Planning an inquiry into the 1951 waterfront dispute
A Level 2 student has six weeks and 2,000 words to carry out an inquiry into the 1951 waterfront dispute. Their first question is: “Was the 1951 waterfront dispute a victory for the government or a disaster for workers?” The teacher says this is too binary and too broad. The student has access to a digital newspaper archive, the Alexander Turnbull Library’s finding aids, two union newsletters from 1951, a 1990 interview with a retired watersider, and a local museum’s collection of photographs. They must also give a 10-minute oral presentation. The dispute lasted 151 days and involved emergency regulations, a lockout, and widespread public debate. The student is worried that the sources are “all biased” and wants to give up on the inquiry. The teacher replies that the inquiry should be manageable, arguable and grounded in evidence.
1. Rewrite the student’s question into a narrower historical inquiry question and explain why your version is more useful.
Read the worked answer
Original: ‘Was the 1951 waterfront dispute a victory for the government or a disaster for workers?’ That is a closed either/or question; it invites a verdict rather than an inquiry, and ‘workers’ is too broad. A better question: ‘How did the 151-day 1951 waterfront dispute affect the daily lives and public standing of watersiders’ families in one port, and why did those effects differ between union members and non-union workers?’
This is narrower (one port, families, a time frame), arguable (effects could be mixed), and sourceable (union newsletters, newspapers, an interview, museum photographs). It also forces the student to define ‘affect’ - income, housing, schooling, stigma, community status - rather than just narrate the dispute.
A second option: ‘Why did the 1951 emergency regulations change public attitudes to the watersiders’ union?’ That focuses on consequence and public debate. Either version is manageable in 2,000 words and can be presented in 10 minutes. The key improvement is that the question asks ‘how’ and ‘why’, not ‘who won’.
2. The student says all sources are biased. Explain how they should select and use sources for this inquiry, including at least two types.
Read the worked answer
‘Bias’ is not a reason to give up; it is a reason to ask what a source was made to do. A union newsletter from 1951 is produced to mobilise members, so it is strong evidence of the union’s arguments, morale and internal language, but weak evidence of what opponents thought. A 1990 interview with a retired watersider is shaped by memory and by the outcome of the dispute, so it is strong evidence of lived experience and later meaning, but not of crowd numbers or government motives. A digital newspaper archive shows public debate and language, but editorials have owners and audiences.
The student should select sources that cover different positions - union, employer/government, public, and later memory - and corroborate claims across them. They should keep a source log recording provenance, purpose, audience, date and usefulness. Photographs from the museum can show pickets, crowds and policing, but they need captions and context.
The inquiry should argue from a web of evidence, not search for one unbiased source.
3. Identify one ethical or practical issue in using the 1990 interview and explain how the student should manage it.
Read the worked answer
One ethical issue is informed consent and vulnerability. The retired watersider may be elderly, may be discussing a traumatic defeat, and may not fully understand how a school inquiry or oral presentation will be shared. The student should check that consent was given for educational use, explain the purpose and audience, and allow the interviewee to withdraw or anonymise.
A practical issue is memory: the interview was recorded in 1990, nearly 40 years after the dispute, so specific dates and numbers may be unreliable. The student should not treat the interview as a factual record of the 151 days; use it for experience, emotion and retrospective interpretation, and check factual claims against the 1951 newsletters and newspaper reports.
They should also note who is not represented: non-union workers, women, Māori and Pacific workers may be absent. A short methods paragraph in the inquiry should state these limits. This turns an ethical problem into a strength: the student shows awareness of how oral history is produced.