Prior to Professor McCutchen's reading seminar in world history, I was not familiar with Ethnohistory.  This course on Latin America from 1491 onward, focused on using different methodologies to gather information from sources that is overtly biased, missing, or not easily accessed. Throughout this course there were weekly readings usually in the form of scholarly articles and individual presentations on other secondary sources related to the course.   These discussions and presentations generated dialogue about different methodologies used for historical research. This course allowed me to achieve the third MS learning outcome.

During this course, I did three presentations on books from scholars focusing on different aspects of colonialism and conquest in the Americas.  Each presentation required a background of the author and what methodologies they used to gather information. In particular, I was intrigued by the methodology of "Reanalysis" whereby a historian examines sources that were generated by one person or group and then attempts to reconstruct events. Eventually my interest in reanalysis culminated in a paper titled "Approaches to Reanalysis: Piecing Together the Past with Available Sources." Through the examination of secondary sources,  I was able to recognize how scholars have used seemingly biased or irrelevant information in their research. 

Additionally, a portion of the assigned reading addressed the inclusion of other disciplines in historical research.  Many of the authors I critiqued and examined incorporated anthropological and archeological evidence in their work.   Combining evidence and information from other disciplines in historical research can provide invaluable evidence.  For a museum professional, it is likely that these areas of knowledge will intersect frequently.  Understanding the relation of these disciplines to each other can give an individual a much clearer understanding of how their work affects the organization.