Appendix 1 1(b), 1(c) - Evaluating qualitative sources and place representations

Provenance and fitness for purpose

A source is useful when it can answer the particular geographical question being asked, within its limits.

Begin with the question: “What does this source provide evidence of?” A resident's oral account can show how that person remembers using a place. It cannot by itself count how many residents share that experience. A newspaper report can identify a dispute and quote players; its headline, selection of speakers and news values shape the story. A promotional photograph can show visible facilities while its selection aims to attract investment. Purposeful selection is not automatically falsification. It changes the claims the evidence can support.

Check creator, intended audience, date of production and date of the event described. A photograph uploaded in 2026 may have been taken in 2018. An online repost may remove its original caption or location. Identify what is known and what is missing, rather than guessing provenance from appearance. Check whether an apparent second source independently gathered evidence or simply repeats the first.

For a question about current public access, a recent account from an identified user with a clear interview method may be more relevant than an older regional news story. For a question about changing place identity, the older story may be valuable historical evidence. Primary means directly produced for the enquiry, whereas secondary means already produced for another purpose. Neither label guarantees quality. Your own hurried observation may be less accurate for a particular claim than a carefully documented secondary survey.

Source evaluation should name a feature, explain its consequence and bound the use. “This source is biased” is incomplete. “The investment brochure selected the café frontage; it can show the facilities promoted to investors but cannot establish residents' satisfaction across the whole square” identifies both value and limit.

Voice, language and missing perspectives

Textual and creative sources communicate meanings through both what they say and how they choose to say it.

The following original fictional source pack concerns the same square in an imaginary town. Its dates are part of the teaching scenario, not actual collection dates.

A frames change as an opportunity for businesses and new visitors. Its welcoming language does not demonstrate equal access. B expresses a mixed view: environmental appearance and social use differ. C's headline expands one person's concern into a story about division; because it draws on B, it is not independent corroboration of widespread disagreement. D conveys belonging and memory. Its “hundred stories” is creative language, not a count of bench users. The gap between its 2010 date and the other sources matters when interpreting change. E gives evidence of the positive identity the café promotes; selection of customer posts and non-user absence limit any population claim.

Look for the speaker's position, the people named or absent, evaluative terms such as “renewal” or “decline”, and the distinction between a reported feeling and an observed fact. A negative account can be accurate for its speaker without describing everyone. A positive account can be sincere without demonstrating overall success. Neither polished language nor emotional language settles truth.