OPCVL questions

Question Phrasing

With reference to its origin, purpose and content, assess the values and limitations of Source X to historians studying the [given topi.

Example

Summar

• paragraph 1: value
• paragraph 2: limitations

The ==origin is valuable because==… [link back to the question], thus making the source reliable and valuable. The content is also valuable because…

The purpose is limited because…

Checklist

• Origin

  • Template

    The origin is valuable because …

  • source type?
    • book, article, speech, (in)formal letter, academic article, etc.
  • check authorship – especially if the author is a historical actor
    • what was the author’s objective in creating the source?
    • how objective is the author?
      • do NOT misuse the words ‘bias’ and ‘unbias’
    • how knowledgable is the author?
      • ==do they have insider, unique or expert information/knowledge/insight?==
      • more knowledge → more likely to have an informed, accurate view of things happening → better for historians needing reliable sources
    • pay attention to the wording of the title!
    • the more you know about the actor, the easier it is to answer the question
  • when ≠ accuracy
    • in the future, there MAY be access to a lot of other books + research → more well-researched and accurate than a singular viewpoint from the past
  • check source details for who, what, when, where
  • DO NOT USE THE WORDS “ADAPTED EXTRACT” in origin
  • identify whether it’s a ==primary or secondary source==
    • IMPORTANT: one is not inherently more valuable than secondary sources
      • primary sources can be affected – by memory loss, emotion, etc.

• Transclude of Purpose-Question-Format#^tes

  • Quote/describe/summarise the source
  • ask yourself questions
    • Why does this document exist?
    • Why did the author make this piece of work?
    • What is the intent behind this work?
    • Who is the intended audience? Who did the author think it was?
• Content
  • Quote/describe the source
    • if there is nothing, point out whatever isn’t there
    • Historians are not aware of …
  • What does the document say?
  • What’s the main idea of the source?
  • What arguments are present within the source?
• Value
  • based on who wrote it, when it was written, why it was created (purpose) and what the source says (content)
    • e.g. if a professional historian wrote a secondary source, it’s valuable because professional historians would have the necessary skills to perform research professionally and accurately depict certain events of the past
  • What are the author’s perspectives?
  • What was the historical context, and how accurate is the source in reflecting it?
• Limitations
  • at what point does this source stop being useful to historians?
  • what side of the story can we not tell from the source?
  • does this piece reflect anything about the time period inaccurately?
  • what did the author leave out?