History
Evaluating Sources, I: Overview
Goals
Ø We evaluate sources to assess evidence critically, by asking appropriate questions and developing a considered, informed assessment of their authenticity and reliability.
Ø This skill is required of competent historians, but it is also one of the essential marks of any well-educated person, and of a good citizen.
Guidelines
Research and scholarliness
Ø Research can be defined as scholarly investigation in all available primary and secondary sources in order to extend human knowledge.
Ø The degree of scholarliness increases as the use of primary sources increases.
The OPLV process
Ø We group the questions we ask for source evaluation under four categories:
o O, for Origins
o P, for Purpose
o L, for Limitations
o V, for Value
Deepening understanding
A good source evaluation assesses evidence critically by asking a series of deepening questions:
Ø Level 1: Concrete answers/ basic information
o Who created this document? (O, see below)
o Who is the intended audience? (P)
o What is the story line? (How does it seem to fit into the events under study?) (O,P)
Ø Level 2: Begin to understand the document
o Why was this document written? (P)
o What type of document is this? (O,P)
o What are the basic assumptions made in this document?
Ø Level 3: Probe the document and develop your own assessment of its value & limitations
o What can I (as historian) learn about the society that produced this document? (V)
o For what kinds of conclusions does this document provide reliable evidence? (V)
o In what ways is this document likely to prove unreliable? (L)
o What does this document mean to me (as historian)? (V)
Bias
Ø One of the principal factors that can affect the reliability of a source is bias, the tendency to favor a particular set of interpretations because of subjective considerations, such as emotional attachment, economic self-interest or prior ideological commitments.
Ø Primary sources are by definition close to the event examined and are likely to be very biased. Yet all secondary sources ultimately rely on primary ones, so the proper response to much bias is not to dismiss the source entirely, but rather to treat it appropriately.
Ø In short, one needs to corroborate possibly biased information, which is to confirm its accuracy by comparison with other sources.
Primary Sources
What is a primary source?
Ø Information or ideas about an event that is provided by someone living during the time period under examination, often an eyewitness or participant, or someone who knew an individual involved in the events
Ø Contemporary material evidence related to the events examined.
Types of primary sources
Ø Archaelogical remains
Ø Material remains of contemporary objects or settings related to an event under examination
Ø Public written sources
Ø Private written sources: minutes of meetings, parish registers, private diplomatic papers, letters and diaries, photos and film, the arts
Ø Oral tradition: public speeches, oral histories, verbal interviews
Evaluation of primary sources
Ø Primary sources are valuable because they bring the researcher as close as possible to the time period under discussion, and provide evidence of key events or interpretations
Ø Yet you can never be sure if even an honest eyewitness really presents an accurate picture. For example, four people watching the same traffic accident might well see the event in four different ways.
Ø Therefore, it is essential that you evaluate each primary source. First, you must establish its authenticity, using internal and external evidence. Then its reliability.
Evidence of authenticity
Ø Internal evidence: Is the source consistent with the known methods and materials for the period?
Ø External evidence:
o What is the probability of such a document being produced?
o Is its production consistent with other events?
o Is is in accord with known facts? If not, is its credibility such that one should revise what one knows in the light of the new document or source?
Evidence of reliability
Ø How and why did the document come into existence in the first place? Free will, or duress? Genuine expression, or deceit?
Ø Who created the document, and what role did she or he play? Important or obscure? Was she/he in a position to know?
Ø What sort of a bias is evident?
Ø Does the document demonstrate internal consistency?
Ø To what extent is the information in the document consistent with other documents from this period?
Typical limitations
Ø Emotionally involved in events studied (so distortions possible, from misimpressions to deliberate deceit)
Ø Self-interest involved in events studied
Ø Prejudiced because of prior ideological commitments
Ø Caught up in biases of own time (“world view bias”)
Typical value
Ø Contemporary (albeit imperfect) evidence
Ø Contemporary interpretation(s) of significance and meaning of events
Ø Unique insight into the thinking of the observer/recorder of events
Ø Authoritative expression of the views of a significant agent, or insight into his/her mind
Ø May be representative of the views or minds of other members of groups to which the observer/recorder belonged, or provide insight into them
Hierarchy of primary sources
Ø Manuscript before printed
Ø Original before copy
Ø Traditional before non-traditional
Ø Written before oral
Ø Official before unofficial
Ø Pure primary before partially secondary (eg. contemporary histories, autobiography)
Ø Unwitting record before intentional record
Ø Original language before translation
Secondary Sources
What is a secondary source?
Ø Information about an event that is given by someone who did not see the event under examination, but who received a description from one or more primary and/or other secondary sources
Typical limitations
Ø Knowledge was limited to what the writer learned second-hand
Ø Caught up in biases of own time, including particular ideological commitments that may predispose him/her in favor of certain interpretations (“History is the projection of ideology into the past.”–unnamed source, cited by John Keegan)
Ø Lacked access to evidence and interpretations introduced after own time
Typical value
Ø Primary purpose was to inform
Ø Had leisure to reflect and focus
Ø Had access to multiple viewpoints
Ø Considered evidence critically (by training and/or inclination)
Ø "Facts" used are solidly grounded: established by cross-checking much evidence, including some not available at the time of the original events
Ø Offers historical context, background information useful for assessing the facts.
Ø Offers interpretations of the significance and meaning of events in the light of events and thinking since the time of the original events
Hierarchy of secondary sources
Ø Dedicated professional academics before anyone else
Ø Later before earlier researchers
Ø Academic presses before commercial
Ø More prestigious institutions (universities, publishers, prizes) before less prestigious
Ø Dispassionate before emotional
Why we may have special expectations from academic historians
Ø Just as all other people, historians possess biases that inevitably get expressed in their work, whether through advocacy or in an unconscious manner. These biases determine key components of any scholarship such as the subjects that historians choose to research and how historians structure their texts.
Ø However, at the same time, there are crucial differences between academic history and other pursuits.
o Historians are under a professional obligation to present the information they gather in the most accurate form possible. If historians find compelling evidence that their biases are incorrect, they need to change their depictions to fit the evidence rather than just ignore what they find to be inconvenient.
o Usually, a professional historian’s work has to go through peer review before it can be published.
o Historians are also under a professional obligation to document their evidence through the use of complete footnotes and a comprehensive bibliography so that other interested parties can examine how they drew their conclusions.
o And if anyone chooses to contradict their scholarship, they are under an obligation to defend their positions so that others can benefit from the ensuing academic dialogue.
Ø All of this may not generate an ultimate truth, but it is a system that should lead readers to respect the profession’s collective judgment more than that of lone writers from other backgrounds.
Sources: Lynda Matthews, Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, other IBO documents
J. Ergueta 2009 1