APPROPRIATE AND INAPPROPRIATE SOURCES
Secondary Sources: One of the skills that you will need to have to
write good college-level papers is the ability to distinguish between
appropriate and inappropriate sources for research. The form of the
source is usually less important than the way that the information in
the source has been gathered and presented. It is also possible for a
source to contain "correct" information, but not be an appropriate
source for research. For example, an internet source that contains
footnotes with references to primary sources, scholarly debates, and
scholarly works, and is logically and fairly argued would be
acceptable, while another source (whether book, journal article, or
internet page) might include many of the same facts but not be
acceptable, because the author did not give sources for information
or did not put the information into the larger context of other research
in the field.
Some general characteristics of appropriate secondary sources:
citations of sources (footnotes, endnotes, or parenthetical
references)
use of both primary (first-hand) and secondary sources
use of recent scholarly works (relative to the original publication
date--for a work published in 1960, sources from the 1950s would
be "recent" but they would not be recent for a work published in
2000, though the 2000 work might contain some earlier references
as well)
evidence that the author has looked at material in archives and/or
material written in other languages
putting facts into a larger historical context
making an argument about the facts (rather than just "telling a
story")
assumption of an adult audience for the source
indication that the source has been peer-reviewed (approved for
publication by someone who is an expert in the field). Generally,
scholarly journals (such as The American Historical Review) are
peer-reviewed as are books by university presses (such as
University of Chicago Press).
Some general rules for identifying inappropriate secondary sources:
no citations of sources
use of only tertiary sources (textbooks or broad surveys of a
particular time or place)
use of out-of-date sources (if more than half of the sources were
more than 20 years old at the time of publication, then one might
doubt how connected the author was with current scholarship)
no reference to primary sources
giving facts without a larger context or discussion of their historical
significance
name-calling or otherwise implying that those who have come to
different conclusions are not just mistaken, but somehow stupid,
immoral, or otherwise deficient as human beings
sources clearly designed as overviews for beginners (high school
students, college students in an introductory Western Civ course)
no date of composition of the source
anonymous works (meaning that no one is putting his/her good
name behind the accuracy of the information)
Primary sources: Primary sources are sources that are immediate
to the event being investigated. They may be official documents that
record a specific event (treaties, marriage contracts, etc.), personal
accounts by eye-witnesses to an event (diaries, letters. etc.), or
cultural texts that reveal something about the attitudes of people
living at the time (epics, lyric poetry, etc.). For primary sources,
unlike secondary sources, there is less a question of the
appropriateness of the sources, than of whether the editions of the
sources accurately reflect what the author(s) originally said. For
example, if a modern editor has mistranslated material or only
included those parts of the source that support a particular argument,
then that source would be less valuable than a full translation of the
text by a (relatively) unbiased editor/translator.
Some general rules for identifying full and authentic primary
sources:
date of composition within a short time of the events being studied
(the further back in history, the rarer good primary sources are and
the less picky historians can afford to be, so in the 1500s,
something written within 50 years of the events might be
considered pretty good, but for the 1900s, something written more
than a year or two after the event might be considered faulty)
author who was an eye-witness to the events (or a document that
was a legally binding record of the events)
full text of the source
discussion of potential problems in putting forward a good edition or
translation (either in an introduction, in an appendix, or in notes by
the editor/translator)
Some general rules for identifying questionable primary sources:
date of composition long after the events being studied (or not
indicated at all)
excerpts only
no notes or other comments on how the text came into being or
came down to us
no identification of editor/translator
Questionable sources can still be used if no full and authentic primary
source is available, but the student should be aware that the source
might not accurately reflect the author's full meaning. A good way to
check on a source would be to see what the secondary literature says
about it. If it is not discussed at all or if several reviewers of the
source have complained about its accuracy, then the student might
not want to rely on that source too heavily. Even full and authentic
primary sources might present problems (if the original author was
biased or ignorant or just expressed ideas in a way hard for us
moderns to understand), but questionable sources have an added
level of possible confusion for the beginning researcher.