One of the wonderful task all
Historians, and writers of non-fiction have is discerning between primary and
secondary sources. I recomend to students i work with writing papers on History
the following book:
Storey, William K. Writing History Oxford
Press 1999
This is a very easy to read
directory on writing term papers step-by-step.Chapter 2 titled,Interpreting
Source Material is extremely good. It distinguishes between primary,
and secondary souce material. In his definition he says primary works" deal
directly with the period" while secodary" reflect on the period written (
!8-19). However ,sometimes secondary sources may be ultilized as primaries,
depending on use.His example of this is, Thomas Babington''s The History of
England, which describes the origins and outcomes of England's Glorious
Revolution of 1688. For a Historian, using it in his study of 17th century
England it would be a great secondary source, but to a historian studying
Victorian England it becomes a primary source dealing with the intellectual life
in the 1840's and -1850's. As to the internet, one must always be
skeptical, an original painting, digitalized for view on the net, I would
consider a primary work, but this again depends on usage. An inscription ,I
would become more skeptical of because it could be misprinted, misworded or
altered so I would have a problem using these as primary in
nature. (19)
Normally when I instruct
students on interpreting sources I ask them to answer the 5 w's to see if it is
what they need. ( Who, What, Where, When, and Why). If it meets their
criteria in their work, use it or at minimum, keep it. Im sure others have
different opinions especially those in other fields, but heres mine