Source Evaluation

Source evaluation is cross-cutting — the skill of judging how far a source can be trusted is needed in every component:

• Component 1 (Written Exam): you evaluate the argument and evidence in the provided sources (Q2 evaluates one source; Q3 compares both).
• Component 2 (Essay): you must evaluate every source you use — justifying why it's appropriate and acknowledging its limits.
• Component 3 (Team Project): you evaluate the sources behind your researched perspective and solution.
• Component 4 (Research Report): you evaluate a wide range of sources as the core of an AO1-dominated (65%) investigation.

The core idea: weigh, don't just use. Using a source means quoting or drawing on it; evaluating it means judging how much you can trust it and how much weight it can bear. Every component rewards the second.

It is core AO1. Because AO1 (research, analysis and evaluation) is the dominant objective across the qualification, source evaluation is one of the highest-value skills you can develop. It builds directly on your research (you locate and select sources) and feeds your reasoning and writing (you use only the weight each source can bear).

Three practical parts, covered here:

1. Assess credibility, provenance, expertise and relevance.
2. Identify bias, vested interest and limitation.
3. Cross-check claims across multiple sources.

Get these right and you handle sources like a researcher — the single biggest lift to your AO1 marks across the whole course.

Evaluate every source systematically against these criteria.

Criterion	The question to ask
Credibility	Can this source be trusted overall?
Provenance	Who produced it, when, and why?
Expertise	Is the author/organisation genuinely expert in this field?
Relevance	Does it actually bear on this question/claim?
(plus) Currency	Is it up to date? Old data may not describe the present.

Provenance is more than the author's name. It asks why the source exists — its purpose. The same claim means something different from a public-health body, a consumer charity, or a manufacturer. Reading the purpose behind a source is how you begin to detect likely bias.

Expertise must be in the relevant field. A famous scientist speaking outside their specialism, or a celebrity endorsing a policy, is not an expert source on that issue. Ask whether the authority is genuine for this question.

Relevance is easy to overlook. A credible, expert source can still be irrelevant — it addresses a slightly different question, place or time. Impressive-sounding evidence that doesn't bear on your claim adds nothing.

Turn criteria into reasoned judgement, not labels. Don't just stamp a source 'reliable' or 'unreliable'. Say why: 'a peer-reviewed 2023 study (credible, expert, current, relevant) provides strong support', or 'a 2010 blog by a non-expert (dated, no expertise) carries little weight here.' A few evaluative sentences per source, woven into your work, is what earns AO1.

The second strand is identifying a source's bias, vested interest and limitations — and handling them maturely.

Bias — a one-sided slant in how a source presents an issue. Often (not always) it arises from a vested interest.

Vested interest — a personal, financial or institutional stake in a particular conclusion:

• a tobacco company on smoking; a tourism board on tourism; an advocacy NGO on its cause; a government reporting on its own policy.
• A vested interest is a reason for caution, detected via provenance (who gains from this conclusion?).

Limitation — what a source cannot do or where it falls short:

• a small or unrepresentative sample; outdated data; an unstated method; a narrow focus; selective use of evidence.

The mature approach (this earns marks):

1. A biased source is not worthless. It still shows what a perspective argues, and its data may be accurate — treat its conclusions cautiously and cross-check.
2. Keep bias separate from reliability. Bias is a slant/intent; reliability is the quality of the evidence (sample, method, currency). An honest source can be unreliable; an interested source can present accurate data.
3. Weigh the weight it can bear, rather than applying a knock-out label. 'This industry-funded source has a vested interest, so I treat its conclusions cautiously, but its underlying figures are corroborated elsewhere, so they carry some weight for X.'

Do not use 'biased' as a knock-out word. Examiner reports note that simply labelling a source 'biased' is not evaluation. Explain the slant, why it arises (the vested interest), and how it affects the weight you give the source.

The third strand is cross-checking — comparing claims across multiple sources rather than relying on one.

Why cross-check:

• Corroboration builds confidence. A claim supported by several independent, credible sources is far more reliable than one asserted by a single source.
• It exposes weak or biased claims. If only one (interested) source makes a claim, that itself is telling.
• It's how you use a biased source safely — check its data against independent sources before relying on it.

Handling conflicting sources. When credible sources disagree, don't just pick the convenient one:

1. Compare their provenance and method — why might they differ (definitions, dates, methodology, interests)?
2. Seek further sources to see which is better supported.
3. Report the conflict honestly, weighting the more credible/better-corroborated claim while acknowledging the uncertainty.

Cross-checking applies everywhere. In Component 1 you compare how the two sources treat the same issue; in Components 2–4 you corroborate claims across your researched sources. Never rest a significant claim on a single, unchecked source.

Because source evaluation is cross-cutting, the same skills apply throughout — with different emphasis.

In Component 1 (Written Exam): you evaluate the provided sources — assessing the credibility, relevance and reliability of their evidence (R-R-S), identifying bias/vested interest, and comparing the two sources (Q2 evaluates one; Q3 compares). No research, but the same evaluative criteria.

In Component 2 (Essay): you must evaluate every source you use — justify why each is appropriate and acknowledge its limitations — and evaluate sources on both sides of the debate.

In Component 3 (Team Project): you evaluate the sources behind your perspective and solution, judging how much weight your evidence can bear.

In Component 4 (Research Report): the fullest use — you evaluate a wide range of sources as the core of an AO1-dominated investigation, cross-checking and weighing them to build a credible, balanced evidence base.

The through-line: assess (credibility, provenance, expertise, relevance) → identify (bias, vested interest, limitation) → cross-check (corroborate) → weigh (how much can this source bear?). Applied consistently, this turns 'I used a source' into 'I weighed a source' — the AO1 move rewarded everywhere.

Build the habit. Evaluate every source you meet — in class, in the news, in your research — using these criteria. The more automatic your evaluation, the stronger your analysis in every component, and the harder it is to be misled by an impressive-looking but unreliable source.