ABSTRACT
This chapter examines first authors nonlinear path of conducting research and second the practical lessons he learned in doing so about methods of critical interpretation that hope will be useful to others. Critical interpretation initially requires laying out the specifics of dominant interpretations that are constructed and reproduced most frequently by those in power. In the interwar case, the dominant interpretations, or meta-narratives, accused peace movements of being naive and dangerous The process of assessing secondary evidence is also a process of historiographic construction. For the case of interwar peace movements, author was struck that many scholars of the interwar period did not examine peace movement documents yet were content to make judgments about the movements. Finally, author believe researchers need to be clear about stating up front people position concerning why they think interpretation is better than others, and they need to understand that this position entails both evidentiary and ethical rationales.
