1. Writing an Evaluation of Source
IB Diploma Programme
Writing an Evaluation of Source

2. Overview of Evaluation
You are supposed to choose a source significant to your study and evaluate them using the 4 criteria:
origins
purpose
value
limitations. 
You are not supposed to compare these sources or focus too much on their content – instead, the information should come largely from the origin and purpose of the sources. 

3. Origins & Purpose
What the source is (ex: text, speech, video, book), when it was produced, and by whom; and why it was produced.  Sometimes there is a public reason and a private reason – explain this if necessary.  These concepts can often be combined into 1 sentence.
Example: Dizzy with success was an article published in Pravda written by Josef Stalin in March 1930 to urge a temporary halt to collectivization in the Soviet Union.

4. Values & Limitations
These are developed from the origins and purpose, which is why O + P are so important.  The date a source was produced explains context; the place of publication can also help.
Example: the source was produced in an authoritarian regime where information was tightly controlled.

5. Values
Why a historian studying the subject finds it useful.  Primary and secondary sources are equally useful, but for different reasons. 
A primary source is a record from the time that gives an indication of how the situation was perceived at the time. 
A secondary source is an analytical work that usually involves compiling a lot of information, including multiple primary and secondary sources to evaluate a topic.

6. Limitations
Issues that historians must consider when choosing to use a source.  This will vary tremendously, depending on the type of source. 
Example: A speech by Adolf Hitler on the supremacy of the German people is limited because it was meant to incite and was not based on fact. 
This does not mean that the source is useless, but that it must be put in the context of when it was delivered.

7. A Note About Bias
Students often cite’ bias’ as a limitation of a source, and while this is correct, it is an undeveloped thought.  The bias of the author must be explained for this to be a creditable reason.

8. Example Evaluation of Source
The source evaluated in depth is Mary Anderson’s 1944 address American Economic Association “The Postwar role of American women”, which was delivered in March, The origin of this source is valuable because the address was delivered by the head of the Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labor, and therefore provides an insight into the views of a well-known figure regarding women’s employment and post-war plans. Additionally, the date of delivery of the address, 1944, indicates that the source allows for a valuable understanding of contemporary views on women’s employment. However, this date is also a limitation, for it suggests that the source, having been written before the completion of the war, is likely to fail to analyze extensive research on women’s employment. In terms of origin, the source is also limited in that Anderson was herself a former factory worker and was particularly in tune to the thinking of female employees, indicating that she might have tended to shape the address according to her views, and, consequently, may have provided a slightly subjective insight into government plans. The purpose of this source is to underscore the importance of the adoption of measures to secure the position of women in the American post-war workforce. The address therefore provides a valuable insight into government plans at the time. The source is, however, limited in its purpose in that the address, having been written to convince others of Anderson’s point of view, perhaps omits some ‘inconvenient truths’ about the government’s views, merely describing encouraging plans for female workers.