Hi there,
Following the flurry of emails about starting to use archives, i'm attempting to bring together advice in a guide to archives for the inexperienced.
But, as is the way so often, once you really start to try to pin things down you raise more questions!
I want a short definition of the difference between primary and secondary sources, and I came across this from Yale:
> Determining what is a primary source can be tricky, and in no case is this more apparent than with books and pamphlets. From one vantage point, books are the quintessential secondary source: scholars use primary source materials such as letters and diaries to write books, which are in turn secondary sources. However, books can also be a rich source of primary source material. In some instances, as in the case of published memoirs, autobiographies, and published documents, it is easy to determine when a book functions as a primary source.
>
> But even secondary source materials can function as primary sources. Take, for instance, Lytton Strachey’s famous history of nineteenth century England, Eminent Victorians, first published in 1918. On one hand, Eminent Victorians is a secondary source, a history of English society and culture in the 1800s based on Strachey's research and analysis of primary sources. On the other hand, a present-day scholar could treat Eminent Victorians itself as a primary source, using it to to analyze the mores and attitudes of Lytton Strachey and the early twentieth century English intelligentsia of which he was a part.
Are we generally agreed that books can be primary sources, if you use them as direct evidence about the author and the context of the time in which it was written?
This is what I've drafted so far:
What are primary sources and what are secondary sources?
Primary sources are contemporary with the time that they are written in. Letters, diaries, minutes of meetings and account books are good examples of primary sources
Secondary sources are published sources that are consciously about a topic, and they will often use primary sources in order to make observations and conclusions. Typical secondary sources include articles and books.
You can think of secondary sources as having the benefit of hindsight, wheras primary sources were created by the people involved, at the time being studied, so they can provide direct evidence of an event. This is why they are considered to be essential for historical research.
It is worth remembering that the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' are not clear cut. It may depend what you are using the source for. A published article can be read as a primary source that reveals something about how a topic was reported at that time.
I added the last bit after reading a few definitions such as the Yale piece, but I don't know now whether to state that books and periodicals are secondary sources….I don't want it to get too complicated!
It would be helpful to reply to list please - and I think a discussion might be helpful.
cheers,
Jane
Jane Stevenson
The Archives Hub
Mimas, The University of Manchester
Devonshire House, Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9QH
email:[log in to unmask]
tel: 0161 275 6055
website: archiveshub.ac.uk
blog: archiveshub.ac.uk/blog
twitter: twitter.com/archiveshub
Contact the list owner for assistance at [log in to unmask]
For information about joining, leaving and suspending mail (eg during a holiday) see the list website at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=archives-nra
|