English analysis is taught from very early in a student’s high school career: technique, evidence, effect. Similar to how English analysis follows a consistent structure, historical source analysis can be made easy by following the scaffold:
Author – who created the source?
Date/Location/Context – when was the source made, where was it made, what events coincided with the creation of it (be clear to mention whether the source is primary, secondary, or tertiary)?
Audience – for whom was the source made?
Motive – what was the purpose of making the source?
Perspective – what views, opinions, or beliefs does it express?
Reliability – can the source be trusted?
Value – why is this source valuable to a historical inquiry, what evidence does the source provide, what insight can be drawn from this evidence?
Limitations – what does the source not tell us, in what ways is it limited?
For example, if a question were to ask a student to assess the reliability of Erich Honecker’s autobiography in providing a truthful recount of his life, the paragraph answer may be:
Published in Germany, 1981, Erich Honecker’s autobiography, From My Life, provides a largely unreliable, biased account of his tyrannical rule in Eastern Germany. As a member of the Communist Party of Germany from 1930-1946 and the Socialist Unity Party of Germany from 1946-1989 and the primary organiser of the Berlin Wall, Honecker’s autobiography which was justified as a public record of his life told from a first hand perspective and aimed to appeal to the public of the GDR and international readers provides a biased account of the leader’s life and state affairs. Therefore, this primary source lacks reliability as Honecker possesses a protective relationship with Eastern Germany’s history and thus justifies any negation to his rule. However, the source is highly valuable as it provides a perspective of a high ranking official who dictated the political and civil landscape of Eastern Germany. Despite this, the source lacks unbiased information and only accepts limited criticism on the GDR’s behalf, thus not providing a true, well-rounded report of Honecker’s life. Ultimately, while the source provides valuable information regarding Honecker as a leader and as a person, it is highly biased and thus is not entirely reliable.
Shahaf Liraz