Thanks! I've heard of Popper and Kuhn, but just be seeing those names (and looking up the others), I realize I structured my question poorly.

In last year's CACM article "The Tears of Donald Knuth", Thomas Haigh writes about Knuth's Kailath lecture titled, "Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science", concerning "The History of the History of Software", at http://www.thecorememory.com/THTHS.pdf. Knuth presents the reasons he studies history, then describes how he believes historians no longer care about the subject matter itself, outside of some historians of mathematics.

Haigh's commentary, available at http://mags.acm.org/communications/january_2015?folio=40&pg=... , gives a more sociological explanation for the types of history that Knuth wants to read - "Historical work on computing framed primarily as a contribution to computer science", vs. the "Historical work on computing framed primarily as a contribution to a subfield of history or science studies" which is more common for trained historians, and how it fits into funding and research structures.

I understand how to do the sort of history that Knuth is interested in, because I am deeply embedded in the chemical information world. I also know that many people have worked on these sorts of histories, even if Haigh and Knuth say it's less common now. Are there any lessons from those experiences? If so, how do I learn about them?

In addition, Haigh writes "The truth is that regrettably little history of computer science, whether dumb or deep, has been written by trained historians even though the history of computing literature as a whole has been expanding rapidly."

What are the tools, methods, and approaches that a trained historian can bring to the field? Should I learn any of those methods to improve how I do my research? Should I consider taken some graduate level courses on the topic?

On this nuts&bolts of doing history, I know nothing, and wonder if there is some way to find out.

I see better what you're getting at now - those are great questions! I wish I had good answers to give, but it's hard to give advice beyond saying that you should indeed look into auditing a graduate history of science course or two. I heard that U Penn just hired an historian of computing and I have the impression that the history of information and computer science is becoming kind of trendy lately. It would be worth looking around at the new faculty in the main history of science departments who study something you're interested in and emailing them.

The whole question of how and to what degree having domain expertise helps understand the history of science is a pretty thorny one. Sometimes having technical expertise in the field you're trying to study the history of (a cardiac surgeon reading about the discovery of the circulation of blood, for instance) can actually be a hindrance because it tends to create an "well surely I could have thought of that!" kind of attitude. I think this is on display in Weinberg's writings on the history of mechanics and physics, where he basically calls Aristotle a dummy, etc. It leads to a smoothing over of the difficulties faced by people who had to puzzle out the problems themselves rather than read them in a textbook when they were kids. On the other hand, Weinberg's book is fantastic on the actual content of, say, Copernican dynamics, because he's basically a genius so he's able to understand past scientific theories on a deep level that someone like me can't.

The person who taught me history of science in grad school had a BA in physics and a PhD in history, which I think is about perfect for what's required - he understood the underlying material on a technical level and had a good mind for it, but his graduate training allowed him to step back from the actual content and get a new perspective on its historical significance, something which a participant in the field itself might not be able to see. Now, as to what that significance actually is and what tools historians bring to bear on it, it's highly dependent on what subfield we're talking about. In this person's context, his work lead from James Maxwell's work on electricity to the study of telegraph cables as a force of globalization. So basically moving from the realm of theory to how it was implemented as technology and the social effects of that shift.