Whether
conducting research in the social sciences, humanities (especially history),
arts, or natural sciences, the ability to distinguish between primary
and secondary source material is essential. Basically, this distinction
illustrates the degree to which the author of a piece is removed from the
actual event being described, informing the reader as to whether the author is
reporting impressions first hand (or is first to record these
immediately following an event), or conveying the experiences and opinions of
others—that is, second hand.
These
are contemporary accounts of an event, written by someone who
experienced or witnessed the event in question. These original documents
(i.e., they are not about another document or account) are often diaries,
letters, memoirs, journals, speeches, manuscripts, interviews and other such
unpublished works. They may also include published pieces such as newspaper or
magazine articles (as long as they are written soon after the fact and not as
historical accounts), photographs, audio or video recordings, research reports
in the natural or social sciences, or original literary or theatrical works.
The
function of these is to interpret primary sources, and so can be
described as at least one step removed from the event or phenomenon under
review. Secondary source materials, then, interpret, assign values to,
conjecture upon, and draw conclusions about the events reported in primary
sources. These are usually in the form of published works such as journal
articles or books, but may include radio or television documentaries, or
conference proceedings.
When
evaluating primary or secondary sources, the following questions might be asked
to help ascertain the nature and value of material being considered:
How does the author know these
details (names, dates, times)? Was the author present at the event or soon
on the scene?
Where does this information
come from—personal experience, eyewitness accounts, or reports written by
others?
Are the author's conclusions
based on a single piece of evidence, or have many sources been taken into
account (e.g., diary entries, along with third-party eyewitness accounts,
impressions of contemporaries, newspaper accounts…)?
Ultimately,
all source materials of whatever type must be assessed critically and even the
most scrupulous and thorough work is viewed through the eyes of the
writer/interpreter. This must be taken into account when one is attempting to
arrive at the 'truth' of an event.