Background info: I am writing a paper on sex workers in early 19th c. urban America (NY), and there are very few primary sources that deal directly with the lives of these women in their everyday practice. I am looking to write a paper on the experiences of these women "from the ground up" and am having trouble since what I can find is reform societies documenting anonymous cases. These societies try to sensationalize their accounts and write with the intention of fundraising, so I am having trouble separating fact from fiction. I am using the secondary literature to ground me in what we can expect is realistic in these stories, and I am looking for similarities among the stories as to lend them credibility... however, I am having trouble since there is really no way to verify stories about people so very on the margin. If this were a different subject, I could verify these stories through records, but 19th c. sex workers are elusive, to say the least.
Are there any other books (doesn't have to be same subject) or articles that explore methodology related to extrapolating stories out of very biased anonymous sources? I would like a solid methodological groundwork when I go to write my paper.
tldr: how to extract the truth out of biased sources dealing w/ anonymous subjects?
I have a degree in history, and tutor history and English literature. As such, I would recommend you initially approach it as a literary work, and then study it as a historical work.
How would you approach it as a literary work? Don't read it to analyze the history, read it to analyze the intention. Try to identify the bias that is present at first, and then look at if this bias was intentional, accidental, and why the author would have been biased. After that, try to see there are any themes in the text. The reason why should do this is because the author might have wanted to impart a particular message to audience, and so the text could have been written to promote or symbolize those themes.
Once you have done all that, then you can proceed to the historical inquiry. If you have identified the bias and thematic elements, they then become easier to separate from the facts. But even then, treat the factual aspects as what 'might be the case' as opposed to 'is the case.' There is a lot in primary in sources we unfortunately have to treat as less than substantive unless it can be verified by, or is attested, in other forms of evidence.