Types of Sources: Primary and

Secondary (Keys for Writers by Ann Raimes)

• Primary: Firsthand, raw, or original materials that
researchers study and analyze.
• Involves consulting historical documents, visuals,
journals and letters, autobiographies, memoirs,
government statistics and studies, and speeches.
• Involves examining works of art, literature, and
architecture or watch or listen to performances and
programs.
• Involves study or initiating case studies or scientific
experiments and take extensive field notes. Conduct
interviews and use data collected from questionnaires
Secondary Sources

• Analytical works that comment on and

interpret other works, such as primary
sources. Examples include reviews,
discussions, biographies, critical studies,
analysis of literary or artistic works or
event, commentaries on current and
historical events, class lectures, and
electronic discussions.
Evaluating Sources

• Read sources critically.

– Ask questions about the credentials and reputation of the author
and the place of publication.
– What do you learn about the writer’s purpose and the audience
whom the author is addressing?
– Ask questions about the ideas you read: an easy way to do this
is to write your annotations in the margins, and/or if you get a
sense of doubt, make a note of what troubles you.
– Be on the lookout for assumptions that may be faulty. If you
are reading an article on home-schooling and the writer favors
home-schooling because it avoids subjecting students to
violence in schools, the unstated assumption is that all schools
are violent places.
– Make sure the writer’s evidence is adequate and accurate. For
example, if the writer is making a generalization about all Chinese
students based on a study of only three, you have cause to
challenge the generalization as resting on inadequate evidence.

– Note how the writer uses language. Which terms does the writer
use with positive—or negative---connotations, signaling the values
the writer holds? Does the writer flamboyantly denigrate and
dismiss the views of others with such phrases as “a ridiculous
notion” or “laughably inept policies?”

– Be alert for sweeping generalizations, bias, and prejudice:

“Women want to stay home and have children.” “Men love to
spend Sundays watching sports.”
Recognize scholarly articles

• Scholarly articles are not usually found in magazines in a

dentist’s office.
• Scholarly articles are peer reviewed—that is, other
scholars read all the articles and approve them for
publication.
• These articles have section headings, abstracts, and
“summary” and/or “conclusion” headings. They
determine the author’s main idea.
• They refer to works of other scholars (Reference Page,
in-text citations, author credentials, notes, in depth
analysis, uses academic or technical language for
informed readers, appears in journals that don’t include
colorful advertisements, etc.
Evaluating Web sources: Developing
junk antennae
• If you find an article in a subscription database
(InfoTrac, LexisNexis, etc.) you will know that
the article has been published in print.
• If the article has been published in a reputable
periodical or in an online journal sponsored by a
professional organization or university, you can
assume that it is a valid source for a research
paper.
• For works devised specifically for the Web, use
the following strategies to separate the
information from the junk:
• Scrutinize the domain name of the URL. Reliable
information can be found on .gov and .edu addresses
that are institutionally sponsored. With .com or .org
sources, always assess whether the source provides
factual information or advocates a specific point of view
on an issue.

• Assess the originator of an .edu source. Check that the

institution or a branch of it is sponsoring the site. A tilde
(~) followed by a name in the URL indicates an
individual posting from an academic source. Try to
ascertain whether the individual is a faculty member or a
student. Increasingly, though, individuals are setting up
websites under their own domain name.
• Check the About page or the home page. Always take
the link from a Web site to its “About” page or its home
page, if you are not already there. These pages often
provide more information about the author, the sponsor,
the purpose, and the date of posting.

• Determine the author, and discover what you can about

him/her. Look for a list of credentials, a home page, a
resume, or Web publications. In Google or Google
Scholar, use the author’s name as a search term to see
what the author has published on the Internet or who
has cited the author. If no individual author or
institutional author is to be found anywhere, check the
purpose and sponsor of the site.
• Investigate the purposes of a Web page author or sponsor.
Objectivity and rationality are not necessarily features of all Web
pages. The sponsor of a site may want to persuade, convert, or
sell. Even if the message is not obviously biased and extreme, be
aware that most authors write from some sense of conviction or
purpose. (Note, though, that a Web site can be oriented toward a
specific view without necessarily being irresponsible.)

• Evaluate the quality of the writing. A Web page filled with spelling
and grammatical errors should not inspire confidence. If the
language has not been checked, the ideas probably haven’t been
given much time and thought, either. Don’t use such a site as a
source. Exceptions are discussion lists and Usenet postings. They
are written and posted quickly, so even if they contain errors, they
can also contain useful ideas to stimulate thinking on your topic.
• Follow the links. See whether the links in a site take
you to authoritative sources. If the links no longer
work (you’ll get a 404 message: “Site Not Found”),
the home page with the links has not been updated
in a while—not a good sign.

• Check for dates, updates, ways to respond, and ease

of navigation. A recent date of posting or recent
updating; information about the author; ways to
reach the author by e-mail, regular mail, or phone; a
clearly organized site; easy navigation; up-to-date
links to responsible sites are all indications that the
site is well managed and current.
• Corroborate information. Try to find the
same information on another reliable site.
Also look for contradictory information
elsewhere.
Basics in citing using APA:

• In-Text Citation: • Entry in Reference

Book: Page:
The speed at which we live is
seen as cause for concern and Gleick, J. (1999). Faster: The
derision (Gleick, 1999). acceleration of just about
everything. New York: Pantheon.
The renowned scholar of
language, David Crystal, has Crystal, D. (2004). The stories of
English. Woodstock, NY:
promoted the idea of “dialect
Overlook Press.
democracy” (2004, p. 168).
Print Article
• In-Text Citation • Reference Page
Ambition is seen as an impulse Kluger, J. (2005, November
that “requires an enormous
14). Ambition: Why
investment of emotional
capital” (Kluger, 2005, p. 59).
some people are most
likely to succeed. Time,
Or
166, 48-59.
Kluger (2005, p. 59) sees
ambition as an impulse that
“requires an enormous (Volume and pg. #’s.)
investment of emotional
capital.”
Article in Online Database:

• In-Text Citation • Reference Page

Research has shown that cross- Sousa, R.M., Neto, F., & Mullet, E.
cultural identification does not (2005). Can music change
begin before eight years of ethnic attitudes among
age (Sousa, Neto, & Mullet, children? Psychology of Music,
2005). 33, 304-316. Retrieved
December 15, 2005, from Sage
Psychology, CSA database.
Document on Web Site:

• In-Text Citing • Reference Page

Contributing to global Coren, M. (2006, February 10).

warming in the past The science debate behind
climate change. Retrieved
century is a considerable April 13, 2006, from
rise in sea levels (Coren, http://www.cnn.com/2005/TE
2006). [See Source Shot CH/science/04/08/earth.scienc
4 on p. 185.] e/index.html