Reporting on evidence analysis

History-Hunter, are you thinking about the labels of the Evidence Analysis Process Map? Ie., original vs. derivative, primary vs. secondary, direct vs. indirect?

If so, as we report our findings, then no: we don't fill our reports with "Here we have a this, this, and that. But this other source's information give us a that, that, and this."

To borrow from the introduction to QuickLesson 17:

Sources give us information, from which we identify evidence. All undergo the evaluation process to produce proof.

Users of Evidence Explained well know this mantra. The Evidence Analysis Process Map lays it out in a tidy graphic on EE’s flyleaf. Fig. 1, in this lesson, gives the newly expanded version.¹

So how does this mantra fit into our daily work? Is it just an esoteric theory for eggheads? Is it jargon we can handily throw around if we want to impress teachers, students, or clients? Is it a formula we follow if we want certification in a research field? Or an easy way to eliminate all the angst involved in evidence analysis?

EE hopes you answered: None of the above. Using the Evidence Analysis Process Map is akin to using the structure of our native language. As youth, we learned the parts of speech that serve as a framework for communication: nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, prepositions, conjunctions, etc. Once we learned those labels, we did not start hanging them onto every word we uttered. Yet the extent to which we understand those basic parts of speech will determine how successfully we communicate.

So it is with historical research and analysis. When we report our findings and conclusions, we do not artificially peg labels onto every “fact” or assertion we make. Nonetheless, the extent to which we understand the language and structure of evidence analysis will determine the success of our research.

QuickLesson 17 will give you that foundation.

Yes, History-Hunter. It's a process we go through mentally to evaluate the reliability of a piece of information. Analysts, in research reports or case studies will make references to, say, a derivative source or primary (firsthand) information, or direct evidence, when needed to explain the strengths and weaknesses of their evidence. But they don't hang labels, like ornaments on a Christmas tree, on every piece of evidence they present.