Evaluating Sources and Framing Historical Enquiries

Start with the question, not the source type

A historical enquiry investigates a focused question about the past. For London during the Second World War, 1939–45, an enquiry might examine the impact of bombing on daily life, civilian morale or the use of air-raid shelters.

The question determines which evidence matters. A photograph of bomb damage could help establish the visible destruction in one street, but it would reveal much less about how residents felt. A civilian’s diary could describe fear or determination, but would not establish the total damage across London. Neither source type is automatically better: its usefulness depends on what you want to find out.

Connect content, provenance and historical context

Begin with the source’s content: what does it actually say or show that relates to the enquiry? In a written account, select a precise statement. In a photograph, identify observable details before drawing conclusions. Visible damage to buildings can support an inference about disruption, but cannot by itself establish how long residents were displaced.

Next consider provenance: who created the source, when, where and for what purpose? A London civilian writing during an air raid may offer direct evidence of personal experience. However, that person could only describe what they witnessed or heard. A memoir written much later may offer reflection on wartime experiences, but recollection can be affected by the passage of time.

Relevant historical knowledge helps explain the evidence. For example, the wartime ‘Dig for Victory’ campaign encouraged people to grow food, while rationing began in 1940. This context helps explain why accounts of growing vegetables matter to an enquiry into wartime daily life. It does not prove that every Londoner took part or experienced the campaign in the same way.

A developed judgement therefore explains what a particular detail contributes, how the source’s background affects that contribution, and what conclusion can reasonably be reached.

Weigh strengths and limitations for the enquiry

Different sources preserve different kinds of evidence. Their limitations should narrow your conclusions, not automatically lead you to discard them.

Usefulness is not the same as reliability. A government propaganda poster promoting ‘Dig for Victory’ is useful evidence of the behaviour the government wanted to encourage. It is not sufficient evidence of how many people actually grew food. Its persuasive purpose is central to interpreting it, rather than a reason to dismiss it.

Combining sources can strengthen an investigation. Council records might establish official shelter arrangements, while personal accounts help investigate how people experienced those arrangements. Agreement can support a conclusion; disagreement may reveal different experiences, dates or purposes and deserves investigation.

Turn a detail into a focused follow-up question

A follow-up enquiry starts from a particular detail and asks what more you need to discover. A productive question links that detail to the wider enquiry while keeping its place, period and subject manageable.

Consider this investigation. Suppose a wartime London account mentions a Civil Defence volunteer growing vegetables. For an enquiry into the impact of ‘Dig for Victory’, you could ask: How regularly did London Civil Defence volunteers take part in food growing during 1943?

This question follows the detail but goes beyond it. It seeks to establish whether the activity was occasional or repeated. ‘What happened during the war?’ would be too broad, while asking only the volunteer’s name would do little to investigate the campaign’s impact.

Select evidence that could answer your question

For that enquiry, a suitable source would be a diary kept by a London Civil Defence volunteer in 1943. Repeated entries could reveal how often the writer worked on an allotment and whether they regarded it as a duty or a leisure activity. A single diary would illuminate that volunteer’s involvement; further accounts would be needed before drawing conclusions about volunteers more widely.

The explanation matters as much as naming the source. Saying that a diary ‘contains information’ leaves the connection unclear. Explaining that dated entries could show the frequency of food growing identifies exactly how the evidence would answer the question.

The same principle applies to other investigations: choose local council records for questions about local provision, personal accounts for experiences, and government publicity for official messages. The strongest choice is the one whose likely contents address the particular uncertainty you want to investigate.

Judge usefulness

• Identify the precise enquiry.
• Select relevant content and explain what it reveals.
• Use provenance to assess the creator’s access, purpose and perspective.
• Apply relevant historical knowledge.
• Reach a judgement about what the source can establish and the limits of that conclusion.

Usefulness ≠ reliability: propaganda can reveal official aims without proving that those aims were achieved.

Match evidence to the investigation

• Experiences and feelings: diaries, letters, memoirs and Mass Observation reports.
• Visible conditions: photographs.
• Local provision and responses: council and Civil Defence records.
• Policies and official messages: government records and publicity.
• Public reporting: newspapers and newsreels.

Check place, date, purpose and representativeness.

Follow up a source

Relevant detail → focused question → specific source → explanation of what it could reveal.

Use additional evidence to test conclusions rather than generalising from one person, place or moment.