Purpose:
o To analyze actual historical records that have survived the pastRequirements:
For these papers, you will be writing an historical overview of an event and you will be reading primary source documents and analyzing their content. You are to make reference to which historical event the primary source pertains. You are to include an analysis of the reliability and quality of the document using the guidelines set forth below under "Analyzing Historical Documents." In the Class Schedule there will be shown an event and a Primary Source document along with a due date. Click on the document's title and you will taken to it directly. A printable version of the document will be available at the site.
Format:
It is easier to do a complete analysis if you can confer with someone else. So,
to complete these analyses, you may work with one other student. Using the "Questions for Analyzing Primary Sources"
only as a guide, you are to type the results.
The first page of your final submission must be the overview of the historical event, consisting of a title (the event) followed by a one page, single-spaced overview. This page should be followed by the primary source analysis (3 pages?) single-spaced.
o Use standard fonts and sizes (10, or 12)
and single-spacing.
o Be sure to include a full, proper citation for the source
document, following the standards for citations as prescribed
by the APA Style Sheet.
o Do Not use a cover! Place a staple in the upper left corner.
o At the top of the first page
place a proper heading with your name(s), assignment title(e.g.PS#1), due date, and the instructor's name.
o
No late analysis will be accepted.
· The Nature of Evidence: Historians use a
wide variety of evidence to build their interpretations of the past. The
discussion below applies to a particular type of evidence called historical
documents. Much historical evidence is testimonial or anecdotal. However, other
types of evidence, such as experimental and observational, also exist. What do
these terms mean? Experimental evidence, common to the natural sciences, often
involves the measurement of physical artifacts or processes. Thanks to precise
methods and measurements, such data should be replicable. Observational
evidence comes from recording data under controlled conditions. Social
scientists, for example, can construct experiments for human subjects that
measure responses and, like experimental evidence, are replicable.
· Most historical evidence, however, comes to us from past events. Thus
we cannot replicate those past conditions nor provide the level of control
present in experimental or observational evidence. That makes the historian's
job a bit more difficult but nevertheless, with training and practice,
possible. Much historical evidence is anecdotal, "an individual's personal
accounts of his or her experiece." Examples
include mainly primary sources, such as diaries, letters, transcriptions of
conversations or interviews, or memoirs. We valid the reliablity of anecdotal evidence by checking for internal
consistency and by gauging its statements against those of other, external
evidence. Testimonial evidence comes for someone speaking or writing
with authority, expertise, and credentialing. Much testimonial evidence comes
from secondary sources, such as authoritative, refereed monographs (journal
articles and books). Regardless of the type of evidence confronted, the
historian must evaluate its relative strengths and weaknesses.
1. What type of document are you analyzing? Is it a Newspaper
editorial? Map? Government Report? Official Letter? Personal Letter?
Memorandum? Telegram? Press Release? Advertisement? Congressional Speech?
Other-- specify
2. If you had an original document, you would also examine it for any
unique physical qualities. These might include Interesting letterhead, nature
of the handwriting, any seals, notations, or other official stamps.
3. What is the date of the document? (Dates written, sent, annotated,
and received, if applicable)
4. To whom was the document addressed or for
what audience was it prepared?
5. List the author's three most important points.
6. Why do you think the document was written?
7. What specific evidence or examples help you determine why it was
written?
8. Identify a question or issue that is left unanswered by the
document.
9. How trustworthy do you consider the document? Does it accurately
reflect the historical past? Why or why not? Apply the tests of validity below.
1. Relevance: Is the evidence presented really
relevant to the claim being made?
2. Recency: Has the situation described by the evidence changed? Just being
old isn't enough to disqualify evidence: The situation must have changed since
the evidence was published.
3. Validity: Is the document what it appears
to be or is it possibly a fraud or forgery?
4. Identification: Is the author or
source clearly identified? His/her position? title?
Historians do not rely on "anonymous" or hearsay.
5. Expertise: Is the source qualified to
provide this evidence? Sources may be qualified by training/education or by
experience with the topic of the evidence.
6. Bias: Does the author have a vestesd interest
in the topic of the evidence that might distort the evidence? Reluctant
testimony, in which the source testifies against self-interest (e.g., a Republican exposing illegal actions of the Republican Party)
is very persuasive. Biased sources do not always distort their evidence.
7. Internal Consistency: Do various elements
of the source remain consistent within itself or does
one or more parts contradict other parts?
8. External Consistency: Is the evidence
consistent with outside qualified sources?
| Return to Home Page |
|---|