Key Idea: You'll get a short set of sources — usually three — all about one inquiry question, like 'How was independence achieved in Kenya?' You never answer from memory alone. Every mark comes from what the sources actually show you: their content (what they say) and their context (who made them, when, where, why).
How this topic is tested
This topic is assessed in Paper 1 — three static questions on the same source set, worth 24 marks total.
| Question | Focus | Marks | Sources used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Content — what two sources say, linked to the inquiry question | 6 | Two named sources |
| Q2 | Context — origin, purpose, time and place of one source | 6 | One named source |
| Q3 | Perspectives — how viewpoints agree, clash, or are silent across the set | 12 | All sources |
For Q1, never just retell a source's story. State the point, quote or paraphrase the exact detail, then explain HOW it answers the inquiry question. For Q2, always finish with 'so what?' — how does the origin/purpose/timing shape the source's value or limits? For Q3, don't just say sources 'disagree' — explain WHY, using each author's position and purpose.
Must-know facts — the one skill this topic teaches
Topic 2.3 has a single micro (2.3.1), but it packs in everything you need for all three Paper 1 questions.
- Content vs context — content is WHAT a source says; context is WHO made it, WHEN, WHERE, WHY (also called origin and purpose). The same source can give you both: a French official's 1791 letter blaming 'outside agitators' for the Haitian Revolution has content (the claim itself) and context (an official protecting his own reputation, which explains why he'd downplay slavery as the real cause).
- Q1 technique (content, two sources, [6]) — Point, then precise detail, then link to the inquiry question. Worked example: for 'How was independence achieved in Kenya?', Source B (1952 Emergency declaration) shows Britain used force and law; Source C (1963 memoir by a Kenya African Union organiser) shows resistance was also political — strikes and meetings before 1952.
- Q2 technique (context, one source, [6]) — Cover origin, purpose, time and place, always ending on how this shapes the source's value or limitation. Worked example: Dessalines's 1804 Haitian Declaration of Independence, written by Haiti's new leader right after independence, aimed to legitimise the new state — powerful evidence of how Haiti's leaders wanted independence remembered, but not a neutral account of the war's human cost.
- Q3 technique (perspectives, all sources, [12]) — Identify each source's viewpoint, group agreement/conflict, explain WHY perspectives differ, then answer the inquiry question. Worked example: a 1791 French administrator's letter blames outside agitators for the Haitian Revolution; a formerly enslaved Haitian leader's account blames slavery and the demand for freedom — same event, opposite perspectives, because of who wrote each and why.
- Gaps count as perspectives too — if no source represents, say, ordinary Kikuyu women during the Mau Mau Uprising, naming that absence is itself a Q3-worthy observation.
- Kenya case study threaded through all three questions — Mau Mau Uprising (1952-1960) pressured Britain militarily; the Lancaster House Conferences (1960-1963) delivered self-government and Jomo Kenyatta's leadership through negotiation. A strong Q3 answer shows independence came through BOTH routes, using the sources' clashing perspectives as evidence.
Modelled exam question — Q3 perspectives [12]
Examine how the perspectives of the sources can be used to answer the question: How was independence achieved in Kenya?
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Important: Writing 'this source is biased' and stopping there earns almost nothing. Every mention of bias, gap, or disagreement MUST say whose side it favours and how that shapes what a historian can or can't learn from it.
Self-test
What's the difference between content and context? Content is WHAT a source says — its claims and details. Context is WHO made it, WHEN, WHERE, and WHY — its origin and purpose. The same source gives you both.
How many sources does Q1 use, and how many marks? Q1 uses TWO named sources and is worth 6 marks — you must show real depth (point, detail, link) on both, not a general summary.
How many sources does Q2 use, and what must you always end with? Q2 uses ONE named source, worth 6 marks. Always end by saying HOW the origin, purpose, time and place shape that source's value or limitation for the inquiry question.
Why do the French administrator's 1791 letter and the formerly enslaved leader's account disagree about the Haitian Revolution? The French official was protecting his own reputation with Paris, so he blamed 'outside agitators' and stayed silent on slavery's brutality. The formerly enslaved leader was justifying the fight for liberty, so he named slavery and mistreatment as the true cause. Same event, opposite perspectives, because of who wrote each and why.
In the Kenya case study, what does Source B show and what does Source C show? Source B (the 1952 Emergency declaration) shows the British government's use of force and law against Mau Mau. Source C (a 1963 organiser's memoir) shows political resistance — strikes and meetings — before 1952. Together they show independence came through both force and negotiation.
If none of your sources represent a particular group, should you mention it? Yes — an absence of a perspective (for example, no source from ordinary Kikuyu women during Mau Mau) is itself something a historian must notice and account for, and it's a valid Q3 point.
Q1 [6] = content of two named sources, always linked back to the inquiry question. Q2 [6] = context of one named source — origin, purpose, time, place — ending on 'so what?'. Q3 [12] = perspectives across ALL sources — identify, group, explain WHY they differ, then answer the question. Never describe bias without explaining whose side it serves.