HSC Stuff > HSC Modern History
Source Analysis Tips and Tricks to get a Band 6
sudodds:
--- Quote from: isabel_lorenz1 on July 28, 2016, 09:33:53 am ---Hi,
for Source Analysis, under which part of the aconym (we used TOMAC) should we talk about the possibility of bias & how that affects reliability ?
--- End quote ---
heya! I know this doesn't really answer your question, but I thought I might be able to give you (and everyone else) a few helpful tips about using the term "bias" in a source analysis :)
1. NEVER mention bias without explaining it, and don't blanketly state that it hinders reliability. Remember every source is biased. Everyone that reads a source is biased. Bias isn't always a bad thing, and can actually be very useful to a historian.
2. Wherever possible, use the terms "underlying ideology" or "underlying agenda" instead of bias. It sounds more sophisticated, and it will enable you to avoid the odd marker who doesn't like the term bias due to the very reason I stated above, and because a lot of teachers think it is a "junior history" term.
3. When discussing bias (or now the "underlying ideology/agenda/motive/etc." ;)) and its relation to reliability, break it into two sections
* Factual Reliability
* Reliability as evidence
Thus, the underlying ideology of the source may make the source "factually" unreliable, but still reliable as "evidence" of the various attitudes/actions/ideas/etc of the time.
Hope this helps :) Good luck everyone with trials!
Emerald99:
Thank you! But i was wondering if when we're answering the perspective/reliability question are we allowed to contradict ourselves and say it has reliability in b/c its primary however it may have limited reliability b/c it contains elements of bias? Or would that just make my answer confusing?
sudodds:
--- Quote from: Emerald99 on September 28, 2016, 07:36:51 pm ---Thank you! But i was wondering if when we're answering the perspective/reliability question are we allowed to contradict ourselves and say it has reliability in b/c its primary however it may have limited reliability b/c it contains elements of bias? Or would that just make my answer confusing?
--- End quote ---
Hey I might be able to help :) Yes that would be fine, but only if you make a differentiated judgement/overall judgement. This type of answer is considered to be highly sophisticated, however depending upon the wording it can get confusing. Try to avoid saying "reliable" and "limited reliability" in the same sentence, as to many markers - who are overworked, tired, and who are sadly not going to look at your paper for very long - it'll look like you are just sitting on the fence. My teacher suggests doing it this way:
Instead of saying: Source A is reliable as it is a primary source, but it has limited reliability because it contains elements of bias.
*side note, be careful about making these kinds of judgements unless you explicitly support them. Being a primary source does not automatically mean that it is reliable, just as bias does not automatically make it unreliable (see my previous post :)) Instead of just saying "primary source" be more specific about what aspects make it reliable, such as it being made "in close proxemity to the events in question" or something along those lines. I'm going to stick to your original wording in my example, but just keep this stuff in mind.
Say this: Source A, despite containing elements of bias, is highly reliable as it is a primary source OR Source A is only partially reliable, as despite being a primary source, it contains clear elements of bias. OR Though Source A contains elements of bias, overall Source A is highly reliable due to its nature as a primary source.
See this difference? Even if there is evidence to suggest that it is both reliable and unreliable, you have to make a judgement as to which side it leans more towards - eg. overall highly reliable (btw make sure to include these judgement words such as highly, partially, limited, etc. as you're not necessarily assessing whether it is reliable, but moreso to what extent it is reliable). It's all about judgements in modern history, so just make sure that there is no way that they can think that you are somehow sitting on the fence.
I hope this helped :) I'm by no means an expert so take this advice with a grain of salt, but I have been blessed with an amazing teacher, and the opportunity to speak with Bruce Dennett (the guy who wrote the syllabus and was a senior maker for years) a few times, and these were some of the tips that I have picked up that have really helped :)
birdwing341:
--- Quote from: Emerald99 on September 28, 2016, 07:36:51 pm ---Thank you! But i was wondering if when we're answering the perspective/reliability question are we allowed to contradict ourselves and say it has reliability in b/c its primary however it may have limited reliability b/c it contains elements of bias? Or would that just make my answer confusing?
--- End quote ---
Sudodds has got some great stuff there :) But I do want to say that Modern History examiners detest when you say the source is reliable because it's a primary source, because some primary sources are reliable and others are not. So for your own good, it's best not to mention that. I generally like to mention that it is a primary/secondary source in my opening sentence to get that out of the way, leaving room for more evaluative comments such as talking about bias. But when you do talk about bias, you want to be careful that you are describing the type of bias that the source has and the impact it might have on the reliability. Just like above, you can't say This source is unreliable because it is biased because every source is biased in some way :)
Emerald99:
Thank you suddods and birdwing!(that felt really weird to type:P) I really appreciate the help:)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version