Notes on How to Read Primary Sources
(thanks to my primary source, Pablo Silva
of
There are 2
things you should be looking for when you read.
(1) the
information, direct and indirect, it provides; and
(2) any
bias that might skew or distort the information.
(1).
Information: what to look for in a document
a. first ask: what is the main point of the document? What
did you learn from reading it?
b. what does
the document say about the people, places, events, activities, beliefs, and the
nature of the society that is being described?
c. what does
this information in the document tell you about the author of the document?
(2). Validity:
how to assess the accuracy and reliability of document
a. who is the
author of the document?
b. might the
author have any bias or axe to grind? If so, to what extent might this lessen
the validity of the document? Is there a
possibility of censorship? What about
self- censorship (consider the intended audience)
c. where and
how does the author get his information? That is, was s/he an eye-witness to
whatever is being described or did s/he gather the information via word of
mouth or in another indirect way? Was the
information recorded immediately or only after the fact?
d. to what
extent does the author know and understand the people, events, activities, or
beliefs s/he is conveying? In other words, is s/he a "cultural
insider" or "cultural outsider"?
e. Something I
(MJR) will add to Pablo Silva’s list is a key point that Davidson and Lytle emphasize
over and over, but which bears repeating. You can’t assume that “being there”
makes a source more credible or reliable. Serving in the Nixon White House, for
instance, would not necessarily make one a more reliable source about
Watergate. It might simply give the source a strong reason to shade the truth. And
being in the streets of