Teach & case

Help a near-peer reason through the idea — when you explain it, you understand it best — then read the real decision it comes from.

A real case · you decide

Sam and the pamphlet that praised the factory

Sam — a student historian researching what working conditions were really like in a 1800s factory town

The idea in play: judging a source by HIPP (historical context · intended audience · purpose · point of view) + the question — not treating a primary source as automatically true.

Sam's research question: what were conditions like for workers in the mill? Sam finds a glowing primary-source pamphlet from the era describing clean workrooms and happy employees, and figures: "It's a primary source, written at the time — so it's reliable evidence for what conditions were like." Is that a safe conclusion?

"Primary" means firsthand, not "true." Before trusting it, run HIPP: the historical Context it was made in, its Intended audience, its Purpose, and the author's Point of view. Those decide what the source can and can't be trusted for.

This pamphlet was written by the mill OWNER to attract investors and customers. Its purpose (promotion) and point of view (the person with a stake) make it unreliable for "what conditions were like for workers" — but it's excellent evidence for a DIFFERENT question: "how did the owner want the public to see the mill?"

Sam wants to cite the pamphlet as proof conditions were good, "because it's a primary source from the time." Sound?

Once Sam learns the owner wrote it to lure investors, should Sam throw the pamphlet out as useless?

Sam's method is two questions before any citation: what does HIPP say about this source, and reliable for WHAT question? "It's a primary source" is never the end of the analysis — it's the beginning.

Weigh a source yourself at the bench →