In order to analyze a source, you must first be able to identify what it is.

To identify the origin of the source, consider the following:

• Who wrote it? What is the author's level of expertise?

• When was it written? When was it published?

• Where was it published? (country, publisher, etc.)

• What type of source is it? (book, journal article, newspaper article, speech, letter, memoir, biography, etc.)

• Is there anything we should know about the author that is relevant to the topic under investigation?

• Is it a primary or a secondary source? Note, that one is not more valuable than another. Historians rely heavily on both.

Values/Limitations to Consider:

• Does the author have any special qualifications to testify about or interpret the topic?

• Has the document been changed in any way from its original form?

• Does the source offer insight into the perspective from a specific period of time or place?

  • Is it a first hand account? Was the author personally involved? How might this affect the reliability of the source? (too close to be impartial? eye witness perspective?)

  • Does the author have the benefit of hindsight?

  • Is this writing “a product of its times?” Look at the date it was created. What else was going on at that time? (Context!)

The origin and purpose of the source may be closely linked. Knowing what type of source you are looking at (part of the origin) can help you identify why a source was written. To identify the purpose of the source, consider the following:

• Why was this written? (To explain…)

• Who is the intended audience? (Supporters? Opponents? General Audience? Scholars?)

• What is the author’s motivation for writing? (Inform? Persuade? Influence? Make money?)

• What does the source's origin reveal about the source's purpose?

Values and Limitations to Consider

• Is there insightful analysis or is it just an overview?

• How would the author's motivation for creating the source add value to the source or limit its value?

• How does understanding why something was written help you better understand what the source is saying?

• If something was written to inform (secondary source), can we trust that information?

To identify the content of the source, consider the following questions:

• What is the main idea of the source?

• What information does the source provide?

• What is the tone of the source?

• What information/examples are used to support their point?

• What arguments, analysis, or conclusion are present within the source’s content?

Values and Limitations of the Content to Consider:

• What part of the story can we NOT tell from this document?

• Does the source inaccurately reflect anything about the time period?

• What does the author leave out and why does he/she leave it out (if you know)?

• What is purposely not addressed?

  • Being biased does not necessarily limit the value of a source! If you are going to comment on the bias of a document, you must go into detail. Who is it biased towards? Who is it biased against? What part of a story does it leave out? What part of the story is MISSING because of parts left out?

• Does anything appear to be exaggerated?

• Does the author focus on certain themes or details at the expense of others? Does this seem intentional?