When you are analysing a source, it is helpful to compare what information it provides when compared with other sources. This helps you to more successfully evaluate your sources, especially in regards to their accuracy.
Corroboration is the ability to compare information provided by two separate sources and find similarities between them.
When a second source provides the same or similar information to the first, the second source is considered to corroborate (e.g. support, or agree with) with the first.
Finding corroboration between sources strengthens your conclusions, especially when you are making a historical argument.
When choosing sources to corroborate, pick those that are deemed particularly reliable, which adds further certainty to your claims.
In order to identify information that is agreed upon by two different sources, following these steps:
To help you complete the above steps successfully, you can use a Venn Diagram or a table like the one below, to organise your thoughts:
|Information Found in Source 1||Information Found in Source 2||Information Found in Both Sources|
If, in the process of finding corroboration between sources, you find that the two sources provide information that is different to each other, you have potentially discovered contradiction between them. This is another source analysis skill and you can find out more about contradiction here.
Demonstrating source corroboration in your writing:
Smith says that “the Spartans’ victory was dependent upon their superior military training” (1981, 31), which is supported by Jones who says that “the Persians could not match the Spartan’s disciplined tactics” (1994, 56-62).
Influential anti-imperialist writers Chomsky and Blum say the same thing: violence should not be used by anti-US campaigners (Chomsky, 1998, 34; Blum, 2006, 112).
Chomsky and Blum, influential anti-imperialist writers, have both cautioned members of more extremist anti-US movements against violence (Chomsky, 1998, 34; Blum, 2006, 112).