Generic

Reading Secondary Source Documents

Secondary sources are interpretations of particular topics by scholars, usually produced a significant length of time after the event that they examine. Secondary sources build on primary sources to produce a particular interpretation or analysis of a topic. Most of the secondary sources you will be reading were written by historians, but you may also read interpretations written by other scholars, eg. sociologists, economists, political scientists, literary critics, etc. Secondary source documents usually take the form of books or articles written for scholarly journals. Interviews with historians in documentary movies and interpretative displays in museums are other forms of secondary sources. When reading or watching secondary sources, you should evaluate the document using the following questions:

Who produced the piece? What type of scholar are they (historian, sociologist, economist, etc.)? If the author is a historian, what type of history do they specialize in (social, political, gender, race, economic)? What institution are they affiliated with (university, foundation, government institution, museum, etc.)? Does the author seem to have a particular ideological stance that they take (Marxist, conservative, feminist, etc.)?

What is the author's argument in the document? What questions are they seeking to answer and why do they consider these questions to be important? Scholars are usually participating in a wider debate about the historical interpretation of a particular topic. Where does the author situate themselves in that debate? Are they seeking to challenge or support other interpretations? What other scholars does the author cite in the document?

What evidence does the author use to support their argument? What sort of research did they conduct and what primary sources did they use in writing this piece? Are there types of evidence that they could have used but did not? How might this have changed the shape of their argument? Do they seem to use evidence effectively? Do you see any problems with the evidence that they used or the interpretations that they produced?

When was the source produced? Intellectual understandings of various historical topics can change dramatically over time. For example, historians of the Reconstruction Era in U.S. history writing at the beginning of the 20th century had a vastly different understanding of the topic than those studying Reconstruction today. Does the document you are reading seem to fall into the current school of thinking on a historical issue or is it more "old fashioned" or perhaps "cutting edge" in its interpretations?


INSTRUCTOR UW LIBRARIES UW HOME EVALUATING PRIMARY SOURCES	Reading Secondary Source Documents Secondary sources are interpretations of particular topics by scholars, usually produced a significant length of time after the event that they examine. Secondary sources build on primary sources to produce a particular interpretation or analysis of a topic. Most of the secondary sources you will be reading were written by historians, but you may also read interpretations written by other scholars, eg. sociologists, economists, political scientists, literary critics, etc. Secondary source documents usually take the form of books or articles written for scholarly journals. Interviews with historians in documentary movies and interpretative displays in museums are other forms of secondary sources. When reading or watching secondary sources, you should evaluate the document using the following questions: Who produced the piece? What type of scholar are they (historian, sociologist, economist, etc.)? If the author is a historian, what type of history do they specialize in (social, political, gender, race, economic)? What institution are they affiliated with (university, foundation, government institution, museum, etc.)? Does the author seem to have a particular ideological stance that they take (Marxist, conservative, feminist, etc.)? What is the author's argument in the document? What questions are they seeking to answer and why do they consider these questions to be important? Scholars are usually participating in a wider debate about the historical interpretation of a particular topic. Where does the author situate themselves in that debate? Are they seeking to challenge or support other interpretations? What other scholars does the author cite in the document? What evidence does the author use to support their argument? What sort of research did they conduct and what primary sources did they use in writing this piece? Are there types of evidence that they could have used but did not? How might this have changed the shape of their argument? Do they seem to use evidence effectively? Do you see any problems with the evidence that they used or the interpretations that they produced? When was the source produced? Intellectual understandings of various historical topics can change dramatically over time. For example, historians of the Reconstruction Era in U.S. history writing at the beginning of the 20th century had a vastly different understanding of the topic than those studying Reconstruction today. Does the document you are reading seem to fall into the current school of thinking on a historical issue or is it more "old fashioned" or perhaps "cutting edge" in its interpretations?
Send mail to: Contact Email Last modified: 2/06/2009 9:56 AM