Of all fields of historical enquiry, Germany’s Third Reich is perhaps the richest in sources and historiography. Therefore, it is logical to assume that this is where we see history done at its best. The chief interest of this dissertation is how historians select their sources and how they use the evidence they find in their sources. I have taken relations between Jewish Germans and non-Jewish Germans as a case study because of the enormous quantity of primary source material and because so many historians have commented on the issue. I do not attempt to make any claims about what happened between Jewish Germans and their non-Jewish compatriots nor do I make a moral assessment of behaviours and attitudes among the ‘ordinary’ people of Germany under the Third Reich. Rather, this is a technical exercise to examine how well the historians have done history in this particular area. My systematic review of the historians’ methodologies reveals that many either distort the evidence they cite or put forward arguments that go well beyond what the evidence warrants, perhaps because of pre-conceived theories which shape their approaches to the evidence. Moreover, they fail to make the best possible use of some types of source such as personal narratives. In order to ascertain whether these sources can be better used, I systematically analyse a selection of personal narratives which are sometimes quoted by historians, in particular the 1933-1945 diaries of Victor Klemperer. My question is: Do these testimonies really say what the historians claim they say about relations between Jewish and non-Jewish Germans? And if not, how can we analyse them to determine what they actually do say? The two kinds of problems which emerge are how to select a balanced range of sources and how to use them properly. My argument is that there are six methodological principles that should underpin good historical practice. Because historians are not scrupulous to apply these common-sense rules, their arguments are methodologically flawed and they do not use some sources to the full extent of their value. This raises the question of whether these problems are confined to this particular field or whether they are endemic to the history profession as a whole.

This is an action-oriented study aimed at designing a practical methodology for generating evidence backed solutions for practical problems by means of literature review. Three iterations of systematic review are applied which evaluates different search strategies and reporting structures to provide a framework for an ideation technique. Resulting in an adaptation of a previously used framework which can be deployed to different extents that appears to result in design propositions alongside individual interventions.

Cette recherche porte sur l’évaluation d’une plateforme numérique, nommée Mylin, relayant des connaissances ainsi que des outils en santé mentale supportés par la science. Les interventions sur la plateforme sont accompagnées d’une description de leurs objectifs et de leur efficacité, qui est évaluée lors de la recension des écrits effectuée par le comité scientifique de Mylin. La plateforme est destinée au grand public et aux professionnels et a l’objectif d’aider ces derniers à prendre des décisions plus éclairées en s'appuyant sur des informations valides. Ce mémoire explore plus particulièrement les retombées associées à l’utilisation de Mylin selon les professionnels et les intervenants s’en servant dans le cadre de leur pratique ainsi que les facteurs pouvant influencer ces retombées. L’utilité de la plateforme a été examinée en fonction des différentes professions et des différents niveaux de littératie numérique en santé. Neuf professionnelles ont été interviewées et ont répondu à l’échelle mesurant le niveau de littératie numérique en contexte de santé (LNS). L’analyse descriptive effectuée sur les réponses à l’échelle mesurant le niveau de LNS a dévoilé que l’échantillon se composait majoritairement de participantes avec un niveau considéré comme élevé de littératie numérique. L’analyse thématique des entrevues a révélé que Mylin pouvait être utilisée pour enrichir son bagage de connaissances, pour prendre des décisions éclairées par la science et pour se développer professionnellement grâce à ces nouveaux acquis. Néanmoins, cette utilité a semblé conditionnelle à plusieurs facteurs liés aux 1) utilisatrices et leurs milieux organisationnels (par exemple, l’intérêt porté aux connaissances issues de la recherche dans leur milieu de travail), 2) au contenu diffusé sur Mylin (par exemple, son adéquation avec les besoins des utilisatrices) et 3) à la convivialité de la plateforme. Comme la plupart des professionnelles de l’échantillon avaient un niveau élevé de LNS, les comparaisons d’expériences entre les professionnelles ayant une littératie plus faible et plus élevée n'ont pas permis d’établir des tendances claires quant au lien entre la LNS et la perception d’utilité de Mylin. / This research assessed a digital platform, named Mylin, disseminating mental health evidence-based knowledge and interventions. The knowledge disseminated is about various adaptation difficulties that can interfere with the well-being and functioning of the neurodivergent population. The interventions on the platform are accompanied by a description of their objectives and their effectiveness, which is evaluated during the literature review carried out by the scientific committee of Mylin. The platform is intended for the public and professionals and aims to help them make more informed decisions based on valid information. This project explores more specifically the benefits associated with the use of Mylin according to the professionals and stakeholders using it in the context of their practice as well as the factors that can influence these benefits. The usefulness of the platform was examined in relation to different professions and different levels of digital health literacy. Nine professionals were interviewed and responded to the scale measuring the level of eHealth literacy. According to the descriptive analysis performed on the responses to the scale measuring the level of eHealth literacy, the sample was composed of a majority of participants with a level considered high in eHealth literacy. The thematic analysis of the interviews revealed that Mylin could be used to, among other things, enrich one's stock of knowledge, to make decisions informed by science and to develop professionally thanks to these new skills. Nevertheless, this usefulness appeared to be conditional on several factors related to 1) the users and their organizational backgrounds (for example, the interest taken in scientific evidence by the workplace), 2) the content disseminated on Mylin (for example, its adequacy with the needs of users) and 3) the user-friendliness of the platform. Since most of the professionals in the sample had a high level of eHealth literacy, comparisons of experiences between professionals with lower and higher literacy do not allow us to establish clear trends as to the link between this factor and Mylin's perception of usefulness.