A Guide to Usefulness, Reliability and Limitations of Historical Sources

Usefulness

What is 'usefulness'?

Usefulness is a judgement about how relevant or helpful a particular source is in providing information
about your topic.

The measure of a source's usefulness is based upon the question being asked of it.

If a source provides any information about the specific topic you're investigating, it is considered to be a
useful source.

How do I prove usefulness?

Since a source's usefulness is based primarily upon its ability to provide valuable information on your
topic, there are four different ways to prove that a source is useful:
• It provides explicit information about the topic. You can best show this by providing a direct quote
from the source.
• It provides implicit information about the topic. You can best show this by providing an indirect
quote from the source.
• It corroborates information from another source. You can show this by providing quotes from both
sources.
• It contradicts information from another source. You can best show this by providing quotes from
both sources.

Reliability

What is 'reliability'?

Reliability of sources evaluates whether they are trustworthy. It is important that the sources you use in
your assessment pieces are reliable so that the quotes you use from them can be trusted.

In history, it is rare that we are completely sure that sources are 100% reliable. Therefore, when we talk
about reliability of sources, we can talk in terms of ‘degrees of reliability':

Extremely - Very – Somewhat – Rarely – Not very

For example, we can say that a source is "extremely reliable", or "not very reliable".

How do I evaluate reliability?

A judgement of reliability requires three elements:

• A clearly stated decision
• A 'marker' word to show the link between the decision and the reasons (e.g., because, due to, since
etc.)

1
 • Reasons for the decision (from your source analysis)

Examples:
This source is very reliable because it was written by a professional historian.
As the author was present at the event, his record of it is likely to be very trustworthy.

What reasons can be provided to justify a source's reliability?

Based upon what you discovered in your analysis of the source, the reasons provided to establish
reliability can be based upon any of the following:

The creator is someone who can be trusted. For example, an eyewitness or an academic
expert.
Origin
The type of source is particularly valuable. For example, a personal letter or an academic
journal.

The creator has a specific perspective on the topic. For example, a particular nationality
Perspective
or career.

The source was created at an important point in time regarding the event. For example,
Context
it was made on the same day.

The intended audience of the source is particularly important. For example, those who
Audience
would have known key details.

Motive The specific purpose of the source was to record specific information about the topic.

What if a source is unreliable?

When using information from sources to prove your own argument, you need to be able to use sources
that are reliable. If you have found a source which you discover to be unreliable, the best advice would
be not to use the source.

However, if the source is too relevant to your topic that you cannot use another, use a different evaluation
skill to argue for why you are using it, rather than simply arguing that the source is unreliable.

How do I establish unreliability?

Based upon what you discovered in your analysis of the source, you can establish its unreliability based
upon any of the following:
• The creator of the source was not present at the time of the event.
• The creator of the source does not have a sufficiently educated perspective on the topic. (e.g., they
have no formal education in History)
• The source has not been fact-checked by an educated audience. (e.g., it is an online blog post)
2
 • The purpose of the source was to be entertaining or to simply give an opinion, rather than focus
on the facts, about the topic.

Limitations

A source's usefulness can often be limited based upon what information it doesn't provide. This can be
explained by identifying what information has been left out by the author, or by what opinions or
perspectives are not mentioned by the source.

Limitation is also linked to bias, each source will be at least a little biased and thus they are limited by that.
If the source has been translated from the original (e.g. Hitler's diary entry was translated into English by a
historian and you're using the historian's book as a source) then the language difference will be another
source of inaccuracy and a limitation.

Limit – What are the problems with this source ?

• Origin – How does who wrote it/ what type of document not help us about this topic? Why can’t we
trust them?
• Content – How does the info not help us? Does the info conflict with any prior knowledge?
• Purpose – How does the intended audience or why they wrote it not help us?

Limits of a Historical Text:

• Only an extract
• Topic may have only been briefly researched because it is the small part of a general history text
• May not have had access to a full range of sources (Think Soviet Russia before 1991)
• Historian may represent a school of thought or national perspective (Marxism)
• Unconscious bias

Being biased does not 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?
• What part of the story can we NOT tell from this document?
• How could we verify the content of the piece?
• Does this piece 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?
• Understand that the comments and questions above are intended to guide you.

It is your job to determine which the relevant questions to pursue are.