Source Analysis
The first thing we must take into account while we are evaluating a source, its origin. Then look into its purpose and message (why this source was made and what message it is transmiting). Finally, decide to what extent the source is valuable (=useful), if it has limitations and which ones they are.
Before starting writing you source analysis, you must remember that if you don't support your answers fully, they won't be valuable. Also, show that you know and understand the topic.
ORIGIN= Primary/ Secondary (look at the date it was produced, drawn, piblished, said or written)
- Primary sources are those which come from the time of the event we are studying; they are close to this event. Example: diaries, letters, politicians' speeches, newspapers, books written at the time of the event, cartoons, photographs taken at the time of the event, films, posters, paintings, statistics, artefacts.
- Secondary sources are those sources produced long after the event; thay do NOT come from the time of the event. They are ALWAYS based on primary sources! Example: textbooks (such as the ones you use at school), copies of artefacts/ objects imitating the original ones.
Who the author is and his nationallity?
When and where it was produced?
What was going on at the time the source was produced (relation to the event; context of the event)
PURPOSE= Why did the author make this source? What was his intention when he produced it? Who is/was this source (made) for?
The author said/ painted/ wrote/ drew/ produced it.....
-to inform about........
-to criticize (a person/ an action) OR to praise (a person)
-to express feelings/ opinions/ thoughts about.......
-to persuade (a person)
-(any other reason/ intention YOU may think of)
What message is the author trying to transmit?
In fact, there are infinite messages an author may want to transmit. Look at the source you have in front of you very carefully, come to a conclusion and support it.
How to word your answer:
One message conveyed by the source is that (...), because the source says/ shows (...) A second message conveyed by the source is that (...), because the source says/ shows (...)
VALUES= Sources are not simply useful in their own right. They are useful or not depending on what you wish to find out from them, that is depending on the question being asked of them...
HOW USEFUL (VALUABLE) IS A SOURCE TO A HISTORIAN STUDYING A CERTAIN EVENT?
Most sources are quite valuable because they provide some information or, at least, some details about the event. Both, primary AND secondary sources are valuable.
To decide how valuable a source is, these questions will be helpful:
- Is the source relevant (=clearly related) to the topic/ event we are studying?
- What could the historian learn from the source about the topic seen?
- How reliable is the source? Does our knowledge of the topic coincide with what the source tells us? Is the source biased (=partial, subjective) and emotional; or is it objective (=impartial)? Was it produced just to inform, or with the intention of persuading others of personal ideas? Please have a look at the notes on RELIABILITY OF SOURCES.
- Primary sources are valuable because they give insights to feelings and thoughts of the time. Authors normally provide more details in their accounts. They are first-handed accounts. The author is a witness of the event or of the period.
- Secondary sources are valuable because the author has had more time to analyse and research on events. There is greater availability of material a long time after the event. The author is emotionally involved with the event he describes. They are also free from censorship if there wasn't censorship at the time the author produced it.
- If the author of a primary source is from the same country as the issue he's describing, then the source is valuable because it represents the feelings, thoughts of some people living in that country at the time of the event. His description is usually vivid, full of details and emotions.
- If the author of a primary or secondary source is not from the same nationality as the issue he's describing, the value of his account lies in the fact that he's an outsider, an observer of the situtation and he may be more balanced and objective in his story. It's a foreigner's view.
- When the purpose is to persuade, the source can still be valuable (though not reliable) because it gives info on the methods used by the government, or the political parties to persuade people to think or act in a certain way.
- Balanced or objective writing presents both sides of the story. This adds value to the source.
LIMITATIONS= A source has limitations for the historian studying a topic...
Primary sources:
To know how reliable a source is, we must see if the source is balanced, impartial, objective, or, on the contrary, if it is biased, partial, subjective (then is not reliable).
A source is balanced/ impartial/ objective when, according to your knowledge, you realize that the source presents both sides of the story, or different points of view; when the information of the source coincides with what you know about the topic/ event. Therefore, it is reliable.
A source is biased/ partial/ subjective when, according to your knowledge, you realize that the source presents only one point of view, one side of the story, or that it exaggerates.
The way to discover if a source is biased is through careful reading and observation of details; the words used (especcially adjectives), detection of exaggerations; distinguishing facts from opinions. Sometimes feelings may cause the writer to present only one side of the story, so the result is biased. When a source is biased it represents a limitation for a historian studying a topic/ event. Therefore, it is less reliable.
To check reliability, these questions will be of help:
- when the source is not relevant to the topic/ event
- when there are gaps in the information
- Ask yourself: does the source leave out important details of the topic/ event? (this would be a limitation) According to our knowledge of the topic, what doesn't the source tell us?
Primary sources:
- when the author is emotionally involved in or affected by the events he's describing (his story will be biased, not reliable, will present only one point of view and not others.
- when the source was produced or sponsored by the government (it cannot be objetctive because the author will respond to the government's instruction)
- when there was censorship at the time the author produced it because maybe he was not free to express himself, he was forced/ intimidated/ pressured into writing something himself did not think, like or believe in.
- The main limitation is the lack of feelings and insight to the thoughts of the time (you cannot get the "juicy" details and vividness of witness accounts)
- If the material cover a much extended period of time and is not especific on the event we are studying (the source lacks details and is to general).
- DO NOT make comments saying that the source has been translated and we do not know if the translation is accurate. This does not count as a limitation.
- Avoid saying that because it's just an extract, the value of the source is necessarily limited. This does not count as a limitation.
To know how reliable a source is, we must see if the source is balanced, impartial, objective, or, on the contrary, if it is biased, partial, subjective (then is not reliable).
A source is balanced/ impartial/ objective when, according to your knowledge, you realize that the source presents both sides of the story, or different points of view; when the information of the source coincides with what you know about the topic/ event. Therefore, it is reliable.
A source is biased/ partial/ subjective when, according to your knowledge, you realize that the source presents only one point of view, one side of the story, or that it exaggerates.
The way to discover if a source is biased is through careful reading and observation of details; the words used (especcially adjectives), detection of exaggerations; distinguishing facts from opinions. Sometimes feelings may cause the writer to present only one side of the story, so the result is biased. When a source is biased it represents a limitation for a historian studying a topic/ event. Therefore, it is less reliable.
To check reliability, these questions will be of help:
- Who was the author? His nationallity? His beliefs? When did he write it?
- What was his purpose then producing the source? What is he trying to tell us through this source (=message)?
- ...was he well informed about the events he talks about?
- ...was he forced to write it or was he free to express himself?
- ...are there any obvious mistakes in the source?
- ...does the source give an exaggerate view of the event?
- ...does the author show only his point of view/ opinion?
- ...does he use any words/ phrases which show that he approves/ disapproves of a person/ event?
Comparing two or more sources
In what ways is one source different from another?
Simply mark the differences you detect between the sources: origin (author/ date/ points of view/ context); purpose; content (what they mean or state).
Look for any iea offered by one source and either omitted, or an opposing idea given by the other.
Example: Source A mention this......, but on the other hand, source B says......
Simply mark the similarities (points in common) you detect between the sources: origin (author/ date/ points of view/ context); purpose; content (what they mean or state).
How to start your answers:
Firstly, both sources agree that [...] - Source A says that [...] and Source B says that [...].
Secondly, both sources agree that [...] - Source A says that [...] and Source B says that [...].
Thirdly, both sources agree that [...] - Source A says that [...] and Source B says that [...].
Compare and contrast two sources:
Here you will have to find both similarities and differences between two sources.
TIP: ALWAYS REMEMBER TO BACK YOUR ANALYSIS UP WITH EXTRACTS FROM THE SOURCE AND COMPARE THEM TO YOUR BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE.
