What is Evidence: Primary and Secondary Sources

Rebecca Jean Emigh, UCLA

Research often takes for granted the difference between primary and secondary sources, but rarely considers carefully what they are in any detail. It also assumes that primary sources are superior. However, this article argues that the distinction is far from clear. Quantitative data sets are often privileged in this respect: though they are usually considered primary sources, they are generally secondary ones, even if not widely recognized as such. Their “secondaryness” is often hidden behind a rhetoric of quantification and science. Furthermore, secondary sources may have advantages, under some conditions, over primary sources. Finally, the use of sources should depend upon the research question being asked. What is useful and appropriate depends upon what sort of evidence is needed to address the theoretical question at hand, the time frame, and the nature of the research topic. Especially for marginalized populations in the past, the collection of primary evidence may be impossible. This article takes a close and critical look at the qualities of primary and secondary sources.

No extended abstract or paper available

 Presented in Session 56. Theory and Method for Critical Studies I