Primary vs. Secondary Source

[bunnyjadwiga]

After investigating heavily, my boss-- who is an excellent resource librarian-- has decided that the library instruction material will say, on the subject of "Primary vs. Secondary Source" :
"Talk to your professor."

Because the definitions of primary vs. secondary source, while similar in intent, vary from discipline to discipline. It's hard to convince scholars in specific disciplines that this is so, but, it is. Scientists believe the first scholarly publication by the original investigators describing the experiment is the primary source. Historians believe something that was written or drawn at the time by an eyewitness is a primary source; Archaeologists/Anthropologists have far more stringent rules that I don't even pretend to understand, which seem to center around the original artifact in situ (so a photo of the artifact, much less a contemporary depiction of the artifact, are secondary sources to them...)

Comments

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

Hear hear!

This is why I tell people (in the SCA) to not go crazy trying to figure out if something is a primary or secondary source. Just list your sources, and hopefully the way that you used them is apparent in the context.

[sillyviking.livejournal.com]

I suggest you drop the whole subject.

"Primary, Secondary, & Tertiary Sources" has become a brainless mantra, in my experience. People try to fit a source of information from whatever discipline into these catagories without even understanding their origins. These origins have to do with written sources of information, and that is all.

An archaeological dig report from England dated to 1939 reflects the state of archaeology in England to that date, the skills of the author, and the opinions of that author. What's important here is reading and examining the dig report with skepictal care.

Still, the excavation, the conservation, the examination, the re-construction, and the presentation of the objects found in the dig in a different publication is a separtate beast--not simply a secondary source. What should be found in the separate publication is a connection with the dig report along with other information that allows a discipline's community and a other scholarly disciplines to use the information found.

In this sort of situation, the "primary" & "secondary" sort of thinking gets in the way of the work, and so really should have no place.

Why not dump the distinction

[bunnyjadwiga.livejournal.com]

Yes, the only reason in the academic library we have to think about primary vs. secondary is that professors have a charming habit of assigning students to find 'primary sources' for their writing assignment.

That not being true in the SCA, why bother beating the dead horse in the SCA the way we seem to?

Admittedly, many people seem to have difficulty understanding what is and is not high quality documentation to period... evaluating sources is something that is harder to teach than I ever imagined.

Re: Why not dump the distinction

[susannaknits.livejournal.com]

Agreed all around. I never really saw the value of the distinction, as compared to the importance of quality information. IMHO, the distinction only really has merit in teaching people to evaluate their sources. Part of deciding the relative merit of a source has to do with knowing the origin of the information and what axe that particular source might be grinding. The closer you are to a "primary" source, the fewer opinions have been added, and the easier it is to see that axe-grinding.

Some of us have internalized that concept through our academic careers, but a lot of people in the SCA don't have that benefit.

Re: Why not dump the distinction

[nicolaa5.livejournal.com]

One thing I always mention when I teach research/documentation is that the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction is only a construct of convenience for beginners who do not yet know the critical questions to ask about sources. It plants the idea in one's mind, and then you go from there.

We stopped talking about primary/secondary/tertiary not long after my first year courses in history. Even though it took me until later in my studies to realize that different disciplines had different definitions for these terms, the need to use sources critically did not change from discipline to discipline (although some of the questions to ask did.)

[landverhuizer.livejournal.com]

"Talk to your professor."

I love it!
Doing a paper... ask what their standards are, if/when it's required.

[snooness2]

I tried at one time to write something up for how to look at/for scientific primary sources; since it's very different from what the SCA defines as primary/secondary sources.

I gave up and started writing a primer about how to find good scientific papers that are useful in the SCA context. It's half done, and I got sidetracked doing real world work, and never got back to it.

Trying to convince SCA research folks that the different academic disiplines look at source material differently (ergo - primary/secondary source definitions differ) is like trying to beat your head repeatedly against a brick wall.