本文提出較多與歷史書寫比較研究相關的問題，而較少提出答案。它們屬於以下四大主題：誰定義什麼才算歷史？誰讓歷史出版並銷售？誰掌握文件，亦即歷史的原始資料？如果上述一或二項領域中的所有權擁有者阻礙歷史學者的工作，歷史學者能做什麼？ 從事歷史書寫研究的比較歷史學者經常面臨一個困境：那些出自某些文化，或由我們文化中的某些成員所完成的著作常被視為歷史，但並不符合現代學術性歷史書寫研究的標準，它們是否應當被納入研究之中？ 公開的或較為敏感的政治審查，來自訓練專業歷史學者的學術機構的抑制，以及市場力量間存在千差萬別，比較歷史學者必須將這些因素均列入考慮，而不僅只是仰賴閱讀歷史文獻。 歷史學者很少能夠取得他們所需要的所有證據，因為政府和私人平民基於利益往往隱瞞他們的某些行為。各種形式的法律行動，例如：資訊法的自由，可用來獲取這些管道，但是只有少數國家已通過這些法律。 本文結尾論及在進行歷史書寫比較研究時，將這些因素列入考慮的困難，以及比較的邏輯。本文提出的結論是：即使歷史學家擬進行的比較研究能夠超越並列的層次之上，仍有必要採取某些特定觀點進行研究。

This paper consists more of questions about comparative historiography than of answers. They fall under four headings: Who defines what counts as history? Who lets histories get published and sold? Who controls the documents which are the raw material of history ? What can historians do if ownership in one or more ofthese areas is obstructingtheir work ? Comparative historians of historiography face a dilemma: should works from some cultures, or by some members of our culture, which they would have regarded as histories but which don't meet the criteria of modern academic historiography, be included ? Outright or more subtle political censorship, repressiveness of the academic institutions which prepare professional historians,and marketforces vary widely; comparative historians must take these into account rather than relying simply on reading historical literature. Historians can seldom get accessto allthe evidence they need because ofthe interests of governments and private citizens in concealing some of their actions. Various forms of legal action, such as freedom of information laws, can be used to gain such access but these have been passed in only a minority of countries. The paper concludes with a discussion of the difficulties in taking these factors into account in comparative historiography and of the logic of comparison, concluding that taking some point of view is essential if intended comparisons can rise above the level of juxtapositions.