 |
Primary sources are original documents, objects, or media created during the time of the event being researched, or by an individual(s) who directly experienced an event, made a discovery, or created a new work of art. They are raw materials with a direct relationship to whatever is being studied.
Examples: photographs, speeches, diaries, editorials, letters, interviews, historic artifacts, works of art, musical scores, performances, literary works, survey research, legal documents, proceedings, patents, video or audio recordings of events being studied, etc.
Secondary sources are a step removed from the original source. They may comment or build upon original primary sources.
Examples: second-hand reports on events, research, or works created by someone else at a different time or place; criticisms; reviews; interpretations; citations; etc.
Tertiary sources typically compile and condense a range of primary and/or secondary sources into an easily-digestible format.
Examples: encyclopedias, almanacs, timelines, bibliographies, directories, fact books, etc. (Note: Many of these are also considered secondary sources.)
Across disciplines, contexts, and perspectives, the definition of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources differ. Some scholars consider encyclopedias secondary sources, while others consider them tertiary sources. In today’s environment of digitized content, most would contend an online image of a primary document or transcript is sufficient, while others might argue the original physical copy is essential for primary research. Like many areas of study, distinctions are fuzzy and subject to interpretation. When in doubt, clarify your instructor’s expectations.
Who created the information? Affiliations, qualifications/credentials, reputation, contact info, etc. Who published it? Who paid for it? Does the creator or publisher have a bias or a point-of-view that might affect the information?
What is the evidence? Do the claims make sense? Can claims be fact-checked? Are stories, hearsay, or innuendo used as “proof?” Do the facts given logically lead to the conclusions made?
When was the article published? When was it revised or updated? Is timeliness important for the topic or not?
Where is it published – popular magazine, academic journal, blog, news, website, etc.? If it’s a website, what kind? Newspapers, magazines, and some journals web publish. Was the information edited, reviewed, or refereed? By whom? Where did the author get their information? Are they citing sources? If so, are those sources credible?
Why was the information created? How is it meant to affect its audience? Why are they telling me this? To inform, teach, sell, entertain, persuade, or something else?
Who or what is missing that might change the interpretation or understanding of the information?
These 4 moves developed by Mike Caulfield will help you evaluate any web source.
STOP - Do you know this website or the source of the information, and what the reputation of both the claim and the site? If not, to to the next move.
INVESTIGATE the source - you want to know what you’re reading before you read it.
FIND better coverage - When you care about the claim the article is making, ignore the source itself, and look for trusted reporting or analysis on the claim.
TRACE claims, quotes, and media back to the original context - Much of what we find on the internet has been stripped of context. Trace the claim, quote, or media back to the source, so you can see it in it’s original context and get a sense if the version you saw was accurately presented.
Currency: How timely is the information?
Relevance: How closely does the information meet your needs?
Authority: Who or what is the source of the information?
Accuracy: How reliable, truthful, and correct is the content?
Purpose: Why does the information exist?
Source: Who is providing the information?
Motivation: Why are they telling me this?
Evidence. What evidence is provided for generalizations?
Logic: Do the facts logically compel the conclusions?
Left Out: What’s missing that might change our interpretation of the information?
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: Scholars, researchers, professionals, and university students in particular field
Watch for: "Predatory" or "pay to publish" online journals
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: Professional organizations or professionals/scholars with similar interests
What For / Consider: Has characteristics in common with both popular magazines and scholarly journals
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: Varies (general audience through scholars)
What For / Consider: Information may be dated due to the time it takes to publish a book.
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: General audience or those with a specific, recreational interest (e.g. sports, fashion, science, etc.)
What For / Consider: Potential editorial bias
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: General audience
What For / Consider: Contains both fact-based reporting and editorial content (opinions). Opinions may be biased.
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: General audience
What For / Consider: Governmental and educational websites have higher credibility than commercial websites
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: General audience
What For / Consider: Use the reference list to find other sources that can used
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: General audience through scholars depending on the source
What For / Consider: High potential for bias. Usually informal.
Whether you’re writing a research paper, purchasing a product, or casting your vote, it is up to you to carefully evaluate information sources. One helpful evaluation tool is the CRAAP test, developed by Sarah Blakeslee at CSU Chico, and revised with her permission by NWACC Library. The letters in CRAAP stand for five evaluation criteria explored in the tabs above. See below for printer friendly version.
A word of caution: There is potential for error, distortion, and bias in any source. Respected experts disagree with their peers, new discoveries call once-established “facts” into question, and widely-accepted theories are later proven false. It can be both useful and necessary to engage with sources that do not pass the CRAAP test, especially if you critically evaluate the source and address its limitations. So keep an open mind, acknowledge uncertainty, practice skepticism, stay informed about new developments, and seek understanding of multiple perspectives related to the subjects and ideas that matter to you.
CURRENCY: Consider the timeliness of the information you encounter, when it was published or produced.
RELEVANCE: Think about how well the source fits your needs.
AUTHORITY: Question the source of the information. In other words, who wrote, produced, funded or published it?
ACCURACY: Assess how reliable the information is.
PURPOSE: Determine why the information is presented.
