Although arts and humanities writing is subjective, you still need to defend your position. Your task is to use the text or work as a starting point for a line of inquiry. Your writing may consider many different angles, including the content, language and tone; references within the work; and historical and cultural context.

Some subdisciplines can produce writing that appears to stand alone and requires little in the way of explicit sources, such as writing in philosophy with a focus on abstractions (although, even in this case, there is a tradition of thought that informs the writing). Other subdisciplines rely on a wide variety of sources. For example, in history and cultural studies, primary and secondary sources of many kinds – from private journals to institutional records such as censuses – are examined to inform interpretations. 

As you assess the raw material, you may select information that supports your proposition and illustrates your interpretation. This selection does not have to be systematic. In scientific writing, a nonsystematic method of selecting supporting information would be rightly criticised as ‘cherry picking’. Arts and humanities writers must flesh out their interpretation persuasively and be honest and forthright about their sourcing, but do not have an ethical obligation to communicate in a systematic way.

Note: Although most arts and humanities writing does not lend itself to providing a ‘proof’, one exception must be noted: the formal language used for proofs or refutations in philosophical logic. These differ from the arguments presented in other arts and humanities contexts because they are presented as a self-contained series of statements that, taken together, aim to provide conclusive evidence for a logical position. Proofs are only as valid as the statements that form them, and can only show what can be proven within a paradigm.

Arts and humanities writing highlights a particular viewpoint to the exclusion of others. The challenge for writers is to keep their primary viewpoint front of mind, acknowledge how it colours their interpretation, and consider whether another angle would allow them to understand the material more fully.

This is particularly important for history writers, who must bear in mind that ‘history is written by the victors’. For example, the writing of early Australian historians was framed by perspectives that would be alien or unacceptable to most readers and writers today. Consider the source as you write:

• What are the source’s values and perspectives? (Do they implicitly endorse ideas that should be challenged?)
• Who are they writing for?
• Who and what are they including and leaving out?

As we examine historical source material, we bring a modern lens to our reading, but this risks anachronistic interpretations. A modern reader of a diary from the 19th century might read stories suggesting attitudes towards women strongly at variance with modern views. Consider the norms of the time in which it was written to gain an understanding of past events through these source materials, without overlaying your interpretation with modern values.