What is the meaning of the word primary source

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions can be used in library science and other areas of scholarship, although different fields have somewhat different definitions.

In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person.^[1]

Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight are secondary.^[2] A secondary source may also be a primary source depending on how it is used.^[3] For example, a memoir would be considered a primary source in research concerning its author or about their friends characterized within it, but the same memoir would be a secondary source if it were used to examine the culture in which its author lived. «Primary» and «secondary» should be understood as relative terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.^{[4]: 118–246 [5]}

Significance of source classification[edit]

History[edit]

In scholarly writing, an important objective of classifying sources is to determine their independence and reliability.^[5] In contexts such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources and that «if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources.»^[6] Sreedharan believes that primary sources have the most direct connection to the past and that they «speak for themselves» in ways that cannot be captured through the filter of secondary sources.^[7]

Other fields[edit]

In scholarly writing, the objective of classifying sources is to determine the independence and reliability of sources.^[5] Though the terms primary source and secondary source originated in historiography^{[citation needed]} as a way to trace the history of historical ideas, they have been applied to many other fields. For example, these ideas may be used to trace the history of scientific theories, literary elements, and other information that is passed from one author to another.

In scientific literature, a primary source, or the «primary literature», is the original publication of a scientist’s new data, results, and theories.^[8] In political history, primary sources are documents such as official reports, speeches, pamphlets, posters, or letters by participants, official election returns, and eyewitness accounts. In the history of ideas or intellectual history, the main primary sources are books, essays, and letters written by intellectuals; these intellectuals may include historians, whose books and essays are therefore considered primary sources for the intellectual historian, though they are secondary sources in their own topical fields. In religious history, the primary sources are religious texts and descriptions of religious ceremonies and rituals.^[9]

A study of cultural history could include fictional sources such as novels or plays. In a broader sense primary sources also include artifacts like photographs, newsreels, coins, paintings or buildings created at the time. Historians may also take archaeological artifacts and oral reports and interviews into consideration. Written sources may be divided into three types.^[10]

• Narrative sources or literary sources tell a story or message. They are not limited to fictional sources (which can be sources of information for contemporary attitudes) but include diaries, films, biographies, leading philosophical works, and scientific works.
• Diplomatic sources include charters and other legal documents which usually follow a set format.
• Social documents are records created by organizations, such as registers of births and tax records.

In historiography, when the study of history is subject to historical scrutiny, a secondary source becomes a primary source. For a biography of a historian, that historian’s publications would be primary sources. Documentary films can be considered a secondary source or primary source, depending on how much the filmmaker modifies the original sources.^[11]

The Lafayette College Library provides a synopsis of primary sources in several areas of study:

The definition of a primary source varies depending upon the academic discipline and the context in which it is used.

• In the humanities, a primary source could be defined as something that was created either during the time period being studied or afterward by individuals reflecting on their involvement in the events of that time.
• In the social sciences, the definition of a primary source would be expanded to include numerical data that has been gathered to analyze relationships between people, events, and their environment.
• In the natural sciences, a primary source could be defined as a report of original findings or ideas. These sources often appear in the form of research articles with sections on methods and results.^[12]

Finding primary sources[edit]

Although many primary sources remain in private hands, others are located in archives, libraries, museums, historical societies, and special collections. These can be public or private. Some are affiliated with universities and colleges, while others are government entities. Materials relating to one area might be located in many different institutions. These can be distant from the original source of the document. For example, the Huntington Library in California houses many documents from the United Kingdom.

In the US, digital copies of primary sources can be retrieved from a number of places. The Library of Congress maintains several digital collections where they can be retrieved. Some examples are American Memory and Chronicling America. The National Archives and Records Administration also has digital collections in Digital Vaults. The Digital Public Library of America searches across the digitized primary source collections of many libraries, archives, and museums. The Internet Archive also has primary source materials in many formats.

In the UK, the National Archives provides a consolidated search of its own catalog and a wide variety of other archives listed on the Access to Archives index. Digital copies of various classes of documents at the National Archives (including wills) are available from DocumentsOnline. Most of the available documents relate to England and Wales. Some digital copies of primary sources are available from the National Archives of Scotland. Many County Record Offices collections are included in Access to Archives, while others have their own online catalogs. Many County Record Offices will supply digital copies of documents.

In other regions, Europeana has digitized materials from across Europe while the World Digital Library and Flickr Commons have items from all over the world. Trove has primary sources from Australia.

Most primary source materials are not digitized and may only be represented online with a record or finding aid. Both digitized and not digitized materials can be found through catalogs such as WorldCat, the Library of Congress catalog, the National Archives catalog, and so on.

Using primary sources[edit]

History as an academic discipline is based on primary sources, as evaluated by the community of scholars, who report their findings in books, articles, and papers. Arthur Marwick says «Primary sources are absolutely fundamental to history.»^[13] Ideally, a historian will use all available primary sources that were created by the people involved at the time being studied. In practice, some sources have been destroyed, while others are not available for research. Perhaps the only eyewitness reports of an event may be memoirs, autobiographies, or oral interviews that were taken years later. Sometimes the only evidence relating to an event or person in the distant past was written or copied decades or centuries later. Manuscripts that are sources for classical texts can be copies of documents or fragments of copies of documents. This is a common problem in classical studies, where sometimes only a summary of a book or letter has survived. Potential difficulties with primary sources have the result that history is usually taught in schools using secondary sources.

Historians studying the modern period with the intention of publishing an academic article prefer to go back to available primary sources and to seek new (in other words, forgotten or lost) ones. Primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions and most modern history revolves around heavy use of archives and special collections for the purpose of finding useful primary sources. A work on history is not likely to be taken seriously as a scholarship if it only cites secondary sources, as it does not indicate that original research has been done.^[4]

However, primary sources – particularly those from before the 20th century – may have hidden challenges. «Primary sources, in fact, are usually fragmentary, ambiguous, and very difficult to analyze and interpret.»^[13] Obsolete meanings of familiar words and social context are among the traps that await the newcomer to historical studies. For this reason, the interpretation of primary texts is typically taught as part of an advanced college or postgraduate history course, although advanced self-study or informal training is also possible.

Strengths and weaknesses[edit]

In many fields and contexts, such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and «if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources.»^[6] In addition, primary sources avoid the problem inherent in secondary sources in which each new author may distort and put a new spin on the findings of prior cited authors.^[14]

A history, whose author draws conclusions from other than primary sources or secondary sources actually based on primary sources, is by definition fiction and not history at all.

— Kameron Searle^[15]

However, a primary source is not necessarily more of an authority or better than a secondary source. There can be bias and tacit unconscious views that twist historical information.

Original material may be… prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be.

— David Iredale^[16]

The errors may be corrected in secondary sources, which are often subjected to peer review, can be well documented, and are often written by historians working in institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the future of the author’s career and reputation. Historians consider the accuracy and objectiveness of the primary sources that they are using and historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny. A primary source such as a journal entry (or the online version, a blog), at best, may only reflect one individual’s opinion on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate, or complete.

Participants and eyewitnesses may misunderstand events or distort their reports, deliberately or not, to enhance their own image or importance. Such effects can increase over time, as people create a narrative that may not be accurate.^[17] For any source, primary or secondary, it is important for the researcher to evaluate the amount and direction of bias.^[18] As an example, a government report may be an accurate and unbiased description of events, but it may be censored or altered for propaganda or cover-up purposes. The facts can be distorted to present the opposing sides in a negative light. Barristers are taught that evidence in a court case may be truthful but may still be distorted to support or oppose the position of one of the parties.

Classifying sources[edit]

Many sources can be considered either primary or secondary, depending on the context in which they are examined.^[5] Moreover, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual,^[19] so that precise definitions are difficult to make.^[20] A book review, when it contains the opinion of the reviewer about the book rather than a summary of the book, becomes a primary source.^[21][22]

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. Examples in which a source can be both primary and secondary include an obituary^[23] or a survey of several volumes of a journal counting the frequency of articles on a certain topic.^[23]

Whether a source is regarded as primary or secondary in a given context may change, depending upon the present state of knowledge within the field.^[24] For example, if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered letter, that document may be considered «primary», since it is the closest known thing to an original source; but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered «secondary»^[25]

In some instances, the reason for identifying a text as the «primary source» may devolve from the fact that no copy of the original source material exists, or that it is the oldest extant source for the information cited.^[26]

Forgeries[edit]

Historians must occasionally contend with forged documents that purport to be primary sources. These forgeries have usually been constructed with a fraudulent purpose, such as promulgating legal rights, supporting false pedigrees, or promoting particular interpretations of historic events. The investigation of documents to determine their authenticity is called diplomatics.

For centuries, popes used the forged Donation of Constantine to bolster the Papacy’s secular power. Among the earliest forgeries are false Anglo-Saxon charters, a number of 11th- and 12th-century forgeries produced by monasteries and abbeys to support a claim to land where the original document had been lost or never existed. One particularly unusual forgery of a primary source was perpetrated by Sir Edward Dering, who placed false monumental brasses in a parish church.^[27] In 1986, Hugh Trevor-Roper authenticated the Hitler Diaries, which were later proved to be forgeries. Recently, forged documents have been placed within the UK National Archives in the hope of establishing a false provenance.^[28][29] However, historians dealing with recent centuries rarely encounter forgeries of any importance.^{[4]: 22–25}

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

External links[edit]

1. `How do I plan to use this source? Will I analyze this source to draw my own conclusions? Or will I use this source for background information and/or other peoples’ ideas on my subject?

Primary sources are the raw, or original, records created by participants in firsthand events, and they are not interpretations of events made after the fact by others. Primary sources are considered “firsthand” and can include materials created many years ago.

In this article, we will discuss the two types of sources; Primary and Secondary sources, their importance, and their uses.

What is a Primary Source?

A primary source is a document or other material that provides first-hand information about its subject. Primary sources are the raw materials of history as they are original documents and objects which were created at the time of the event being studied.

Primary sources are used as evidence for answering questions about the past. They can include diaries, letters, speeches, photographs, newspaper articles, government records, poems, novels, plays, and music and they may be in print or digital format.

They are the documents or artifacts closest to the topic of investigation. Often they are created during the time period which is being studied, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later.

Read: What is Pure or Basic Research? + [Examples & Method]

A primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation or a document created by such a person. For example, if you were researching the history of women’s suffrage in the United States, Susan B. Anthony’s diary would be considered a primary source. 

On the other hand, a history textbook written about Susan B. Anthony would be considered a secondary source because the information has already been interpreted and evaluated by the author of the textbook. This information is critical because it helps us to answer what did people actually think and how did they act.

By understanding these first-hand accounts of past events, we get more in-depth details about historical periods.

What is a Secondary Source?

A secondary source is one that was written after an event or development has occurred. Secondary sources may be based on primary sources and will often analyze, interpret, or comment on a historical event. This means that a secondary source is a work that provides information about the primary source, but it does not have first-hand information. 

For example, a biography written about Marie Curie would be considered a secondary source because it includes information about her life, but it was not written by her or anyone who knew her directly. Secondary sources are useful in providing background information to help people better understand a topic and are usually academic works like articles, books, and encyclopedias that seek to summarize existing research on a topic.

Read: Research Questions: Definitions, Types + [Examples]

How to Tell if a Source is Primary or Secondary

The best way to differentiate between primary and secondary sources is that primary sources are first-hand accounts, while secondary sources are second-hand accounts.

For example, a person who writes about their own experiences with an illness is a primary source, because the person is the one describing what happened. If another author writes a book about the symptoms of an illness from the perspective of an outsider, that’s a secondary source.

This is why it is important for primary sources to be taken carefully because sometimes, people tend to embellish or distort their own experiences. Secondary sources need to be taken carefully as well because it’s easy for an outsider to get something wrong about someone else’s experiences; for example, the author of a secondary source might misinterpret symptoms or misunderstand the way something worked.

What are the Similarities between Primary and Secondary Sources?

Here are some of the similarities between primary and secondary sources:

• They are both sources of information. 
• They are both generally written by experts who know what they’re talking about, so you can trust the information you find in them.
• Both are works of art, written works, or other creative works
• Primary and secondary sources are used for research
• Also, both primary and secondary sources are referenced in researches

Read: Research Bias: Definition, Types + Examples

Differences between Primary and Secondary Sources

1. The main difference is that a primary source is an original document or firsthand account while a secondary source is a second-hand account of information. A primary source is not an original document, but something that was written at the time of the event. A secondary source is an interpretation of the primary source.
2. Primary sources are based on actual occurrence or event while secondary sources are based on analysis, criticism, or evaluation of an event.
3. Primary sources include the provision of evidence which could be the recording of the event while secondary sources on the other hand analyze the evidence from the primary sources. 

For example, a book about Martin Luther King Jr would be a secondary source because it was not written by him. The book would be based on interviews with people who knew him, letters he wrote, and speeches he gave. It could also include newspaper articles from the time period when he was alive.

However, the first thing to remember when researching for any research paper or essay is: you must use primary sources!

Read: Unethical Research Practices to Avoid: Examples & Detection

What is an example of a Primary Source?

There are many different kinds of primary sources depending on their original purpose and format. All types of primary sources provide information about a particular event or time period. For example:

• Diaries, letters, and memoirs: personal accounts of historical events from people who witnessed them firsthand
• Speeches and interviews: words spoken by people involved in an event or issue
• Newspaper articles from the time period when the event occurred
• Photographs depicting an event
• Government records documenting an event
• Paintings, songs, and literature created during a particular era

What is an example of a Secondary Source?

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. Here are examples:

• Books such as novels, plays, poems, etc. written by someone else
• Articles that comment on or evaluate someone else’s original research
• History books and other popular or scholarly books that summarize and interpret the work of historians and other experts
• Reviews of research in the form of articles published in academic journals

What Do You Use Primary Sources for?

Primary sources are used to provide a closer look at what actually happened during an event or period of time because they were written when it was actually happening, not later when people were trying to remember and write about it. They give a closer look into what people thought and wrote about during a period of time.

Historians use primary sources to understand the past. They look at these documents to get as close as possible to what happened during a certain historical event. Historians and researchers can get a better idea of how people lived in the past and what they thought was important enough to record

For example, if you’re writing about the founding of your city, it might be helpful for you to find a newspaper article written on the day the city was founded. You could also find a picture taken on that day of people celebrating the founding of your city.

Read: Survey Research: Types, Examples & Methods

What Do You Use Secondary Sources For?

Secondary sources are used in research as a way to add context to primary sources. They can help you find information quickly. A quick Google search for “themes in The Great Gatsby” will return plenty of articles that discuss those themes and can help you get started with your research.

Secondary sources are also helpful when you want to understand how other people interpret and analyze something. As your research progresses, you may want to see what others have said about the thing you’re studying in order to form your own opinions on it and write your own analysis.

Finally, secondary sources are important because they provide context for primary sources: another name for original works like documents, books, or artworks. For example, a biography about Abraham Lincoln would be a primary source because it was written by someone who knew him personally. An article about Lincoln’s life and legacy would be a secondary source because it was written after his demise. 

Conclusion

Both primary and secondary sources are useful in research and journaling. The important thing to note is that it is always desirable to use primary sources when available and if otherwise, you can make use of the secondary sources. Also do not forget to reference any source you use whether it is the primary or secondary source.

In research and academics, a primary source refers to information collected from sources that witnessed or experienced an event firsthand. These can be historical documents, literary texts, artistic works, experiments, journal entries, surveys, and interviews. A primary source, which is very different from a secondary source, is also called primary data.

The Library of Congress defines primary sources as «the raw materials of history—original documents and objects which were created at the time under study,» in contrast to secondary sources, which are «accounts or interpretations of events created by someone without firsthand experience,» («Using Primary Sources»).

Secondary sources are often meant to describe or analyze a primary source and do not give firsthand accounts; primary sources tend to provide more accurate depictions of history but are much harder to come by.

Characteristics of Primary Sources

There are a couple of factors that can qualify an artifact as a primary source. The chief characteristics of a primary source, according to Natalie Sproull, are: «(1) [B]eing present during the experience, event or time and (2) consequently being close in time with the data. This does not mean that data from primary sources are always the best data.»

Sproull then goes on to remind readers that primary sources are not always more reliable than secondary sources. «Data from human sources are subject to many types of distortion because of such factors as selective recall, selective perceptions, and purposeful or nonpurposeful omission or addition of information. Thus data from primary sources are not necessarily accurate data even though they come from firsthand sources,» (Sproull 1988).

Original Sources

Primary sources are often called original sources, but this is not the most accurate description because you’re not always going to be dealing with original copies of primary artifacts. For this reason, «primary sources» and «original sources» should be considered separate. Here’s what the authors of «Undertaking Historical Research in Literacy,» from Handbook of Reading Research, have to say about this:

«The distinction also needs to be made between primary and original sources. It is by no means always necessary, and all too often it is not possible, to deal only with original sources. Printed copies of original sources, provided they have been undertaken with scrupulous care (such as the published letters of the Founding Fathers), are usually an acceptable substitute for their handwritten originals.» (E. J. Monaghan and D. K. Hartman, «Undertaking Historical Research in Literacy,» in Handbook of Reading Research, ed. by P. D. Pearson et al. Erlbaum, 2000)

When to Use Primary Sources

Primary sources tend to be most useful toward the beginning of your research into a topic and at the end of a claim as evidence, as Wayne Booth et al. explain in the following passage. «[Primary sources] provide the ‘raw data’ that you use first to test the working hypothesis and then as evidence to support your claim. In history, for example, primary sources include documents from the period or person you are studying, objects, maps, even clothing; in literature or philosophy, your main primary source is usually the text you are studying, and your data are the words on the page. In such fields, you can rarely write a research paper without using primary sources,» (Booth et al. 2008).

When to Use Secondary Sources

There is certainly a time and place for secondary sources and many situations in which these point to relevant primary sources. Secondary sources are an excellent place to start. Alison Hoagland and Gray Fitzsimmons write: «By identifying basic facts, such as year of construction, secondary sources can point the researcher to the best primary sources, such as the right tax books. In addition, a careful reading of the bibliography in a secondary source can reveal important sources the researcher might otherwise have missed,» (Hoagland and Fitzsimmons 2004).

Finding and Accessing Primary Sources

As you might expect, primary sources can prove difficult to find. To find the best ones, take advantage of resources such as libraries and historical societies. «This one is entirely dependent on the assignment given and your local resources; but when included, always emphasize quality. … Keep in mind that there are many institutions such as the Library of Congress that make primary source material freely available on the Web,» (Kitchens 2012).

Methods of Collecting Primary Data

Sometimes in your research, you’ll run into the problem of not being able to track down primary sources at all. When this happens, you’ll want to know how to collect your own primary data; Dan O’Hair et all tell you how: «If the information you need is unavailable or hasn’t yet been gathered, you’ll have to gather it yourself. Four basic methods of collecting primary data are field research, content analysis, survey research, and experiments. Other methods of gathering primary data include historical research, analysis of existing statistics, … and various forms of direct observation,» (O’Hair et al. 2001).

• Booth, Wayne C., et al. The Craft of Research. 3rd ed., University of Chicago Press, 2008.
• Hoagland, Alison, and Gray Fitzsimmons. «History.» Recording Historic Structures. 2nd. ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
• Kitchens, Joel D. Librarians, Historians, and New Opportunities for Discourse: A Guide for Clio’s Helpers. ABC-CLIO, 2012.
• Monaghan, E. Jennifer, and Douglas K. Hartman. «Undertaking Historical Research in Literacy.» Handbook of Reading Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.
• O’Hair, Dan, et al. Business Communication: A Framework for Success. South-Western College Pub., 2001.
• Sproull, Natalie L. Handbook of Research Methods: A Guide for Practitioners and Students in the Social Sciences. 2nd ed. Scarecrow Press, 1988.
• «Using Primary Sources.» Library of Congress.