Template:Secondary source: Difference between revisions

From BitProjects
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Sources>COGDEN
Provide some citations and revise a bit. Remove some apparent OR.
Sources>K
reverting selective mass-rewrite. Do not remove reliable citation, e.g. to library and information sciences. Please feel free to re-add appropriate cites for particular scholarly specialties
Line 1: Line 1:
In [[historiography]] and other areas of [[scholarship]], a '''secondary source''' is a [[document]], [[recording]], or other source of information that cites, comments on, or builds upon information originally presented elsewhere. Secondary sources often involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of other sources. A secondary source is distinguished from a [[primary source]], which is an original source of new information or new ideas. ''Primary'' and ''secondary'' are relative terms, and any given source may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.<!--
In [[library and information science]], [[historiography]] and some other areas of [[scholarship]], a '''secondary source''' is a [[document]] or [[recording]] that relates or discusses [[information]] originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a [[primary source]], which is an original source of the information being discussed. Secondary sources often involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information.


FOOTNOTE--><ref>{{Citation
==Definition of secondary sources==
| last=Kragh
| first=Helge
| title=An Introduction to the Historiography of Science
| year=1989
| publisher=Cambridge University Press
| isbn=0521389216
| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=d2zy_QSq2b0C&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=%22secondary+source%22+historiography&source=web&ots=9v7A99Rzbf&sig=jNrIeEdaovpKIuX_jD9KlrGO2-4
}}, p. 121.</ref><!--


--> Many sources can be considered both primary and secondary.<ref>See id.</ref> For example, if a historical text discusses old documents to derive a new historical conclusion, it is considered to be a primary source for the new conclusion, but a secondary source of information found in the old documents. Other examples in which a source can be both primary and secondary include an obituary<!--
In [[historiography|historical scholarship]], a secondary source is a study written by a scholar about a topic, and using primary sources and other secondary sources.  In [[library and information science]]s, secondary sources are generally regarded as those sources that summarize or add commentary to [[primary sources]] in the context off the particular information or idea under study.<ref>[http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/primary-sources.html "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources"]</ref><ref>[http://www.library.jcu.edu.au/LibraryGuides/primsrcs.shtml "Library Guides: Primary, secondary and tertiary sources"]</ref>


FOOTNOTE--><ref>{{Citation
An example of a secondary source is the biography of a historical figure in which the author constructs a narrative out of a variety of primary source documents, such as letters, diaries, newspaper accounts, photographs, and official records.  A scholarly secondary source is familiar with the existing secondary literature and seeks to engage it in terms of arguments and evidence. Most, but not all, secondary sources utilize extensive [[citation]]. Scholarly secondary sources are peer-reviewed by scholars before publication in book or article form, and books are reviewed and evaluated in the scholarly journals. When a historian is writing about the [[historiography]] of topic ABC, the primary sources used are secondary sources written by scholars about ABC, with the goal of understanding the scholars.
|last=Duffin
|first=Jacalyn
|title=History of Medicine: A Scandalously Short Introduction
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=__oDQ6yDO7kC&pg=PA366&dq=%22secondary+source%22+historiography&sig=MqWo5GYrCqprFLY9ZZNVJ06CHcs
|year=1999
|publisher=University of Toronto Press
|isbn=0802079121
|page=366
}}.</ref><!--


--> or a survey of several volumes of a journal counting the frequency of articles on a certain topic.<ref>Id. at 366.</ref>
==Authorship==


==Source classification==
Secondary sources are often [[peer review]]ed, and produced by institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the author's and publishing house's, or research institute's, reputation. Historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny.  
The objective of classifying sources is to determine the independence and reliability of sources.<ref>Helge (1989), p. 121.</ref> In many fields and contexts, such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."<!--


FOOTNOTE--><ref>
Many scholars have commented on the difficulty in producing secondary source narratives from the "raw data" which makes up the past. Historian/philosopher [[Hayden White]] has written extensively on the ways in which the rhetorical strategies by which historians construct narratives about the past, and what sorts of assumptions about time, history, and events are embedded in the very structure of the historical narrative. In any case, the question of the exact relation between "historical facts" and the content of "written history" has been a topic of discussion among historians since at least the nineteenth century, when much of the modern profession of history came into being.
{{Citation
|last=Cipolla
|first=Carlo M.
|title=Between Two Cultures:An Introduction to Economic History
|page=27
|publisher=W.W. Norton & Co.
|year=1992
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=GIqRTlepwmoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cipolla&sig=JzRVCCjEZperMP0D1yyRewHRMUU#PPA27,M1
}}.</ref><!--


--> Many scholars have commented on the difficulty in producing secondary source narratives from the "raw data" which makes up the past. Historian/philosopher [[Hayden White]] has written extensively on the ways in which the rhetorical strategies by which historians construct narratives about the past, and what sorts of assumptions about time, history, and events are embedded in the very structure of the historical narrative. In any case, the question of the exact relation between "historical facts" and the content of "written history" has been a topic of discussion among historians since at least the nineteenth century, when much of the modern profession of history came into being.{{fact}}
As a general rule, modern historians prefer to go back to primary sources, if available, as well as seeking new ones, because primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions, and most modern history revolves around heavy use of [[archive]]s for the purpose of finding useful primary sources. On the other hand, most undergraduate research projects are limited to secondary source material.


As a general rule, modern historians prefer to go back to primary sources, if available, as well as seeking new ones, because primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions, and most modern history revolves around heavy use of [[archive]]s for the purpose of finding useful primary sources. On the other hand, most undergraduate research projects are limited to secondary source material.{{fact}}
==Secondary sources in family history==
 
==Secondary sources in various fields==
===Secondary sources of family history===
"A secondary source is a record or statement of an event or circumstance made by a non-eyewitness or by someone not closely connected with the event or circumstances, recorded or stated verbally either at or sometime after the event, or by an eye-witness at a time after the event when the fallibility of memory is an important factor."<ref>Harland</ref> Consequently, an autobiography written after the event is a secondary source, even though it may be the first published description of an event. For example, many first hand accounts of events in the 1st world war that were written in the post war years were influenced by the then prevailing perception of the war which was significantly different from contemporary opinion.<ref>Holmes, particularly the introduction</ref>
"A secondary source is a record or statement of an event or circumstance made by a non-eyewitness or by someone not closely connected with the event or circumstances, recorded or stated verbally either at or sometime after the event, or by an eye-witness at a time after the event when the fallibility of memory is an important factor."<ref>Harland</ref> Consequently, an autobiography written after the event is a secondary source, even though it may be the first published description of an event. For example, many first hand accounts of events in the 1st world war that were written in the post war years were influenced by the then prevailing perception of the war which was significantly different from contemporary opinion.<ref>Holmes, particularly the introduction</ref>


===Secondary legal sources===
==Secondary sources in law==
Secondary sources are often used in [[common law]], to allow judges to determine what is actually meant by the language of a particular [[statute]]. See [[legislative intent]].
Secondary sources are often used in [[common law]], to allow judges to determine what is actually meant by the language of a particular [[statute]]. See [[legislative intent]].



Revision as of 18:00, 14 November 2007

In library and information science, historiography and some other areas of scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed. Secondary sources often involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information.

Definition of secondary sources

In historical scholarship, a secondary source is a study written by a scholar about a topic, and using primary sources and other secondary sources. In library and information sciences, secondary sources are generally regarded as those sources that summarize or add commentary to primary sources in the context off the particular information or idea under study.[1][2]

An example of a secondary source is the biography of a historical figure in which the author constructs a narrative out of a variety of primary source documents, such as letters, diaries, newspaper accounts, photographs, and official records. A scholarly secondary source is familiar with the existing secondary literature and seeks to engage it in terms of arguments and evidence. Most, but not all, secondary sources utilize extensive citation. Scholarly secondary sources are peer-reviewed by scholars before publication in book or article form, and books are reviewed and evaluated in the scholarly journals. When a historian is writing about the historiography of topic ABC, the primary sources used are secondary sources written by scholars about ABC, with the goal of understanding the scholars.

Authorship

Secondary sources are often peer reviewed, and produced by institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the author's and publishing house's, or research institute's, reputation. Historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny.

Many scholars have commented on the difficulty in producing secondary source narratives from the "raw data" which makes up the past. Historian/philosopher Hayden White has written extensively on the ways in which the rhetorical strategies by which historians construct narratives about the past, and what sorts of assumptions about time, history, and events are embedded in the very structure of the historical narrative. In any case, the question of the exact relation between "historical facts" and the content of "written history" has been a topic of discussion among historians since at least the nineteenth century, when much of the modern profession of history came into being.

As a general rule, modern historians prefer to go back to primary sources, if available, as well as seeking new ones, because primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions, and most modern history revolves around heavy use of archives for the purpose of finding useful primary sources. On the other hand, most undergraduate research projects are limited to secondary source material.

Secondary sources in family history

"A secondary source is a record or statement of an event or circumstance made by a non-eyewitness or by someone not closely connected with the event or circumstances, recorded or stated verbally either at or sometime after the event, or by an eye-witness at a time after the event when the fallibility of memory is an important factor."[3] Consequently, an autobiography written after the event is a secondary source, even though it may be the first published description of an event. For example, many first hand accounts of events in the 1st world war that were written in the post war years were influenced by the then prevailing perception of the war which was significantly different from contemporary opinion.[4]

Secondary sources in law

Secondary sources are often used in common law, to allow judges to determine what is actually meant by the language of a particular statute. See legislative intent.

See also

References

  • Jules R. Benjamin. A Student's Guide to History (2003)
  • Edward H. Carr, What is History? (New York: Vintage Books, 1961).
  • Wood Gray, Historian's handbook, a key to the study and writing of history (Houghton Mifflin, 1964).
  • Derek Harland, A Basic Course in Genealogy: Volume two, Research Procedure and Evaluation of Evidence, (Bookcraft Inc, 1958)
  • Richard Holmes. Tommy (HarperCollins, 2004)
  • Martha C. Howell and Walter Prevenier. From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods (2001)
  • Richard A. Marius and Melvin E. Page. A Short Guide to Writing About History (5th Edition) (2004)
  • Hayden White, Metahistory: the historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973).

Notes

Further reading

de:Sekundärquelle es:Fuente secundaria fr:Source secondaire id:Sumber sekunder hu:Másodlagos forrás ja:二次資料 pt:Fonte secundária zh:史料 zh:二次文献