1. The Study of History- Source Analysis
OPCVL
The Study of History- Source Analysis

2. Origin
The more you know about where a document is coming from, the easier it is to analyze and determine its purpose, value and limitation Primary and Secondary Sources- problematic (see handout) Who created it? Who is the author (if applicable)? When was it created? When/where/who published it? Is there anything we know about the author that is pertinent to our evaluation?

3. Purpose
This is the point where you star the real evaluation of the piece and try to figure out the purpose of its creation
You have to try to think as the author of the document- why is it being made for me?
Why does it exist?
Who is the likely target audience and how can I tell?
Why did the author choose this format?
What does the document say (what is the author saying)?
Can it tell you more than is on the surface (inference)?
One thing to remember- one sided sources (biased) are good, they help us understand people’s views

4. Content/Context
This is where you connect the origin and the purpose by indicating specifically what the source says. Here you point out what detail, opinion, fact, summary etc, is valuable/limiting to my research
When does this take place?
Who is involved?
Where is this?
What impact does this have one on who or what?
Why did this take place/happen
It is expected that you indicate at least one specific element of the source content in terms of value and limitations.

5. Value
Now comes the hard part- putting on your historian hat (what would that look like?):
Based on who wrote it and when/where is came from and why its was created- what value does this document have as a piece of evidence (specifically for what we are studying)? You are putting the piece into context and showing the value of the content for your study.
What can you tell about the author from this piece?
What can you tell about the time period?
Under what circumstances was this piece created and how does this piece reflect those circumstances?
Does this author represent a particular side or controversy or event?
What can we tell about the author’s perspectives form the piece?

6. Limitations
Here we do not point out the weaknesses of the source- what we do is say at what point does this source cease to be of value to us as historians?
It is not important for your to point out that (in primary sources) information is lacking- of course it is!
Also- bias does not limit the value of a source, point it out but do not state that it ceases to be of value because it is bias…if that was the case all evidence would be limited
What party of the story can we NOT tell from this document?
How could we verify the content of the piece?
Does this piece inaccurately reflect anything about the time period (you would need to know context)
What does the author leave out and why? (if you know)
What is purposely not being addressed?

7. Format The origin of the source is… The purpose is…
The context includes…
The values of the origin and purpose are…
The limitations of the origins and purpose are…
Two paragraphs-
1: Origin and Purpose- values- including content specifics (2 values)
2: Origin and Purpose- limitations- including specifics (2 limitations)

8. Was militarism actually a concern that would lead to World War I?
The Daily Mail, 1909, an article by an Army officer.
“The risks of Britain’s position unarmed in the face of a Europe armed to the teeth cannot be too clearly realized by the British public.” 

9. Was militarism actually a concern that could lead to war?
Origin: Source A is a newspaper article written by a British officer. It was published in The Daily Mail in 1909.
Purpose: The article is intended to inform the British public of Britain’s current state of readiness in contrast to the rest of Europe. This is a primary document.
Content: There is or should be fear in Britain of European nations building bigger and better armies

10. Was militarism actually a concern that could lead to war?
Value:
A. The value of this document is that it offers a personal interpretation of Britain’s state of readiness in the years just prior to the outbreak of WWI (context).
B. As an army officer, the author would have had first hand knowledge of Britain’s military preparation, as well as those of other European powers. Therefore when he states of Europe being “armed to the teeth” we can accept that as a likely reality

11. Was militarism actually a concern that could lead to war?
Limitations:
A. This document is limited in its usefulness because the author is an officer in the British military and may be attempting to promote greater military spending in order to serve a personal or, at most, military agenda- may be misrepresenting the situation in order to inspire alarm at Britain’s lack of readiness in the hopes that the public will pressure their government to pursue militarism.
B. Also, this is one officer’s position and may not be representative of the military leadership as a whole. Can we trust this is what every soldier in Britain felt?
C. The selection of this article for publication may also reflect the interests, concerns or values of the newspaper’s ownership/editorial staff rather than accurately reflecting Britain’s state of readiness or the position of the British military.