Group Research, Oral History and Authenticity
A group of four Level 3 Art History students is researching a 1919 local war memorial and its changing meanings. Each student must submit an individual research report, but they share sources. One student recorded a 25-minute interview with a 92-year-old descendant who says the memorial’s inscription was altered in 1952 after a dispute over which names should appear. The council’s official records say the alteration was in 1948. Another student wants to use an AI-generated transcript summary of the interview as a primary source because the recording is hard to hear. The group has 10 school days left and one 20-minute check-in with the teacher. Their shared source file contains 18 items, including council minutes, newspaper clippings, photographs, and the interview recording. The teacher has emphasised authenticity and individual contribution.
1. How should the group handle the date conflict between the oral history and the council record?
Read the worked answer
Do not assume one source must be wrong. The council may have approved a change in 1948, with the physical alteration completed or a second change made in 1952. The descendant may be recalling a later reordering of names, or family memory may compress events. The group should check council minutes for both years, newspaper reports, and photographs of the inscription before and after. In each individual report, present the disagreement and explain which source supports which date. Use phrasing such as ‘official records date the alteration to 1948, while the descendant recalls 1952’. That is more accurate than choosing the official record simply because it is official. The conflict itself is evidence of how memorial meanings are contested.
2. Evaluate the proposal to use an AI-generated transcript summary as a primary source.
Read the worked answer
An AI-generated summary is a derived aid, not a primary source. The primary source is the 25-minute recording and the interviewee’s spoken words. The summary may mistranscribe names, dates, and tone, and it may omit hesitations that matter. The student should use the audio as the evidence, make a verbatim transcript of key passages, and check the AI summary against the recording. If the group discloses that AI was used to draft a summary, that is acceptable as a tool, but the report must cite the recording and the timecodes. The teacher’s authenticity rules should be checked. Using the summary as if it were the interview would misrepresent the evidence and weaken the source evaluation.
3. What should each student do to ensure individual contribution is visible?
Read the worked answer
Each student needs a distinct research question and a visible evidence trail. The group can share a source file, but each report should annotate the sources it actually uses, with notes on reliability and relevance. Keep a contribution log: who recorded the interview, who checked the council minutes, who obtained images, and who wrote which analysis. In the report, cite shared sources properly and separate individual argument from group description. The 20-minute check-in is a chance to show drafts and source notes, not just a plan. If two students use the same interview, they should analyse it for different purposes-for example, one for family memory and one for the politics of inscription. This prevents copying and makes individual thinking visible.