A while ago, I started this series, trying to give readers a basic idea of my process as a writer, and what it takes to make The Royal Tour happen. Part one was how I organize my article ideas, which you can read here. Today, let’s talk about everyone’s favorite topic: research.

I pride myself – hopefully with good reason – at having well-researched articles that delve into at least the basics of various aspects of a place. We explore history, culture, and more, learning what we can over the course of 1000 to 1500 words or so. It is a fairly simplistic version of those things; after all, basically all of my topics have full books written about them. But it is a gateway for people to learn, a start, made easier by its connection to touristic experiences I have that you can, too. And hopefully it inspires people to delve deeper into a topic they find fascinating.

But even as basic a level as I am able to cover in an article is more than what I easily learn and remember just from my travels, so additional research is necessary, both before and after having those touristic experiences.

Pre-research

I like going into an experience with a basic idea of what it is I will be seeing, doing, and learning. Some of this comes naturally in doing my initial research into planning my trip, like deciding on a second Mayan city to visit after Tikal when in Guatemala. I found some possibilities and looked into what they might offer, deciding on Yaxha after doing so.

But once I made that basic choice, I continued to do research. How big of a city was Yaxha? When was it active? What features does it hold? Learning these things before I arrive helps me to frame my experience, and to ask the right questions to my guide.

That basic research is something I normally do on Wikipedia. I realize that platform has its issues, but accuracy seems to be significantly better when it comes to historical things like this. And Wikipedia’s system of links means it is so easy to read a bit further about something in particular, like a specific ruler mentioned.

Research During an Experience

I am not a historian; I am a travel writer. So the largest aspect of what I want to relay in my articles is what one can expect to learn during a travel experience. This tends to come in two different forms: asking someone and reading signage.

When I am with a guide in any form, I ask a lot of questions. I realize that is something many people are hesitant to do. I am not, perhaps annoyingly so for those who might be in a group with me. (I let others ask their questions first so I don’t dominate things until they are done.) Much of this helps me to fill in gaps between what I am seeing and the story I want to tell. For instance, when on a historical walking tour in York, I wanted to specifically know some details about events having taken place at the castle that I knew from my pre-research. I take notes on my phone to use later.

If I don’t have a guide for my experience, I rely on signage. Sometimes that is good, like at the Risorgamento Museum in Rome, where I learned all about Italian unification. I take photos of especially good signs so that I have those entire paragraphs at my disposal later for writing purposes. I use maybe one in five. (No, I am not plagiarizing signs, just remembering things like specific events, names, and dates, or even specific artifacts on display.)

Post-research

So I’ve done my research before having an experience to frame what it is I will be doing. I’ve learned what I can during the experience itself. Now I have a basic idea what I might want to write. But there are immense gaps.

Some of those gaps are things that are impossible to fill during the experience. For instance, signage in Pisa is so terrible that it was a challenge to learn a thing while actually in the city. Sometimes I am not on my game, and don’t remember things as well as I would like, or don’t actively seek out answers to questions I might have had.

But most often, this post-research is simply something that is necessary for the narrative story of my article that was not a part of my experience at all. For instance, I wrote about the Trujillo dictatorship from the Dominican Republic, via visiting a museum on the topic. That museum was lovely and thorough, but lacked some parts of the story, specific events that I wanted to add to my article to offer context and a better narrative.

As with my pre-research, Wikipedia is my first stop. It is free (although I make a sizable donation every year since I use it almost daily in my life), easily accessible, and a terrific beginning point. But this time, I verify facts in it with other sources, finding trustworthy outlets online that can help me fact-check things that might be a little more controversial. (Basic dates are trustworthy, but things like reasons behind events, lasting legacies, and such need more than a publicly editable Wiki page.)

Writing about the legacy of Juan Peron in Argentina is an example. While his Wikipedia page is trustworthy for his basic biography, modern Argentine political party platforms inspired by his policies might not be. For those, I found contemporary articles from local journalists of apparently reputable outlets.

Is it foolproof? No. And as someone who writes an average of three articles per week, I don’t have the bandwidth to do the totally immersive research I would otherwise like. (Plus a basic 1200 word article doesn’t have room for that.) It is the best I can do with what I have and what my goals are, and I hope that it is enough.

(From time to time I do have an actual subject expert offer a correction to a piece. As long as that is to the factual part and not my own editorial component, I am always happy to make those provided they offer sources.)

Some of the time, doing this supplemental research is tedious. Sometimes it is challenging to find actual sources for things I think I know, but won’t use without factual backup. But most of the time, it is among the highlights of my writing process. As confusing as it can be to research and distill into a single paragraph all of the Moroccan dynasties between two events I want to speak about in an article, it is a ton of fun. And while most of it doesn’t stick – I can’t name those dynasties right now off the top of my head – the basic premises (there were a TON of them, they moved capitals basically each time, and policies changed as to acceptance of minorities) do creep into my brain, increasing my understanding of the world around me.

That is the best part of what I do, and what I most want my readers to take from following The Royal Tour.