Key points for this section:
a) The IB advise you to write approx. 500 words for this section.
b) There are 6 marks available.
c) You must write about two sources that have been valuable to your investigation. When you write Section B, both sources should be used and explicitly referred to.
d) They can be either primary or secondary sources – most will probably do one of each (this is not a requirement – you could do two secondary sources, for example).
e) The purpose is to get you thinking like a historian – i.e. evidence is never 100% valuable and always has limitations due to the opinions/politics/views/position of the author (origin) and the reason why it has been created (purpose). This thinking may also help you with aspects of the reflection.
f) Value = reasons why this source is useful to a historian researching your topic. Limitations = reasons why they would not be advised to rely on it as their sole source. Judgments should be made around issues of reliability and usefulness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Scheme & Checklist
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRITING ADVICE
1. Overall Structure
i) You should ensure that you are very organised in the way that you construct your answer – you are expected to deal with one source at a time and to explicitly refer to the values and limitations of both in light of their origin, purpose and content. You must use these key terms.
ii) Click here to find a clearly structured example with examiner comments. Use this as an example but do not try to copy its content – the whole point is that the analysis should be specific to the source that you are using.
2. Tips on Evaluating a Secondary Source
Remember, it is tempting to throw around generic phrases like “the historian is biased because he is from England and therefore will not be able to write impartially about the Battle of Hastings”. This is obviously rubbish. You must relate your observations about limitations and value to the content of your source, as well as to the individual background of the author.
Follow this link for advice on how to assess your secondary sources.
3. Tips on Evaluating a Primary Source
Primary sources can be easier to work with in this section – people living through the moment are more likely to give a historian insight into the issues as they see them but are also far less trustworthy (as they are likely to be personally involved in the issue or not privy to all the relevant information).
However, once again you must avoid general statements “he was English and so must have hated Hitler so we cannot rely on his opinions…” (he could be a member of the British Nazi Party, he could be writing in 1933 when Hitler was admired by many in Britain etc). Again, your evaluation must be specific to the author and to the content of what they are saying.
Click here for tips on evaluating primary sources.
influenced by the dominant opinions, internal politics and popular misconceptions within the British Government at the time - which, as other sources show, featured strongly divided factions with polarized opinions on the Russian issue.
i) You should ensure that you are very organised in the way that you construct your answer – you are expected to deal with one source at a time and to explicitly refer to the values and limitations of both in light of their origin, purpose and content. You must use these key terms.
ii) Click here to find a clearly structured example with examiner comments. Use this as an example but do not try to copy its content – the whole point is that the analysis should be specific to the source that you are using.
2. Tips on Evaluating a Secondary Source
Remember, it is tempting to throw around generic phrases like “the historian is biased because he is from England and therefore will not be able to write impartially about the Battle of Hastings”. This is obviously rubbish. You must relate your observations about limitations and value to the content of your source, as well as to the individual background of the author.
Follow this link for advice on how to assess your secondary sources.
3. Tips on Evaluating a Primary Source
Primary sources can be easier to work with in this section – people living through the moment are more likely to give a historian insight into the issues as they see them but are also far less trustworthy (as they are likely to be personally involved in the issue or not privy to all the relevant information).
However, once again you must avoid general statements “he was English and so must have hated Hitler so we cannot rely on his opinions…” (he could be a member of the British Nazi Party, he could be writing in 1933 when Hitler was admired by many in Britain etc). Again, your evaluation must be specific to the author and to the content of what they are saying.
Click here for tips on evaluating primary sources.
influenced by the dominant opinions, internal politics and popular misconceptions within the British Government at the time - which, as other sources show, featured strongly divided factions with polarized opinions on the Russian issue.
4. Two Good 'Section A' Examples...
Note that these are strong because they are superbly organised and follow the criteria carefully. Their source analysis is excellent; it could only be applied to the sources they have picked (i.e. extremely specific).
Example 1:
* Note the citations have not been transferred here - all quotes and background research should be cited.
To what extent might it be argued that the Great Leap Forward a success?
In reference to “To what extent might it be argued that the Great Leap Forward a success?” two sources--Frank Dikötter’s Mao’s Great Famine and Victor Lippit’s The Great Leap Forward Reconsidered--are crucial. The former is important as it considers recently released archives, taking a harsh perception on the Leap. The latter is equally important as it provides an alternative (optimistic) view on the period, providing the different perspectives central to the argument in this essay.
Mao’s Great Famine – Frank Dikötter
The origin of this source is of value. Dikötter was awarded a PhD for a thesis on racial categorization in modern Chinese history, proving that he is a peer-assessed professional on 20th century China. Moreover, his numerous books on China including “The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History” and his current position as the Chair Professor of Humanities at HKU show that he is an experienced expert. Alongside the author’s background, the book was published in 2010 which was after the archives were released and hence is accurate. In fact, the rigorous bibliography of hundreds of primary sources--accounts, numerical data, and interviews--makes this book reliable. For example, Dikötter displays cannibalism in Hongtai Commune, Yaohejia Village3. Furthermore, Dikötter’s published book has been reviewed, proving the content’s accuracy. The purpose of this text is valuable as well. Dikötter intends to reveal the truth, considering primary sources that have not been distorted—he disregards photographical evidence as he states “no photographs other than those taken for propaganda purposes are known to exist”, proving the book’s reliability from a methodological perspective.
However, this selection of sources is subject to Dikötter’s decisions, limiting reliability. Moreover, Dikötter in an interview mentions that he “felt gutted” and “almost cried” after reading a personal account written by Hervé Denès, implying that he may have been emotional and exaggerated the poor conditions of the Leap. Nevertheless, this suggestion seems less significant considering that he was trained, and even if his emotions distorted his writing, the source is still of value with its rigorous references to recently released archival material.
The Great Leap Forward Reconsidered – Victor Lippit
The provenance of the article is of value: Victor Lippit earned a B.A. at Harvard, and a M.A. and Ph.D. at Yale in economics, showing that he is a well-educated academic. Moreover, his publications—“The Economic Development of China” and “Land Reform and Economic Development in China”--are focused on Chinese economic history. This specialization in research certainly proves that Lippit is experienced in China’s 20th century history.
However, the author’s strong background in economics has its limitations--he simply puts too much emphasis on the economic aspects (statistics/numerical records) of the Leap instead of providing a holistic evaluation. For example, he considers economic aspects--imbalance between supply and demand and between light and heavy industry--but disregards social policies. Moreover, consider the underlying purpose implied in the title. Lippit seems to have written this article in order to “reconsider” the Leap, deliberately provide an alternative view on the pre-existing pessimistic perception of the Leap and thereby selectively use evidence that supports his alternative take on the event--that is, the author may have written it simply to suggest, not to argue. Furthermore, the origin of the article is limited. It was published in 1975, which was before the archives were released, disregarding the essential primary sources for an accurate evaluation of the Leap. Nevertheless, this source retains partial value from the new perspective it provides.
Example 2
* Note the citations have not been transferred here - all quotes and background research should be cited.
This investigation explores “To what extent was John F. Kennedy responsible for civil rights changes in the state of Mississippi between 1961-1963?”
The two sources below were invaluable to my investigation as their opinions represent the key features of the debate inherent within my investigation. Schlesinger represents the view that civil rights improvements can be primarily attributed to the White House, while Doyle's work represents the view that the grass roots activism was more significant.
A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House
This source is a memoir written by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr, who was a close friend of John F. Kennedy’s and served as his special assistant. The main purpose of the biography is to recount Kennedy’s short presidency from an insider’s perspective for the American public, who were enthralled by the young president and were deeply distraught at his untimely demise. Not only does A Thousand Days consist of Schlesinger’s personal thoughts throughout the administration, the memoir is particularly valuable as Schlesinger conducted comprehensive research and interviews to produce a memoir. More importantly, due to Schlesinger’s high position in the Kennedy administration, the source is reliable as Schlesinger would have experienced, if not, have access to the events discussed in the memoir. As the memoir is written almost immediately after Kennedy’s assassination, events such as the Battle of Oxford would still remain fresh in Schlesinger’s memory, thus having little chance of memory contaminating actual facts.
However, the immediacy of the memoir’s publication after Kennedy’s death could also serve as a limitation, since Schlesinger would undeniably paint Kennedy in a more positive light to avoid criticising the recently deceased president. Also, it cannot be expected that Schlesinger remain completely objective throughout the memoir due to his strong friendship with Kennedy and the public’s sympathy for the former president. Furthermore, as Schlesinger noted in the foreword, the memoir cannot offer an omniscient perspective on civil rights movement as only Kennedy can fully understand the situation and his actions.
An American Insurrection: James Meredith and the Battle of Oxford, Mississippi, 1962
An American Insurrection is a non-fiction book by William Doyle with the purpose of informing the world about civil rights hero James Meredith who was relatively unknown in 2001 when the book was published. Doyle has previously written New York Times Notable Book of 1999 winner Inside the Oval Office: The White House Tapes from FDR to Clinton , proving that Doyle is reputable in the academic field. An American Insurrection also won reputable awards such as American Bar Association Silver Gavel award and American Library Association Alex Award. Another value lies in the wide range of sources Doyle was able to get a hold of when researching. Due the the Freedom of Information Act, Doyle was able to go through government records regarding Ole Miss. Additionally, he was able to conduct interviews with rioters, marshals, bystanders and other stakeholders in the battle, notably James Meredith himself. As the rioters were not arrested, they were surprisingly honest about their views and involvement, aiding the research process.
However, despite, Doyle’s credentials and sources, he is still primarily a storyteller looking to entertain. Moreover, many bureaucrats often take actions that differs from official records as politicians would often want to cast themselves in a better light to attract more votes to be elected in office. Furthermore there could be some confirmation bias involved as Doyle is a self-described “Northern Liberal” and have harboured some guilt since his parents were segregationist collaborators.
4. Test your understanding…
Read the student’s answer below (this is just an extract from the source evaluation section & so does not include the paragraph in which they state their question and explain the two sources to their investigation). Using the mark scheme at the top of the page, where would you place the answer? Hint: it is not full marks
“Why did the Bolsheviks win the Russian Civil War? (Talking Points)”
This source originates as an article first published in the September 2002 issue of History Review, a subsidiary periodical of the reputable publication History Today. The Review aims to deliver high-quality historical articles from academics to secondary students: in this case, from Lecturer of 20th-Century European History and Lecturer of Spanish Studies Dr. Peter Anderson at the Universities of Bath and Leeds respectively.
The main purpose of the source is to explain the outcome of the Civil War through the analysis of several thematic factors, in a way such that the information is understandable by a wide audience. As such, the value of this source lies in the academically reliable information it provides, as well as the summary of modern-day opinions and theories from a number of other historians. The time of publication is significant, since prior to the fall of the USSR large amounts of information on the Russian Civil War had been withheld by the Soviet Government.
However, the source is also limited by its origin as an article intended for mainly secondary-school audiences, as the author may have been compelled to simplify or omit more complex theories in order to improve the article’s clarity. Moreover, the author is a specialist in the Spanish Civil War History rather than 20th-Century Russian History, and may rely on secondary sources more than personal interpretations of the situation.
1921 “Report of the Committee to Collect Information on Russia”
The origin of this source is a UK government committee chaired by the Rt. Hon. Lord Emmott and convened in May 1921 to compile a comprehensive report on the situation in Russia during the Civil War. The result was then presented to the British Parliament for the purpose of informing its decisions on national policy. Consequently, the report’s origin ensures its factual reliability as the information would have been rigorously researched and collated as a government publication.
The value of this source lies in its purpose and origin as it provides direct insight into the political factors that influenced the Allied governments’ actions, in addition to accurate information on the political atmosphere in Russia. However, the source is also limited by its subjective origin: the conclusions it draws from the factual information collected could have been selected to ensure that the British government acted in a certain manner. As select committees tend exist in order to advise the government on a particular action, there conclusions can often be about proving a political point of view rather than objectively seeing the truth.