Historians can use an almost infinite variety of sources in their work. These include physical remains, literary works, works of art, film and pictures, as well as the sorts of things we traditionally consider to be documents. These are primarily theoretical treatises (or excerpts from them) as in the writings of Beccaria, Mazzini, and others, contemporary accounts, and most especially documents of an immediate nature, formal or otherwise.

Documents of various types can be analyzed with different emphasis and methods, but there are some basic methods common to all.

Fundamental information
 

• Why was the document composed? Creating documents takes effort and time. Surely there must have been a reason for devoting the time and energy required to create the document under study. Is it intended to inform? Convince? Entertain? Motivate?

• What is the context of the document? What things were happening when the document was being created? What was the temper of the times?

• Who wrote the document? An individual? A group?

• Who is the intended audience? Who is supposed to receive the message? Answers to such questions can explain the form and the style of argument in the document. They can also lead you to look for the assumptions of the author (s) about the audience.

• What is going on here? What actors or institutions are at work? (Institutions include any group with a defined constituency, membership, having sources of income and a sense of survival: a nation, a legislature, a political party, labor unions, Student Senate, or individuals representing or speaking for such institutions.) What is the relations between the institutions? Who is trying to do what to whom?

Less obvious questions
 

• What type of document is this? Formal? Spontaneous? What does the form say about the intended purpose and audience?

• What assumptions and values pervade the document? Sometimes values and assumptions are explicitly stated; usually they are not, and must be inferred. To find them, look for concepts the author thinks the audience shares, emotion-laden words, superlatives, and so forth in order to get an idea of the values and assumptions of the author (s) and audience.

Critical questions
 

• Can I believe this document? Are the claims or assumptions made in it true?

• What can I learn from this document? Does it have any meaning or significance for me, personally?

These are usually designed to convince, and contain arguments constructed logically from beginning to end. For this reason, it is preferable to read the entire document, but that is often impractical. You have to hope that the editor has excerpted the most important parts and has presented them within the proper context. But you must always understand that such choices reflect the editor’s values and ideas, and these may not be yours.

Specific Instructions:

• Identify the author’s purpose. How does he propose to accomplish it? Is the author an idealist or a realist?

• Identify any unresolved inner conflicts. Is the treatise consistent and coherent, or does he change his mind or opinion in the process of creating his arguments?

• Indicate the author’s underlying values and assumptions.  Do they seem to contrast with or contradict his explicit arguments?

• Examine the author’s choice of vocabulary. Does he use emotionally charged words? Does he refer to certain concepts, people, or institutions positively? Negatively? Does this reveal something about the author’s ideology?

• What does the treatise tell you about the author?

These can be well thought out (by committees or individuals) or can be spontaneous reactions to current (and sometimes critical) events.

Specific Instructions:

• Identify the actors. What institutions or people are in play here?

• Discus the policy. What is the stated aim of the document? Who is doing what to whom? Who is being manipulated, constrained, or influenced? For what purpose? Is there any unstated policy? Sometimes, especially when the authors want to disguise their motives, some things are intentionally left unclear. Look for vagueness, when you might expect precision.

• Pick out  the values and assumptions of the author (s)? Do they conflict with the stated policy of the document?

• Look for any signs of social change. Is reference made to changed conditions within society? Have changes in different social classes or groups called forth a new policy or governmental measure?

It is necessary to emphasize that not all of these elements will always appear in the same document. You should look for them anyway. Their absence might be as important as their presence.

And when you write your document analyses, you should not use the above hints as an outline. A document analysis, like every other paper, should have an introduction where the thesis is clearly expressed, a body where the information is brought to bear and the evidence evaluated, and a conclusion. Each part should flow smoothly into the other. Work at smooth transitions.
 
 

Back to Syllabus

Back to Introductory Page