Embedded Files
If you think about it, when information is disseminated in sources, it happens in two phases. Some sources document and disseminate brand-new, completely original information that has just come into existence. We call these sources primary sources.
Then, over time, authors will take information from primary sources and summarize, synthesize, interpret, or analyze that information. That work will also get published in sources, but we call them secondary sources.
So, these two phases of information dissemination have their own special names: 'primary' and 'secondary.'
What kind of source can be a primary source? Any book, website, magazine article, journal article, letter, diary entry, artwork, poem, photo, etc. could be a primary source. What would make it a primary source is that it documents original information that didn't previously exist in any other form – at the time it was published or created.
Meanwhile, secondary sources are those that take pre-existing information (from primary sources and/or from other secondary sources) and then analyze, synthesize, summarize, or interpret that information. Secondary sources can take many of the same forms as primary sources insofar as they can be books, websites, magazine articles, journal articles, etc. However, unlike primary sources, they are not providing the first recorded documentation of new information, but rather they provide an analyses or interpretation of pre-existing information.
You may be thinking: "Who cares whether a source is primary or secondary?"
You may be thinking: "Who cares whether a source is primary or secondary?"
Well, sometimes researchers care. At times, researchers want to examine original, primary sources for themselves and come up with their own interpretation or synthesis of that material. For example, take a look at the book to the right and its description. The author of this book (Joseph Kelly) re-examined primary sources (like letters, diaries, etc.) to come up with his own interpretation of the history of Jamestown.
The book he created is a secondary source. Secondary sources are the result of someone examining primary sources and putting their own spin on that material.
But, let's say you are a historian and you read Joseph Kelly's book and you suspect he might be wrong about some things. In that case YOU'D want to go back and examine primary sources for yourself. You see?
In Marooned, Joseph Kelly reexamines the history of Jamestown and comes to a radically different and decidedly American interpretation of these first Virginians.
In this gripping account of shipwrecks and mutiny in America's earliest settlements, Kelly argues that the colonists at Jamestown were literally and figuratively marooned, cut loose from civilization, and cast into the wilderness. The British caste system meant little on this frontier: those who wanted to survive had to learn to work and fight and intermingle with the nearby native populations. Ten years before the Mayflower Compact and decades before Hobbes and Locke, they invented the idea of government by the people. 150 years before Jefferson, they discovered the truth that all men were equal.
The epic origin of America was not an exodus and a fledgling theocracy. It is a tale of shipwrecked castaways of all classes marooned in the wilderness fending for themselves in any way they could--a story that illuminates who we are today.
In this gripping account of shipwrecks and mutiny in America's earliest settlements, Kelly argues that the colonists at Jamestown were literally and figuratively marooned, cut loose from civilization, and cast into the wilderness. The British caste system meant little on this frontier: those who wanted to survive had to learn to work and fight and intermingle with the nearby native populations. Ten years before the Mayflower Compact and decades before Hobbes and Locke, they invented the idea of government by the people. 150 years before Jefferson, they discovered the truth that all men were equal.
The epic origin of America was not an exodus and a fledgling theocracy. It is a tale of shipwrecked castaways of all classes marooned in the wilderness fending for themselves in any way they could--a story that illuminates who we are today.
On the other hand, sometimes it's secondary sources that you want and need, not primary sources. A great example of a very useful secondary source is an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles take information that's come from other sources to present a summary of that information so you can more quickly and easily learn about a topic. So Wikipedia articles do not provide readers with brand new information that's never before been released upon the world. That's why Wikipedia is a secondary source and not a primary source.
Another good example of a secondary source is a college textbook, and you see some examples below. In order to learn fundamentals, it is a gazillion times easier and more effective to read an overview, synthesis, and summary of information (taken from primary sources). This is exactly what college textbooks do. Hurrah for secondary sources!
QUESTION 1. Wikipedia articles are:
A. primary sources
B. secondary sources
(Answer at bottom of page.)Think of primary and secondary sources in this way:
Think of primary and secondary sources in this way:
Sometimes we need information that is raw and unsynthesized and untainted by anyone else's interpretation or analysis. We find this in primary sources. And, sometime it's helpful to have information that's already pre-processed and synthesized or analyzed for us. We find this in secondary sources.
And now some awful, horrible news.
And now some awful, horrible news.
What's considered a primary source or a secondary source depends on the discipline. Take a look at the definitions below for more information!
PRIMARY SOURCES IN THE SCIENCES AND APPLIED SCIENCES include the first documented announcement of results from a research project. Think of it this way: Original = Primary = First.
Examples: journal articles that describe the results of a research project (a.k.a. research articles, or primary articles), conference papers, data sets
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SECONDARY SOURCES IN THE SCIENCES AND APPLIED SCIENCES include anything that analyzes, digests, or interprets pre-existing information. Think of it this way: Not original = Secondary = Not first.
Examples: review articles, systematic review articles, textbooks, encyclopedia entries, newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, etc.
PRIMARY SOURCES IN THE HUMANITIES include original, first-hand accounts of an event, or content written at the time of an event, or original, creative output. Think of it this way: Original = Primary = First.
Examples: letters, diaries, autobiographies, interviews, art, photos, films, music, newspaper articles written at the time of the event, etc.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SECONDARY SOURCES IN THE HUMANITIES include anything that analyses, digests, or interprets pre-existing information. Think of it this way: Not original = Secondary = Not first.
Examples: journal articles, textbooks, encyclopedia entries, newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, etc.
However, even within disciplines, not everyone agrees on what constitutes a primary or secondary source. For example, some scientists and applied scientists would consider certain types of review articles, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses to be more like primary sources than secondary sources. And some scientists and applied scientists consider raw data to be the only type of primary source – everything else is a secondary source.
Nevertheless, if you are doing research in the sciences, engineering, or in some of the social sciences – or, if instead you are doing research in the humanities, such as history or art, then follow the guidelines shown above to understand what constitutes a primary and secondary source.
ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT NOT ALL INSTRUCTORS ARE AWARE OF THE DISCIPLINARY DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES. SO, IF YOUR INSTRUCTOR IS GIVING YOU INSTRUCTIONS THAT DON'T FIT WITH WHAT YOU'VE READ ON THIS PAGE, CONTACT A LIBRARIAN TO ASK FOR HELP.
QUESTION 2. Whether a source is primary or not has less to do with the type of source (book, article, website, etc.) or its qualities (credible, scholarly, peer-reviewed) but whether it records brand new information that's never been recorded before.
true
false
Ok, so what did you get out of Lesson 3?
Ok, so what did you get out of Lesson 3?
You should be able to identify whether a particular source is scholarly and/or peer-reviewed.
You should be able to describe how peer-review works and why it's important.
You should be able to distinguish a popular source from a scholarly source.
You should be able to articulate what a credible source is.
You should be able to explain the difference between primary and secondary sources.
You are finished with Lesson 3.
You are finished with Lesson 3.
What's next?
What's next?
1) You can proceed to Lesson 4, or if you need to show you've mastered this lesson, you must take the test.
2) To take the tests associated with this lesson, go to the LINKS TO ALL TESTS page and follow the instructions you see there. You should also DOCUMENT YOUR COMPLETION of tutorial tests.
3) Before you take the tests and/or move on to the next lesson, please fill out the adjacent survey to share your thoughts about Lesson 3! Note that the survey is anonymous so your name and email are not being collected or shared.
THANK YOU!!
THANK YOU!!
Answers to questions on this page:Question 1. BQuestion 2. true
Report abuse