Usefulness and Reliability (1 Viewer)

[reidiate]

Sadly nearly all of these post contain factual inaccuracies.

Reliability speaks to whether or not a source can be trusted. We determine this through perspective.

Who has written the source? (Do they have reason to lie? Could they be bias? Are they to be trusted)
What have they written (Are they using emotive language? Are they commenting on official proceedings? Is it an opinion? Is it an official document such as a policy?)
Why have they written it (Are they trying to speak to a specific audience? Are they attempting
Where does it come from? (Can we trust the source? Is it propaganda? Does it come from a government with reason to lie to the people? etc)
When was it written? (At the time? Years after? Can this muddle a persons perspective?)
How is the source presented? (is it a memoir? is it primary? Is it a official document? Is it secondary? is it written? Is it a picture? Is the author trying to persuade?

To establish reliability you need to look at the validity of a source. Contrary to what has been said a subjective source is not a reliable one. In establishing reliability what we are really doing is saying... on the whole we are able to trust this source. All you need to do is apply the criteria to the source... If you answer all the above questions you then have a basis to argue for or against its reliability.

As for usefulness, reliability and usefulness are not mutually exclusive (you can have a reliable source that is not useful and a useful source which is not reliable) and not every source is useful. Why???

You are never asked the usefulness in general. You are always asked about the usefulness RELATIVE to a historian studying a particular thing. Also, the type of source can effect its usefulness..

For example, you may have a source which is a drawing of the Christmas truce by a commissioned British artist. You are asked if it is useful to a historian studying the mental condition of troops on the front.

You can argue this source is not useful. It gives no real insight into soldiers were really feeling. It was not painted by a soldier. It is an artists impression. He had not experienced what was going on on the front from teh perspective of a solider. He was simply giving HIS impression.

The source would be useful for example if the Historian was studying the commission of artists for propaganda purposes... but not to the mental condition of the troops....

 

[jamessaad]

Re: Omcap - What Is It?

OMCAP stands for
O=Origin
M=Motive
C=Content
A=Audience
P=Perspective
U=Uselfulness
R=Reliability

 

[smurfygirl]

I agree.

And, for goodness sake, don't make ridiculous comments like 'it's a primary source and is therefore reliable' - that's rubbish.

Perspective is very important and making vague comments about usefulness/reliability will not help your response.

The sources given to you will be useful - to a point. If you're asked about trench warfare and the source is a diagram, yes it's useful, but no source is going to give you the full view, they will be lacking.

You should always question reliability. Reliability is in relation to trust - can you 100% trust what is in the source? You can't even trust a photo.

The best way to do this is to practice. Make judgements, both positive and negative about the sources.

 

[Aplus]

Sadly nearly all of these post contain factual inaccuracies.

Reliability speaks to whether or not a source can be trusted. We determine this through perspective.

Who has written the source? (Do they have reason to lie? Could they be bias? Are they to be trusted)
What have they written (Are they using emotive language? Are they commenting on official proceedings? Is it an opinion? Is it an official document such as a policy?)
Why have they written it (Are they trying to speak to a specific audience? Are they attempting
Where does it come from? (Can we trust the source? Is it propaganda? Does it come from a government with reason to lie to the people? etc)
When was it written? (At the time? Years after? Can this muddle a persons perspective?)
How is the source presented? (is it a memoir? is it primary? Is it a official document? Is it secondary? is it written? Is it a picture? Is the author trying to persuade?

To establish reliability you need to look at the validity of a source. Contrary to what has been said a subjective source is not a reliable one. In establishing reliability what we are really doing is saying... on the whole we are able to trust this source. All you need to do is apply the criteria to the source... If you answer all the above questions you then have a basis to argue for or against its reliability.

As for usefulness, reliability and usefulness are not mutually exclusive (you can have a reliable source that is not useful and a useful source which is not reliable) and not every source is useful. Why???

You are never asked the usefulness in general. You are always asked about the usefulness RELATIVE to a historian studying a particular thing. Also, the type of source can effect its usefulness..

For example, you may have a source which is a drawing of the Christmas truce by a commissioned British artist. You are asked if it is useful to a historian studying the mental condition of troops on the front.

You can argue this source is not useful. It gives no real insight into soldiers were really feeling. It was not painted by a soldier. It is an artists impression. He had not experienced what was going on on the front from teh perspective of a solider. He was simply giving HIS impression.

The source would be useful for example if the Historian was studying the commission of artists for propaganda purposes... but not to the mental condition of the troops....

Good work.

 

[ccc123]

Reliabilty: Can you trust the source?

Reliability is determined my factors such as:

*Perspective: Whose it it? It is objective or subjective?

*Language: Is it factual or emotive/melodramatic?

*Language then shapes the tone. Of you have emotive language this creates a opinion based tone, which consequently creates a subjective perspective.

*Purpose/motive, origin, date of publication, audience (public/private) can also impact reliability.

*REMEMBER: Deal with perspective before reliability, because perspective impacts reliability. You need to deal with the term 'perspective' beyond merely saying 'its a British perspective' ITS ORIGIN IS NOT ITS PERSPECTIVE. To determine perspective, you analyse language, tone and content. Determining whether a source has an objective (I.e factual) or subjective (i.e opinion-based) will then assist you in determining reliability.

Usefulness: What does the source reveal?

*Although usefulness is inflluenced by reliability, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME and you can easily have a source that IS UNRELIABLE YET USEFUL. For example, if you have a British propaganda poster, its tone and purpose clearly make the source unreliable. However, this is not to say it is useless.

If the question is "Assess how useful this source would be for a historian studying British propaganda methods. Consider perspective and reliability." then the source, although perhaps unreliable, is CLEARLY USEFUL FOR THE HISTORIAN'S PURPOSE.

*Identify not merely whether theource is useful or not, but WHAT it is useful for. When assessing usefulness it is also important to consider the source's limitations.

*Generally, the source you are given would be useful for something. Why would you be given a useless sourtce in any exam?


OTHER NOTES:

*Whether a source is primary or secondary does not alone tell you anything about the reliability or usefulness. A primary source is not automatically reliable, as it may mean there is to much emotion involved, and hence may actually inhibit reliability. Do not make sweeping statements. Both reliability and usefulness are determined by a vast array or factors, not merely whether the source is primaray or secondary.

*I cannot stress the importance of dealing with perspective sufficiently, since one of our Modern teachers has been an HSC marker for 15 years and cannot begin to count teh number of students who automatically lose themselves marks because they don't deal with perspective properly, but rather just equate it with teh source's origin.

*Don't bother with little introductions. GET STRAIGHT INTO ANSWERING THE QUESTION. YOU WILL NOT GAIN ANY MARKS FOR ANY INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS, SO DON"T BOTHER.

THEY ARE A WASTE OF TIME AND PAPER.

*Be concise. THIS IS NOT ENGLISH. No one is interested in how many fancy words you know. There is no point in throwing in pompous vocuabulary like 'verisimilitude' or 'puissant'. The way to impress history examiners is to deliver as coherent response, heavy in knowledge, and sophisticated in substance rather than language.

I KNOW THIS. I WAS TOO FANCY IN MY LANGUAGE FOR QUITE A WHILE. IT DIDN'T LOSE ME MARKS, BUT IT DIDN'T GAIN ANY AND WASTED MY TIME.

Hope that helped.

 

[ccc123]

Oh yeah. I forgot

Otehr things to consider with reliability include accuracy, bias and whether it is opinion based or factual.

In terms of accuracy, this can be determined by consulting additional sources, such as teh otehr one(s) you given in teh exam. Do tehy support or contradict eachother. Also, don't be hesitant to include other sources you know of to support your argument on accuracy.

Sorry if I seem a bit forceful with my capitals but its really important people understand how to answer this question, because its the discriminator in teh source section, and the state average is 5/10.

 

[annacogs]

ALSO: when writing about usefulness, it's just as important to talk about what it DOESN'T SHOW. A picture showing women working in munitions factories is useful in determing one of the roles women played during WW1, but it doesn't show the scope of occupations, represent the number of women employed etc.
It's more important to assess the usefuilness and reliability of the source(s) you're given in detail, rather than trying to bring in your own knowledge, especially if you're unsure of it.

 

[bling05]

Our teacher has told us that everything is useful to an extent, however everything lacks in reliability as everything contains bias and everything omits something. Is she wrong?

 

[-WaxingLyrical-]

Our teacher has told us that everything is useful to an extent, however everything lacks in reliability as everything contains bias and everything omits something. Is she wrong?

No she's not wrong, but she's not entirely correct either.

Not everything is useful, you assess the usefulness of a source in relation to the topic/question you have in front of you. That's what it's dependent on.

She is right about reliatbility though - you don't assess it in black and white, it comes in shades of grey ie you can say it's fairly reliable, but any written source is written with an opinion and so is subject to the context of the author, so nothing is ever completely reliable.

The most reliable you can opt for is when the author tries to present a balanced point of view, assessing impact on 2 (or more) parties, and considering different judgments and POV's.

Did that make sense?

 

[lionking1191]

Not everything is useful, you assess the usefulness of a source in relation to the topic/question you have in front of you. That's what it's dependent on.

actually it would be pretty safe to assume that every source they give you in the hsc will be useful to a degree

 

[Von-Dyke]

The Reliability Of Sources; How To Determine Reliability/Usefulness?

What are the factors that make a source reliable? Is every source reliable for a illustrating a certain perspective/bias, but not very useful for determining the outcome/course of events etc? What determines the usefulness of a source?

=\ Help?

 

[inter108]

Re: The Reliability Of Sources; How To Determine Reliability/Usefulness?

Whether it's a primary source.

Always check the writer and year written.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

Re: The Reliability Of Sources; How To Determine Reliability/Usefulness?

Primary sources are NOT ALWAYS RELIABLE.
-.-

 

[inter108]

Re: The Reliability Of Sources; How To Determine Reliability/Usefulness?

Primary sources are NOT ALWAYS RELIABLE.
-.-

Never said all were, but Primary sources are more then likely to be reliable as its written at the time of the event.

Secondary sources have more chance of being biased and altered.

Stuff Modern

 

[Kujah]

Re: The Reliability Of Sources; How To Determine Reliability/Usefulness?

All sources are unreliable, others more to an extent.

Ultimately, decreased reliability means decreased usefulness, as the 'complete' picture isn't shown. Thats why caution and corroboration with other historical sources is needed. However, if a source is unreliable, it doesn't mean that it is complete un-useful (for a lack of a better word). For example, a propaganda poster might be biased, subjective and unreliable, but it can help show us the attitudes and sentiments of the time.

To form an opinion on the reliability and usefulness, use MOOCCA or TOMAC or other acronyms that people might suggest.

MOOCCA - motive, origin, omittences, context, content, audience

TOMAC - type, origin, motive, audience, content

And you must assess the perspective of the source as well!

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

Re: The Reliability Of Sources; How To Determine Reliability/Usefulness?

Never said all were, but Primary sources are more then likely to be reliable as its written at the time of the event.

Secondary sources have more chance of being biased and altered.

Stuff Modern

Nahhh!
=d

Primary sources are often more emotive and dont have the balance of hindsight. A primary source often can only have one perspective, one view point

secondary sources are often more detached and analytical, have the benefit of hindsight and other accounts combined to give a broader, more hollistic view. they can step back and see the big picture.

 

[inter108]

Re: The Reliability Of Sources; How To Determine Reliability/Usefulness?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_a_primary_source_always_more_reliable_than_a_secondary_source

Simply said right here enjoy

 

[Kujah]

Re: The Reliability Of Sources; How To Determine Reliability/Usefulness?

Yeah, primary sources usually have a narrower perspective, but on the other hand, secondary sources have the benefit of hindsight, and with that (in the case of memoirs), it may be used to avoid accountability/responsibility or omittences may be made. Ultimately, both are 'unreliable' because no source can be completely objective, unbiased etc etc. Whether it is the primary or secondary source that is least unreliable, thats up for debate

 

[inter108]

Re: The Reliability Of Sources; How To Determine Reliability/Usefulness?

I prefer a first hand experience of an event to study then a book written 50 years later.

But that's just me.

 

[cem]

Re: The Reliability Of Sources; How To Determine Reliability/Usefulness?

Never said all were, but Primary sources are more then likely to be reliable as its written at the time of the event.

Secondary sources have more chance of being biased and altered.

Stuff Modern

On the contrary - a primary source is more likely to be biased due to being only one person's perspective.

e.g. your account of an event at school today could be totally different to those of your peers but if the only version we have is yours then we have only one version but once we add in theirs (which makes the final account secondary) it is more likely to be reflective of the range of accounts and therefore more likely to be closer to what really happened.

One activity I do with by students is word up one of the least annoying students in the class, who also likes to sit at the back, to wait until my back is turned and then to throw as hard as they can a rubber at the board - missing my head of course. I then ask the class what happened and most of the kids, having been working quietly can honestly say that they don't know - but they are there and are primary witnesses - so I make my point that primary doesn't always give a full account. Once my 'guilty' person is revealed we then go one step further and as them to imagine what would happen if i was hit in the head and knocked unconscious - what would the principal do to the 'guilty' person - would he believe that student when he is told that I asked them to throw the rubber - what would his reaction be if I had chosen the 'troublemaker' in the class - it doesn't take them long to get the idea that primary is not always best as it is only one person's account whereas secondary allows for research and evaluating the accuracy of the individual accounts e.g. my really good student would probably be believef whereas the 'troublemaker' probably wouldn't be.

All sources are biased - the trick is to identify the bias - perspective helps do that as does the time of writing e.g. a British soldier writing after seeing his mates blown to bits on the first day of the Battle of the Somme may write a very negative account of that day but a German gunner could be writing a very positive account of the same day. They are writing about the same day and event, but from different perspectives. Both are primary but... both have a bias which is clear.