Japanese in support of the ground offensive of Guadalcanal. These battles are:

The Invasion of Guadalcanal August 7-8, 1942

The Battle of Savo Island August 9, 1942

The Battle of the Eastern Solomons August 24, 1942

The Battle of Cape Esperance October 11-12, 1942

The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands October 26-27, 1942

The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal November 12-15, 1942

The Battle of Tassafaronga November 30, 1942

The Battle of Rennell Island January 29-30, 1943

IV.

Background

At the onset of World War II, Samuel Eliot Morison was a Professor of American History

at Harvard University. He believed that too often history was written from an outside

Perspective, and that the history of the war should be written first-hand while the events and

memories were still fresh in the minds of participants. Following the Japanese attack on the

United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Morison suggested this idea to President Roosevelt.

With presidential approval, Morison was made a Lieutenant Commander in the United States

Navy and ordered to active duty. He began to work on what would become the History of United

States Naval Operations in World War II, his fourteen-volume masterpiece.

After Pearl Harbor, America was torn between two areas of operational focus. Roosevelt

had agreed to put Germany first and take a defensive position in the Pacific. In the spring of

1942, the Japanese drive in the Pacific had basically halted. America’s main goal was to hold the

U.S./Hawaii/Midway line as a solid defense. But after the invasion of the Philippines and the

Battle of Midway, both the United States and Japan turned their focus on the Southern Pacific.

In March 1942, Roosevelt met with the Joint Chiefs to discuss plans for the Pacific.

Admiral King and General MacArthur agreed that a two-prong attack in the southern Pacific was

necessary to break through the Bismarck Archipelago and retake the Philippines. The Army and

Note that for purposes of this assignment, the Background section (below) should be no less than 800 and no more than 1200 words. Remember: you are crafting a proposal, not writing an essay. Also note for support of your proposal, a minimum of seven discrete reference citations should be cited both in the footnotes and the working bibliography.

Australian forces would move up through New Guinea, while the Navy and Marines would

handle the Solomons.

The Japanese planned to build island airfields to replace carriers lost at Midway. They

built a seaplane base on Tulagi, across from Guadalcanal. If left unchecked the Japanese would

control the entire region and threaten Papua, New Guinea, Australia, Samoa, and even New

Caledonia.5 On June 13, 1942, the Japanese Naval General Staff decided to build an airfield on

Guadalcanal, only nine days after the heavy losses suffered at Midway. The six-month land

battle of Guadalcanal became the first major ground offensive in the Pacific. The Navy’s role in

support of the ground operation led to the engagements that collectively became known as the

Naval Battles of the Solomon Islands. Which each major battle came losses and lessons for navy,

as well as, specific questions that I propose to answer through my research.

The Invasion of Guadalcanal

During the initial landing at Guadalcanal, the most serious error was the failure to

properly combat-load the ships. The haphazard loading meant the toilet paper was loaded on top

of ammunition, medical supplies were mixed with rations, and fuel was dumped at points marked

for water. The mistakes were compounded by poor training and organization of the beach parties

responsible for actual unloading. The supplies on the beach were piled poorly, and the entire

unloading process was confused and congested. Many boats circled in the water waiting to find a

spot to land. By the end of the first day, only 25 percent of the cargo had been unloaded. This

chaos and poor planning cost the Marines dearly in the days to come.

But it was the overall organization, leadership, and training of the men on the beach that

was seriously lacking. Just over a month later, on September 18, with the landing of the 7th

5 Samuel Eliot Morison, The Two-Ocean War (Boston: Little, Brown, 1963) 164–165.

Marine Regiment at Lunga Roads, Morison stated it was conducted in the “most orderly fashion

of any debarkation to date. Tanks, vehicles, weapons, bullets, food, fuel, and assorted supplies

along with nearly 4000 men were landed in twelve hours.”6 How did the Marines improve the

combat-loading of the ships? What plans were put in place to better organize the landing zones

on the beach? How did the training improve to prevent a repeat of earlier mistakes?

The Battle of Savo Island

It is easy to see why Morison called this “one of the worst defeats ever inflicted on the United

States Navy in a fair fight.”7 Successful damage control and firefighting can often mean the

difference between saving or losing hundreds of lives—even the ship itself. Following the

horrible defeat of Savo Island, many improvements were made that dramatically improved

damage control. Morison writes: “all inflammable furniture and bedding were ordered ashore,

and every ship in the Navy was ordered to scrape down her interior to bare steel; day and night

for the rest of 1942, sounds of chipping hammers were never still.”8 Did the battle of Savo Island

actually precipitate the removal of wooden furniture, linoleum, and flammable bedding? Was

this action taken on all American warships? What materials were found as replacements? How

did this result in improving the success of damage control?

Morison also mentions an improvement in firefighting equipment. He says, “improved

Firefighting equipment such as a fog nozzle, which poured a cooling quenching mist on the

flames, far more effective than solid streams of water.”9 Where and when was this nozzle

created? Did it specifically come into service as a result of the battle of Savo Island? Did it

6 Morison, History, 5: 138. 7 Morison, Two-Ocean War, 167. 8 Morison, Two-Ocean War, 177. 9 Morison, History, 5: 64.

become standard equipment on all American warships? Was the training significantly altered

with the new firefighting tool? How did it affect damage control success in future battles?

Commenting on the Battle of Tassafaronga, Morison believed the battle brought about major

improvements in the junior officers’ and sailors’ ability to fight fires. Morison states,

“Minneapolis, New Orleans and Pensacola would have been lost had they received similar

damage four months earlier.”10

The Battle of the Eastern Solomons

Regarding the battle of the Eastern Solomons, Morison wrote: “The Pacific Fleet

profited much from the study of this engagement by tacticians and technicians. Immense

carrier-pilot training programs and fleet-carrier building programs were already under way, and

any practice or information was sure to count in the end.”11 What specific lessons were taken

back to the United States and incorporated into future training? How did the training improve?

What new features or improvements were made to carrier construction as a result of this battle?

Did these improvements prove successful in future battles?

The Battle of Cape Esperance

The night battle of Cape Esperance provided an excellent lesson in the use of radar. The

old versions of the eccentric-type radar were common on American ships, but the Japanese had

radar receivers capable of detecting these transmissions. Morison points out that a newer “radar

was just putting in its appearance in the Fleet. It became a scourge of the enemy, but Helena and

Boise were the only ships in Scott’s force so equipped, and few commanders as yet realized it

10 Morison, History, 5: 314-315. 11 Morison, History, 5: 106-107.

potentialities.”12 How did the two types of radar differ? How were the officers and sailors being

trained to use the new radar? Did its use in the battle of Cape Esperance affect its further

implementation into the fleet?

A second lesson coming out of the battle arose out the tragic amount of destruction that

resulted from friendly fire due to poor ship identification during battle.13 The ships used search

lights and recognition lights to identify each other, but these lights could also be seen by the

Enemy. Why did the commanders fail to make better use of the new radar for ship identification?

How did the outcome of the battle help commanders and gunners to recognize friendly ships in

the future? How did these losses alter training and operational planning? Morison mentions that

“later commanders learned that proper use of radar could eliminate the search lights and

recognition lights which attracted enemy gunfire as a candle attracts moths.”14 How did

commanders employ the new radar technology? Was it successful in future battles?

A major tactical mistake of this battle was the belief that a long, single-column formation

of ships was appropriate. It actually kept American destroyers from using their torpedoes

effectively, and placed the destroyers in the way of cruisers when gunfire was required.15 It

would take another defeat before commanders would begin to learn effective destroyer-cruiser

formations. How did this battle specifically affect the operational planning for future battles?

What were the results of continued single-column formations? When did the Navy begin to

consider alternatives, and how successful were they?

The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands

12 Morison, History, 5: 154. 13 Morison, History, 5: 161-162. 14 Morison, History, 5: 170. 15 Morison, History, 5: 170.

One fault of the Japanese was their failure to return veteran pilots to Japan for

supplemental training purposes. Instead, veteran Japanese pilots remained in action until they

were killed, which resulted in a constant stream of inexperienced replacements. The American

Navy used its battle veterans to aid ongoing pilot training in the U.S.

In the Battle of Santa Cruz, Morrison mentions briefly that “the main reason the enemy seemed

less efficient in the air was an improvement in American fighting technique, both in the air and

on deck.”16 Morison does not elaborate on the new techniques. What specific lessons were the

veterans teaching new pilots? How quickly was updated information reaching pilot training

programs? How did the veteran pilots’ experiences bring about improvements in the new aircraft

that was being built?

The second major failure in the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands centered on U.S. inability

to properly conduct torpedo attacks. Again, Morison mentions the problem but does not

adequately address its solution. America lacked a top-quality torpedo and the training to

effectively use it. When did the Navy make improvements to its faulty torpedoes? Why was the

U.S. so slow to learn the tactics of proper torpedo attacks? How did the outcome of this battle aid

the future use of torpedoes?

The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

During this battle, the single-column formation was used again since it appeared to be

successful at Cape Esperance. However, according to Morrison:

A long column helped one to navigate restricted waters and facilitated communications between ships. Unfortunately, the three cruisers and two destroyers that mounted the latest search radar were not placed in lead positions; anti-aircraft cruiser

16 Morison, History, 5: 223.

Atlanta with inferior radar steamed ahead of flagship San Francisco and the rear destroyers were in no position to join the van in a torpedo attack.17

Operational planning appeared to grossly overlook the specific capabilities of the ships. If

torpedoes are used before gunfire, shouldn’t destroyers always precede cruisers? During the

battle of Cape Esperance only two American ships were fitted with the new SG radar. At

Guadalcanal, five American ships had the new radar, yet they were again under-used. When the

battle began, San Francisco ordered “Odd ships commence firing to starboard, even ships to

Port.” According to Morrison, “This order added to the confusion, in ships which could not see

or bear on targets on their designated sides but could see targets on the opposite sides, and it took

no account of variations in gun caliber between ships.”18

The Battle of Tassafaronga

Morison describes this operational plan, noting:

taking heed of errors in previous battles, it divided the force into one destroyer group and two cruiser groups, each including at least one ship fitted with SG surface search radar. In night action the destroyers stationed on the engaged bow of the cruiser column would use their radar advantage to deliver a surprise torpedo attack, then clear out to prevent fouling their own cruisers, which would try not to close within 12,000 yards of the enemy and would hold their gunfire until the destroyer’s torpedoes were at or near their targets. Use of search lights was forbidden and recognition lights were to be used only to check fire by friendly ships.19

It finally seemed that the previous lessons were beginning to make their way into

operational planning.

The battle, however, was a disastrous defeat. The most notable reason was that the

destroyers waited too long to launch a torpedo attack, and then fired from excessive ranges. In

17 Morison, History, 5: 237. 18 Morison, History, 5: 243. 19 Morison, History, 5: 294.

addition, Morison states, “American commanders of cruiser-destroyer task forces had the bad

practice of tying their destroyers to a cruiser column instead of sending them off on an

independent torpedo shoot before the gunfire was opened.”20 This was a pitiful loss for the U.S.,

which suffered three damaged cruisers and one sunk. The Japanese only lost one destroyer,

Takanami.

In January 1943, the Japanese appeared to be reinforcing the island. In fact, they planned

a massive evacuation, and they brought in carriers, battleships, destroyers, and transports to help.

American intelligence spotted these ships, and Admiral Halsey ordered four transports to

Guadalcanal as bait. One of the war’s worst intelligence failures occurred at that time, and the

Japanese managed to evacuate 11,000 men right under the noses of the U.S. forces. The Pacific

Fleet lost twenty-four ships, including two carriers. Excluding transports, each side lost exactly

the same number of combat ships, but the United States could replace its losses Japan could not.

Research Methods

My research methods will consist of comparing and contrasting primary and secondary

sources. I will use The Struggle for Guadalcanal (Vol. 5) by Morison as the foundation of my

research. I will draw upon Naval Action Reports and military documents relating to the various

battles. I will use civilian sources that specifically address topics such as combat-loading of

ships, landing beach logistics, use of radar, naval firefighting and damage control, destroyer-

cruiser formations, pilot training, carrier construction, and torpedo use and design.

VI.

20 Morison, History, 5: 314.

Research Limitations

The main limitation of this research project is the specific Battles of the Solomon Islands.

I will use Morison’s chronological approach followed in The Struggle for Guadalcanal as the

basis of my research. I will restrict the research to the naval combat lessons that were learned

during these battles. I will also restrict my findings to specific improvements or modifications

that resulted from these lessons, highlighting those that were implemented during the same

campaign.

VII.

Working Bibliography

Works Cited:

Hoyt, Edwin P. The Glory of the Solomons. New York: Stein and Day, 1983.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Morison, Samuel Eliot. History of the United States Naval Operations in World War II. 15 vols.

Boston: Little, Brown, 1949. Vol. 5: The Struggle for Guadalcanal: August 1942- February 1943. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation

Note that for purposes of this assignment, the Working Bibliography (below) will include a minimum of 25 reference citations, separated into Works Cited and Works to be Consulted subsections. Further, items included in the Working Bibliography should be annotated – that is, accompanied by a brief description of the work’s contents and value for the investigation – and formatted in the Chicago style, specifically the Bibliographic [B] formats. (Lorem Ipsum sample annotation text is included to illustrate required spacing and formatting.)

ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.

Morison, Samuel Eliot. The Two-Ocean War: A Short History of the United States Navy in the

Second World War. Boston: Little, Brown, 1963. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.

Spector, Ronald H. Eagle Against the Sun: The American War with Japan. New York: Vintage

Books, 1985. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Buell, Thomas B. Master of the Sea: A Biography of Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King. Boston:

Little, Brown, 1980. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Dunnigan, James F. and Albert A. Nofi. Victory at Sea: World War II in the Pacific. New York:

William Morrow, 1995. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Gailey, Harry A. The War in the Pacific: From Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay. Novato, CA:

Presidio Press, 1995. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Works to Be Consulted:

Hoyt, Edwin P. Japan’s War: The Great Pacific Conflict. New York, Da Capo Press, 1986.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Lacroix, Eric and Linton Wells II. Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War. Annapolis MD: United

States Naval Institute Press, 1997. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Leckie, Robert. Challenge for the Pacific. New York: Doubleday, 1965.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Miller, Edward S. War Plan Orange: The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan. Annapolis, MD: United

States Naval Institute Press, 1991. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Press, 1995. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Parker, R. A. C. The Second World War: A Short History. New York, Oxford University Press,

1997.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Prados, John. Combined Fleet Decoded: The Secret History of American Intelligence and the

Japanese Navy in World War II. New York: Random House, 1995. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Crenshaw, Russell Sydnor. South Pacific Destroyer: The Battle for the Solomons from Savo Island to Vella Gulf. Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute Press, 1998. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Grace, James W. The Naval Battle for Guadalcanal: Night Action, 13 November 1942.

Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute Press, 1999. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Griffith, Samuel B. The Battle for Guadalcanal. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1963.

Hammel, Eric M. Guadalcanal: Decision at Sea: The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, November 13-15, 1942. New York: Crown, 1988. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Reid, Wallace. Japan and Aspects of Naval Operations: Pacific World War II. Rustington:

Beauclerk, 1996. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Van der Vat, Dan. The Pacific Campaign: World War II, the U.S.-Japanese Naval War, 1941

-1945. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor

Note that for purposes of this assignment, the bibliography will include a minimum of 25 reference citations. Further, items included in the Working Bibliography should be annotated – that is, accompanied by a brief description of the work’s contents and value for the investigation – and formatted in the Chicago style, specifically the (Foot)Note [N] and Bibliographic [B] formats. Again, the minimum of seven discrete reference citations of items included in this proposal should be cited both in the footnotes and included in the working bibliography