Source Analysis (1 Viewer)

[lollypops]

Hey Everyone!! I am just starting the HSC. I totally bombed out in my Year 11 Preliminary Exams on the source analysis!! So could you please give me some tips and words of wisdom on source analysis in particular the WW1 topic. Thanx heaps

 

[..:MizJay:..]

refer to ur textual integrity and go from there and u should be fine.. thats all about how "trustworthy" the source is.. then go ahead and describe what is portrayed in it.. good luck!

 

[mizz_smee]

a source is always useful!

 

[gordo]

coma - content, origin, motive, analysis,
just do them in sequential order and whack in perspective (i.e what the sources reveals) as you go through em

for eg

the source contains a british description of trench life blah blah, which was written from a soldier, the bad conitions highlight the deteroration of troop morla and would lead to an increased need for recruitment on the homefront. The offensive nature of british trenches meant that they had no need to build strong lines like the hindenburg line, thus conitnually tiring the troops and disheartening them. Since the author is showing the disease and uncomforatble conditions, it would seem his motive would be to convey to someone up the ranks how the bad the conditions were which may lead to a change in tactics.

thats obviously very simplistc, but see how it follows coma with some additional perspective on what the source reveals about life at the time.

 

[get.regime]

Best way to do it is just use an acronym and make sure you cover all bases, like gordo said. I tend to use "RUN CAMPO".

R - Reliability
U - Usefulness
N - Nature

C - Context
A - Audience
M - Motive
P - Perspective
O - Origin

The order isn't the most logical, but I find if I quicklu scribble that down then cross off letters as I do it I score pretty highly in source analysis.

 

[gemita]

The second question in this section will always be something about how useful and/or reliable the source is for an historian studying x. While a source is not always useful to study x, it might be useful for studying y, so explain its shortcomings in the area of x and then go on to describe why it is more useful for y. If it does happen to be useful for x, explain why, and also explain what it lacks, and remember the golden rule - no matter how useful a source is, it is never reliable unless used in conjunction with a variety of other sources!

Also, a source ALWAYS has at least some relevance to what they;re asking you. You will never be able to say, "no, source c has absolutely no usefulness for an historian studying...." No matter how unreliable it may be, there is always some use and relevance.

 

[Ziff]

Best way to do it is just use an acronym and make sure you cover all bases, like gordo said. I tend to use "RUN CAMPO".

R - Reliability
U - Usefulness
N - Nature

C - Context
A - Audience
M - Motive
P - Perspective
O - Origin

The order isn't the most logical, but I find if I quicklu scribble that down then cross off letters as I do it I score pretty highly in source analysis.

Hey, that's mine! I invented that
Here's what you should be answering or looking at when you're analysing sources (obviously do them in the right order and not in terms of the acronym).

Appendix II: Analysing Sources – “Run Campo!”

Nature:
What is the nature of the source?
What is the source (type of source, i.e. letter, speech)?

Content:
What is the content?
Look at - intentional content, what is unintentional content?
Point of view
Bias

Audience:
Who was the source made for? – Private or public individual, experts, peasants

Motive:
Why was the source made? – Purpose or motive
Format of source indicates purpose
What language/images are used?

Perspective:
What is the perspective of the source?
Knowledge about who made it - their position, upper or lower class?
Particular country, class, gender?
How do you know?

Origin:
What is the origin of the source?
Who made it?
When are where was it made?

Reliability:
Is the source reliable?
Is it complete and correct?
Is it factual?
In what ways is it limited? In what ways, is it biased?
Do other sources corroborate/contradict?
What is it reliable for?
What are the chances of it being a correct representation of what it is portraying (keeping in mind its purpose)
For example - a memoir can be an unreliable source because the person who wrote it is looking back n retrospective. They might be bitter, they might romanticise an event or they might be trying to cover something.

Usefulness:
What does the source tell you?
Usefulness: to what extent is it going to help with your historical investigation? (E.g., an account of a battle on the western front may be reliable, but will not be useful if you are studying use of propaganda at home)

 

[Aerials]

our teacher taught us CRAPOM... its a good way to remember it

C-content
R-reliability
A-audience
P-perspective
O-origin
M-motif