Template:Secondary source

Secondary sources is a term used in historical scholarship to refer to reliable studies written by someone who was not present at an event, but who uses primary documents and evaluates it in light of the best secondary literature. For example, a book written by a historian long after an event is regarded as a secondary source. Good secondary sources are based on primary and the best secondary sources, and involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation. Reliable secondary sources are characterized by a detailed coverage of the relevant primary and secondary sources (as in footnotes and bibliographies.) Popular writing does not pretend to be authoritative and is usually based on a reading of secondary sources or encyclopedias.

A primary source is an official text that was produced at the time, as a government report; it can also be a less formal document such as a letter, a newspaper account (by a reporter who was at the scene), a speech or pamphlet. Memoirs or oral histories written years later by participants are considered primary documents with regard to the author's actions. For example, the 1885 Memoirs of General Ulysses S. Grant is a primary source regarding his thought and actions during the Civil War 20 years earlier. A serious book about Grant, which uses Grant's memoirs, would normally be regarded as a secondary source.

Historians are primarily interested in interpreting the primary sources. Many governmental primary sources embed their own interpretation, which is usually called the "orthodox" interpretation. But historians do not necessarily accept the orthodox view. Historians who challenge the orthodox interpretation are called "revisionists." Thus a primary source has authoritative evidence, but not necessarily an authoritative interpretation of an event. The training of historians consists in large part in how to evaluate primary documents in terms of authenticity, bias, and completeness. Historians normally compare as many different primary sources as possible. Secondary sources are often peer reviewed, well documented, 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.

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. A work of history is not likely to be taken seriously if it only cites secondary sources, because that would indicate that no original research had been conducted.

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.

References

• Jules R. Benjamin. A Student's Guide to History (2003)
• Wood Gray, Historian's handbook, a key to the study and writing of history (Houghton Mifflin, 1964).
• 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)

Further reading

• Primary and secondary sources

See also

• Historiography
• Source text
• Primary source
• Tertiary source