HOW HISTORIANS ANALYZE/MAKE USE OF EVIDENCEThe difference between the past and history in one word is EVIDENCE. For most of what has happened we do not have remaining evidence, so what we call history is only a select portion of the past for which evidence exists allowing historians to create their narratives of what happened.
Historians divide evidence into two categories: primary and secondary sources. Generally speaking, a primary source is material (i.e., a document or other evidence) PRODUCED DURING THE PERIOD BEING EXAMINED--THE PERSON OR ITEM WAS ACTUALLY PRESENT AT THE EVENT. They come in all shapes and sizes. Some may be written documents of the time (e.g., newspapers, court records, a diary entry, etc.) or a physical artifact (e.g., a piece of furniture, photography, painting, etc.). There is an incredible variety because primary sources are as varied as the people who created them. This variety makes identifying primary sources both problematical and enjoyable. Then by definition, a secondary source is something that is derived second hand or passed on; e.g., no one alive today can serve as a primary source for the American Revolution. The more a historian can know about the time period and the creators of the sources, the better the understanding and potential for use.There is no one-size fits all, but general templates that historians utilize to evaluate evidence. These are ways that historians engage in a dialogue with their sources. Here are two recommended methods. Note that not all questions might be relevant, but go through the checklist.
METHOD 1
[SOURCE: Peter Charles Hoffer & William W. Stueck, Reading and Writing American History, Vol. I (Houghton-Mifflin, 1998).]1. Was the person who created the source well positioned to know what was happening? Was s/he well acquainted with the people and places described? Was the author one of the group at the center of the event or a mere observer? Did s/he have access to other documents and other observers? What is the author's place in the social structure--are they looking from above or below or sideways as they relate their story.
2. Have other documents or letters written by that person proved to be accurate? Some famous men and women have proved to be notorious liars, and the number of primary materials that include gossip or outright fantasy is immense. Is the account assertion? What kind of evidence is being used?
3. What is the author's intended purpose? Did the author have a personal interest in what he or she was describing that would color the account (or lead to a lie)? even if the author intended to be objective, such interests would influence what the author thought he or she heard and saw and would undermine the reliability of even a firsthand account.
4. What sort of language does the author of a written account employ? Is it hysterical or calm, angry or sympathetic? If the source is an example of a particular literary genre, such as a novel or a poem, the author has probably rearranged facts--people and settings--for literary effect. (Even a work of fiction can be a primary source of attributes or literary conventions.) If the work is a picture, how much has the artist's style altered reality? Have dramatic conventions replaced facts?
5. Was the source created immediately, within a short span of time, or many years after the event it describes? (Many primary accounts are recollections by participants or observers in their old age, and psychological studies have shown that we often lose 70 percent of our memory of a particular event within the first 24 hours after seeing or hearing it.)
6. To whom is the account or visual depiction addressed? What was the intended or expected audience? Many documents are written to persuade or reassure a particular audience. For example, although his quarrel was with ministers in neighboring Massachusetts, Roger Williams sent many of his sermons and letters to England to be published so that influential Puritans there might understand why he defended freedom of worship.
7. Finally, what impact did the words or pictures have on their actual audience? What's the emotional objective? Historians have become very sensitive to the changing meaning of common words. Books and pamphlets written in English more than 300 years ago do not always use words in the same way that we use them today. For example, to the 17th century American colonists the word constitution was the body of English and American law; today it means a written foundation of government. We retain the earlier meaning when we talk about a person having "a sound constitution."
METHOD 2
Source: http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu1. LITERAL SOURCE QUESTIONING
__What type of document is this? (poetry, diary, government document)
__What is the setting? (time and place)
__Who wrote the document? Did the recorder have firsthand knowledge of the event?
__Or, did the recorder report what others saw and heard?
__Was the information recorded during the event, immediately after the event, or after some lapse of time?
__What is the document generally about?2. LOOKING FOR POINT OF VIEW & PERSPECTIVE
__What religion, sex, and social class is the author?
__What is the author’s social position?
__What “loaded” words or strong descriptive be biased?
__Overall: What perspective or point of view on the topic is words are used? (clues to perspective)
__What is the intent of the author?
__How might the author be biased?
__What is omitted?3. LOOKING AT THE CONTEXT
__Who is the intended audience?
__What else is going on at this time that might have affected this source’s content?
__What ideas were present in the predominant culture of the time?
__How might the context (previous questions in this step) have affected the content of the source?4. ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A SOURCE
__Can we determine the literal aspects of the source?
__What can we learn from the point of view of the source?
__What questions does the source answer about my topic or the leading question?
__What questions are left unanswered?5. CORROBORATION
__Are there other sources to support this source?
__Are there sources that disagree with this source? Why?
__What’s the same?
__What’s different?
__What are the reasons for the similarities and differences?
__Do sources acknowledge counter evidence?
__Was anything omitted?
METHOD 3: Making an Interpretation
Source: http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu1. Construct an Explanation about History
__Which sources will I choose to help me with my topic or leading question? Why?
__How many pieces of evidence do I need?
__How will I create an answer to my question that incorporates and accounts for conflicting evidence2. Seek Peer Review
__Is my explanation convincing?
__Does my explanation have support from several pieces of evidence?
__Does my explanation reflect the multiple perspectives of the event or era?
__Is my explanation clearly written or demonstrated