WSU Libraries: Sources

WSU Libraries: Sources


OLIVIA: Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining us tonight. I’m Olivia, the Global
Connections Event Moderator. And tonight we’re welcoming
back Lorena O’English, and she’d doing her third
and final part of her library series, Source for [INAUDIBLE] Scholar. If you have any questions, go
ahead and put the chat box, and I’ll catch Lorena
[INAUDIBLE] she misses them. And stay tuned
afterwards for the survey that we’ll put in the chat box. Other than that, I will
turn it over to Lorena. She’ll get us started. LORENA O’ENGLISH:
Thank you, Olivia. Let me set this. I kind of adjusted it and i
have to start all over again. All right. So what I’m going to be
doing talking about today, is secondary sources. Or really, primary, secondary,
and tertiary sources. And you can see a big part
of the title of this webinar is, it depends. We’re going to see that’s
really, really true. It’s kind of tricky topic,
it’s one of those things that ‘s very situational. So we’ll kind of see some
examples as we go along. So– I always like
to start off with– I pressed the wrong button there. I always like to start
off with a question. And so you can see a
little bit of information about me over here. This is me, and this is me. I’m really not a cartoon, you
can actually me in the screen, but I like cartoons and
comics so I like those images. And this is my
beloved dog, Heidi, who is not doing so well,
but still ticking on. And the question that
I wanted to ask you was, what is the last
thing that you created? And for me, obviously,
it’s this PowerPoint, but what’s the last thing
everyone here created? Think about a work of
art, or writing a paper, or saying something on
social media, or whatever. So I want to start
off with this graphic. And really like
this graphic a lot, because it’s hugely complex. And one of the things
that you can see, is when we talk about primary
and secondary and tertiary information and those sorts
of sources, what we see is that these are all
part of a long continuum. And that part of what I,
and many other people, call the information cycle. And the reason I like
this particular graph, is if you look at it you can see
that the information cycle is not just one thing. It is a combination of things. It’s a combination
of four cycles. The first is time. The second is– time, of
course, is time progresses. The second is the
knowledge cycle, how knowledge is developed. The third cycle is
the publication cycle, how that knowledge is
transferred into information that we can read online or
read an article, et cetera. And then finally have
the access cycle. And the access cycle
is all about, well, how can we actually
get this information. And some of this is
going to go along with information from previous
webinars that I’ve done. One of the things that I talked
about I think two weeks ago, we were talking about
journal literature or technical publication,
is that a lot of time it takes a long
time for scholarly work to actually make
it to publication. So the access cycle
for schoolwork might take much longer than
the access cycle say, for, an article that is just
created for a popular magazine or a status post or
something else like that. So we’re going to come
back to this image. We’re going to look
at pieces of it, but you can see
it’s really complex. And this particular iteration
of the information cycle is really focused on
scientific literature. But we’re going to
see that it works for our sorts of
literature as well. So don’t get hung up
on the fact that it is scientifically oriented. We’re going to see that these
cycles, time, knowledge, publication, and
access, all come into play for primary,
secondary, tertiary information in the humanities
and social sciences. So let’s talk about some
of the big dimensions that we have to think about. So first, of course, is
our information type, right over here. And we’ve identified three
particular information types. Primary information,
secondary information, and tertiary information. So that one thing we
want to keep in mind. One major dimension. The second major dimension is
the disciplinary dimension. Because we discover
that things are just [INAUDIBLE] in the humanities
and social sciences from the art and the sciences. Although they’re
also very similar. This whole thing is very shades
of gray and very situational. But I’m dividing these
into broad categories. The humanities, the
social sciences, and science, technology,
engineering, and math, is commonly referred to
as STEM, which will– I should have written
medical here as well, because that’s very
similar to the information cycle in the medical field. So again, we have
our multiple cycles in play, time, knowledge,
publication, and access. So here comes the constraints. All of this information,
information type, discipline, cycle that’s in play, all of
this is hugely– it depends. It’s contextual. We’re going to see some
information sources with parts that are primary
and parts that are secondary. The situation that
you’re using it for, you might be looking
at particular parts of information. And here’s the other thing. There is a lot of disagreement. If you went up and
looked at library sites or other special sites
and said, can you tell me about
primary and secondary and tertiary sources
and sciences? One site might say this, and
another site might say that. So we’re going to look at
some broad based definitions for you look at things
situationally when you’re doing your work
to help you define this. But that’s the thing. The answer to a
primary, secondary, tertiary is it will
always be it depends. The answer for virtually
everything, really. Ask me about library ebooks. The answer to a question library
ebooks is always it depends. And maybe we’ll do a lesson
around those little bit later. I think that’s a real
interesting topic. OK. Any questions right now? OK. Let’s go on and start
thinking about the humanities. OK, so I’ve got some examples
of humanistic fields. The visual arts, the
performing arts, history. And here’s an interesting
thing, history. If you ask me what
history is, I would say that history is
a social science. But everybody else
seems to think that history is a humanity. So I’ve put it over
here in humanities, to go along with the general,
accepted listing of that. We have literature, of course,
we also have philosophy. So these are the things that we
think of as humanistic fields that are not scientific,
that are a little more squishy, a little
bit more interested in the humanistic
aspects of creativity. So the primary sources
for these sorts of areas are often original work,
and they’re creative works, and they’re original
expressions. So let’s take an example. I more or less have these
applicable across the way. But we’ll see that these kind
of apply for others things as well. So the visual arts, we
have preliminary sketches. And for all of these,
I want to emphasize the preliminary aspect of it. And we’ll see this
when we go back and look at our
information cycle. Because over here
at the start, we have coming up with a proposal,
making a lab note of things that you’re going to do. So we have prelminary sketches,
the things that you block out. a pre-painting of a painting. We have painting, we have
sculpture, we have photography, we have cartoons,
we have quotes. Selling clothing,
all those sorts of things that are
parts of the visual arts and the textile arts as well. This is not a
comprehensive listing. From performing arts, we have
our preliminary choreography notes. You may have scripts
or screenplays. We may have song lyrics. Performance art. We have movies, short
videos, things like that. For history, we have what
we think a traditional sort of primary sources. And lots of times,
when you start talking about primary
sources, the immediate thing that people think about
is historical subjects. And these are going to be
our letters, our diaries, manuscripts,
handwritten manuscripts. Eyewitness accounts of fact
based newspaper articles. We’re going to see newspapers,
once of those things that you can fit in
many different criteria. Original reporting. Autobiographies,
I write the story of my life, that is
considered a primary source. For literature, we’re talking
about poems, short stories, novels, creative works. For philosophy, we might
have a series of proofs. We also move from theses
sorts of conceptional things to dissertations
and theses, which are publications that are made
by people getting a master’s degrees and PhD degrees, that
signify that they are adding something to their discipline. They are original
and creative works. Like back in the day, if
you were an apprentice, you had to make a masterwork. And a thesis and dissertation
is a master work. And they are by definition
original work, or at least mostly. Kind of see how that [INAUDIBLE] So let’s look over
here at my picture. And this is
actually– [INAUDIBLE] I went with a Star Wars theme. Although I have to tell you it
is a little bit problematic. Originally I thought
steampunk, which might have been
more interesting, but I had to go with Star Wars,
because that’s kind of been the theme of the show. So here we have a
picture of Princess Leia, from some art book,
a work in charcoal. So if you look at
it, you can see that it is a representation
of the character in the movie. So we’re going to call
it a primary source, but we might come back
to this a little bit later and see if there’s
an argument for this being a secondary source. We’ll see. So let’s think about
our cycles in play. These primary sources
oftentimes are going to be as a creation
of them, the time. We start to create them. Over time we finish the
novel, we finish the quilt, we finish the collection
of photography. Over time, our knowledge builds. I start off with the preliminary
art work, and it’s really bad. And over time, I get
better, and it gets better. So my knowledge is extending,
the more I learn about this. Publications are going to
come a little bit later, and the access is a little
bit later after that. All right. So this is going to be a primary
sources in the humanities. So let’s move over–
one of our participants says, leave history
in the humanities. And you know, I swear, everybody
but you agrees with that. Although sometimes in my
classes I ask, and I’m like, how many people think
history is a humanity? The hands go up. And other people are like,
no, no it’s a social science. So I’m not the only one. The funny thing
is, you think this is a philosophical
question, isn’t it? Is history a humanity
or a social science? We can see that when it
comes to primary sources, it makes a difference. And it also makes a
difference, actually, when you’re looking for articles
because database providers have very strong feelings
in most cases that history is a humanity
rather than a social science. So these little
thoughtful questions have a wide
[INAUDIBLE] everywhere. OK. So let’s talk about
secondary sources. So a secondary source
in the humanities is going to be
something that provides analysis or interpretation
of the primary source or primary event. So we can be talking
about events as well as– and I might particularly
be thinking of that for historical types of things. So we go back to our list
here, of our visual arts, performing arts, et cetera. Now at this point I’m
putting down a reminder that some of these, because
these categories can really apply for all of those. So the first thing
we’re looking is going to be a
critical work, which is going to be a scholarly
work about something previously created. And you can look at
my example over here. This is a book, Star Wars and
Philosophy– More Powerful Than You Could Possibly Imagine. And it’s published
by Open Court. And this is probably a
little bit [INAUDIBLE], a little bit pop, maybe
a little bit scholarly. I didn’t have the book in hand
so I can’t precisely tell you, but they’re definitely
a primary source. They’re taking Star Wars
and they’re looking at it through the lens of philosophy. So very definitely looking at
something previously created and making something
new out of it. So these sorts of
things can be books, like Star Wars and Philosophy. But it can also be
a scholarly article. So it might be an article
that looks particularly at one aspect of Star Wars. Maybe like talking
about the Force and connecting it to religion
or something else like that. But remember, I don’t
want us to focus entirely on traditional sorts of
scholarly publication. It’s a new world out
there, and people are just as likely to be citing
articles on web. So blog posts also can
be a critical works, so they can be
secondary sources. Just like they can be
original sources, depending on what you’re writing. So literature reviews. Let’s go back to–
while we were talking about theses and dissertations. I said they’re primary
sources, because you are showing your masters. You are creating something new. But there’s a big part
of an article or a thesis or dissertation that is
not a primary source, and that’s literature
review part. And the literature
review is where you say, look what
other people have written about this in the past. Well they didn’t
do what I’m doing, and maybe there
were holes, but I have to acknowledge that I’m
working off of work that people have done in the past. So the literature review
part of a publication is actually a
secondary source, even though the work of
publication itself might be a primary
source, it depends. So biographies. Remember, an
autobiography is generally going to be a primary
source, it’s kind of from me. Although, it can be a little
bit problematic there as well. When you think about the fact
that if I can write something immediately after it happened. Where I was, the account,
versus me waiting 40 years to write the grand story
of Lorena O’English. It an autobiography,
but it’s kind of been separated a
little bit from time. But they tend to
be more, I would say, in the primary source
and secondary source. So you can see we’ve got
graduations here as well. But biographies, very
definitely primary sources. They are usually written
based upon an author’s look at all primary resources. Letters, diaries, and law stuff,
treaties, newspaper articles, all sorts of things that we
use to create a biography. Newspaper articles, as well. Let’s say I have a review
of the movie Star Wars. That is actually considered
a secondary source, because I’m talking about
the movie that I saw. What about a clip show? Think of That’s Entertainment,
or It’s the ’90s, or all the clip shows
that we all love to watch. The clips themselves
are primary sources. They are videos. They’re bit snippets
of movies, right? But we all know that a clip
show, really, is not just movie. It’s also the group of people,
the person who’s actually talking about it, providing
context, remembering memories of the ’90s. So that part of it is
going to be secondary. So you can see, it gets a
little bit complex here, and we had to really
start thinking about the purpose of how we’re
using this as we evaluate them. Any questions? The main thing you want to
remember is in humanities, it really is an analysis
or interpretation of the primary source. It’s an analysis of a poem. It is a critique
of a novel, maybe arguing that a novel was not
well written, or whatever. OK. So let’s look at our next thing. And now we’re going to talk
about tertiary sources. And the funny
thing is, the whole it depends thing, not
everybody recognizes that there are tertiary sources. Sometimes you’ll see people
lumping secondary sources and tertiary sources together. But I’m a librarian, I
believe tertiary sources. Because the way I define
it and many library people with many other people, is
that a tertiary source is going to be your background source. It is a reference source,
a presearch source. And what makes it tertiary is
that it is essentially accepted and synthesized knowledge. So you just believe
it is the way it is. So I thought a classic
example of a tertiary source is an encyclopedia. By the time something makes
it into an encyclopedia, it has become accepted as
something that is legitimate. That’s not always right. I remember looking
at a pop encyclopedia of politics many years ago. I’m from Arizona,
and it was talking about a period of time in
Arizona’s political history that I was very familiar with. And I know from my personal
information that I looked at it and it was wrong. So things happen. The other thing is that what
we know changes over time. You develop new theories,
like continental drift, or all the other sorts of
things that can happen. Things that we might
have totally believed were true, become not so true. So if you were to go back
and look at encyclopedias of the past, you would see a lot
of wrong information in them. So we have to
recognize that’s always going to be a factor in this. So our encyclopedias,
our reference works can be scholarly. Or they can be popular. They’re going to
be valuable for us, because they
synthesize information. They’re helpful in that
scaffolding, presearch phase where you’re just like, I gotta
learn a little bit about this so that I can talk
about it at the party, or so that I can actually
start doing research and have some general
information about what it is I should be looking for. Another classic
example is going to be a chronology, or a timeline. This one right here, this book. Star Wars– The New
Essential Chronology. And this would be a reference
for the timeline of chronology, so it’s generally
considered to be tertiary because it is synthesized
and extracted information. It’s not the primary
source, Star Wars. It’s not a narrative
book about Star Wars. It is the most
essential bits of all of those sorts of
things extracted and put into a timeline. And the other example here
is the Reference Guide to Science Fiction,
Fantasy, and Horror. So, classic sort
of encyclopedia. Dictionaries, of course,
also tertiary source. And textbooks. Textbooks are like
encyclopedias in a way. They give you
accepted knowledge. If something makes
it into a textbook, it’s pretty much considered
to be the way things are. The following may be
a little [INAUDIBLE]. That’s kind of how we fix that. Any questions about these? OK. So we’re going to move
now from the humanities over to sciences. And we’re going to see
that things are really going to start to change here. But we’ll start thinking
about these things. So here we have a
piece of our diagram, and I’m going to come back
to that in just a second, but here’s some examples of
our scientific, technical, engineering, math, and
also health sciences sorts of things. Although I didn’t include that. We have biology, chemistry,
computer science, agriculture, biology, biomedical, beakers. Chemistry, kind
of a lab science. Computer science and [INAUDIBLE]
technological sort of thing. Agriculture, sort of
a practical science. So let’s think about the
kinds of information that are primary sources for them. And again, going back to
this notion that the moment you think of something it
becomes a primary source. The moment you
write something down on the back of an
envelope, or lab notes. Then, right there,
it’s a primary source. So all my preliminary work. My experiment design. My lab notebooks, I
did these experiments, and this is what happened. Letters that I might
write to other people. Hey, you are doing this, too. This happened to me,
did it happen to you? Diaries. I just find diaries
are permanent sources. All sorts of documentation. So in the sciences,
a lot of times you have a tradition
of before you [INAUDIBLE] as you’re
working on ideas, part of the process of
working in ideas is to actually go to conferences
and talk about your ideas. And they’re not fully fleshed. You’re still working on them,
you’re hoping to get feedback. You’re hoping to
have discussion. So my conference presentations
are primary sources as well, as are technical reports,
which are very cut, not really easy to read, highly technical
explications of things that I might provide. Let’s say I got
funded, and they’d say, give us your
technical report so we can see what you’re doing. So those sorts of things
are primary sources. Now here’s it gets
kind of interesting, because in most
cases and humanities, articles tend to be
secondary resources. In most cases, not all. But in some instances,
in those cases articles tend to
be primary sources. Because they are the written
up, original research data and results that
have been published in the scientific journal. Remember, not all of them,
the literature review part, is not going to be
a primary source. But if you remember when we
were talking about journals, you remember that
journals tend to follow a particular structure. The introduction, the literature
review, I, M, Methods, R, results, and D, discussion. So the literature review part,
and probably the abstract, those are going to
be secondary sources. But my methods, and my
results, and my discussion are going to be the original
data, the original information, so those are various
primary sources. Again, dissertations and theses,
which are original ideas. And another classic example
is going to be a patent. If you look over here at
this piece in our diagram, you can see that
here we are, we’ve got our cycles, our time, our
knowledge, our publication, and our access cycle. So you start off
with an idea, and you might be kind of putting
it in a lab notebook. So that’s kind of the
publication, you write it down, so it’s publication. But these are generally not
available to the general user. Mind you, this is
starting to change. We’re starting to see a
phenomenon called Open Lab Networks, Open Lab Notebooks, or
we might find people blogging. So maybe this is starting
to open up a little bit. But traditionally
this whole part’s been opaque to anybody but
the actual researchers. Then we can go and might
present preliminary information at a conference presentation, so
you can [INAUDIBLE] conference you saw it. [INAUDIBLE] for access. You might have been
blogged or tweeted. You might access it that way. Or maybe the presentation
was written up in a volume of proceedings
and you read that, so you might be
able to access that. You can see that as we go along
this way at the very beginning, it becomes– as time
goes by, and knowledge becomes more fleshed
out, and publications become more available
to other people, and actually become
accessible to other people. So there really is
movement going the left around our circle. So that’s a really important
aspect of all this. Let’s type questions at this. So let’s go back and let’s
talk about secondary sources. You might not be able to read
this, but let’s look at this. This is an article that
appeared in WSU News today. And WSU researchers had found
that a compound in green tea had been found to block
rheumatoid arthritis. So this is not
actually the research. The research itself
was published in Arthritis and Rheumatology,
a journal of the American College of Rheumatology Today. So that’s the primary source,
the article in this journal. But this report of it
is a secondary source. WSU’s PR people are
making sure that people are aware that this
research is happening. The other thing that’s
going to happen over time is, let’s think about it. Oh my gosh, how
does this translate? If I drink lots of green
tea, I can prevent or make my rheumatoid arthritis a lot
less likely to be significant. So that’s kind of a
simplistic way of viewing it, but we’re going to see that
what happens in this research is going to be translated
and published over time in newspapers,
and popular magazines, and probably
sometimes distorted. Drink 10 cups of
[INAUDIBLE] green tea a day, and won’t get
rheumatoid arthritis. So that happens. Once you start moving into the
secondary and tertiary sources, and especially the
secondary, sometimes you run the risk of a game
of academic telephone. We’ve all played telephone. If you start with something,
you whisper it to someone, they whisper it to
someone, and as it gets whispered
across the way, it becomes more and more distorted. And that can sometimes
happen with this as well. Let’s talk a little bit about
some of the secondary sources. So here’s one. Research article. You’re like, Lorena, you said
research articles in general is going to be a primary
source for the sciences. But let’s look at this
a little bit more. This is a research
article that includes information about previously
published research. Maybe they’re actually
checking the data, or maybe they’re using it to
explain what they’re doing. Because remember,
science builds off of it. So that would be a case of
it being a secondary source. Again, the literature reviews
are secondary sources. Meta-analysis and
systematic reviews. These are really interesting. These actually started
off in the medical field, and they started to become
more and more important in the scientific field
and in the social sciences. In fact, there’s a professor
here at WSU in the education department who’s really big on
meta-analysis and systematic reviews. So what a systematic review
is, it says, all right. In the past 20 years there
have been 15 article written about the physics of Star
Wars and whether or not we can make a light saber. So let’s look at
those 10 articles, and let’s write a systematic
review all those 10 articles, teasing out the common
themes, and the conclusions, and what actually happens. So that’s a systematic review. Meta-analysis, in the
medical field it says, OK. We have 10 articles about
the effects of green tea on rheumatoid arthritis. And they’re all experiments. They used data in some way. We’re going to take these
articles and we;re going to analyze the data through this
mechanism that we’ve created. And then we’re going to say
after analyzing the data and doing the meta-analysis
that we have a recommendation. So it could be
really interesting. Kind of look back and looking
at previously done research in entirely different ways. So you really see
from the descriptions, those are very definitely
secondary sources that they’re using
in all of this. The other issue is the
land grant institution. So this is something that’s
kind of dear to my heart. The university
extension publication. My husband is the
university archivist. One of the things
that manuscripts and special collections have
been doing is really exciting. And I almost put a picture
in here, and I wish I had, is they’ve been digitizing old
extension [INAUDIBLE] records. Well what the extension
[INAUDIBLE] was about, they were essentially
taking research that was being done at WSU
and other institutions, and they were pulling
the information out of it that would actually help
farmers, homemakers, and kids actually be better farm
makers, better homemakers. Educated, et cetera. So they are basically
translating that, in a secondary way,
that original research. So you kind of remember, if
you were here two weeks ago, I was talking about trade
and professional journals. And one of the things that trade
and professional journals do is they oftentimes provide
our secondary sources for the primary research
that’s done in journals about that particular trade. There are also popular
magazine articles that are restating research. News you can use. How tos. And then we have
popular science books. A Brief History of Time
by Stephen Hawkins. Which every one buys and
no one actually reads. But that’s kind of an example
of something like this. Or we have the magazines,
like the distinction between Scientific American–
Scientific American is actually a really
interesting one. Scientific American I think is
the oldest published magazine in the country. It’s been around
since like, 1845, and it is a popular
science journal. However, this popular
science journal with articles written by giants in the field. Albert Einstein wrote
a number of articles for Scientific American. So again, just because
they’re secondary, that doesn’t mean that
they’re not legitimate. It just means that rather
than original research, I’m giving you analysis
and interpretation of previously completed work. Any questions about this? OK. So let’s look at
tertiary sources. And for tertiary
sources, again, remember some people will say
that tertiary sources and secondary sources
are the same thing. So we have kind
of the same thing. We have encyclopedias,
we have dictionaries. But I want to talk
about two other kinds of tertiary sources. And as you can see, I kind ran
out of steam with the images here, I’m not feeling
very well today. What happened is that, of
course I was finishing this up at the last minute as always. So I don’t have
images here, but I do have an image of the annual
review a little bit later. But what’s a handbook? Handbooks are great. Let’s say you’re a chemist. You’re a chemist, you’re
doing bench science. There’s certain
formulas, there’s certain things that you just
need to put your hands on. You just need to know an
old, old law, or something like that. A handbook essentially
is one volume that gives you all the
information that you need. You can just go look
at the index and say, I need to know the formula for
a square, and they’ll tell you. They’re very discipline
specific, handbooks are. And so they’re very
definitely tertiary sources. They are extracted reference,
presearch information. Very much extracted from–
something in a handbook might have been
discovered 300 years ago, but over time it’s become really
important accepted knowledge [INAUDIBLE] handbook. And [INAUDIBLE] reviews,
I’m going to talk about in a little bit more detail when
we look at the social sciences. So let’s look over here
at our [INAUDIBLE] again. Our time cycle, our knowledge
cycle, and publication cycle. So you can see at this point,
I started off over here with my art, kind of
thinking about things. Then it made it into a
conference presentation and an article. Over time it might make it
to a popular science book. You know, like a
Brief History of Time. Then gradually,
bits of those things become accepted
knowledge and end up in encyclopedias, annual
reviews, referenced books, et cetera. And textbooks, all
those sorts of things. OK, so now we’re going to talk
about the social sciences. And the social
sciences are weird, because they really
have elements of both the
humanistic disciplines as well as our science, math,
all of that STEM stuff as well. So let’s look at some examples. So I pulled out some examples
of social science disciplines. Political science,
psychology, which is generally considered to be a
behavioral science, although oftentimes people talk
about the social and behavioral sciences. Criminal justice,
sociology, and business. So look at the kind of
things that they might have. And again, this emphasis
on preliminary work. We cannot forget that
preliminary work is always going to be a primary source. The primariest of
primary sources. And of great interest
to historians, because when was– how did
this idea actually happen? What were the glimmers that made
something develop over time? And that’s the stuff that
you get not from the articles or encyclopedias, but
that’s the stuff you get from the preliminary work. They say that if a science is
the thing that most indicates something exciting is going to
be happening if someone says, oh blast! Or, that’s funny. Those sorts of things. And that all happens right over
here in our preliminary work. So here are some examples
of primary sources in social science. These are going to be
original works or expressions. But we’ll see that they’re not
all these entirely that way. So the congressional testimony. If I go and testify before
a congressional committee or before a Washington
legislative committee, my testimony is
a primary source. Although I may use
secondary sources in laws and regulations, and
international treaties are considered to
be primary sources. Survey data and opinion polls. Here we have a poll
from 1999, this was actually just before the
first movie in the second Star Wars series came out. We were still naive about what
was going to happen to them. And you can see,
they’re asking, how do you feel about the media
coverage about the new Star Wars movie that you’ve
seen or heard so far. Are you enjoying it,
are you sick of it, are you not much effected
by it, or haven’t you seen media coverage at all. So a lot of people forget
that polls are actually primary sources. They are snapshots in
time that can tell you a lot about a particular
community at a particular time. Star Wars is a phenomenon. Star Wars is this
big, huge thing. And then of course, the crash
when the second series was– I actually just watched it
again last year and I like it, but a lot of people
disagree with me. So polls can be
really interesting, they can really put in context. And one of the things
you want to think about is, how do I evaluate
my primary sources. Because we evaluate stuff. Just because somebody wrote a
poem, doesn’t mean it’s good. A poem is evaluated
on its merits. Artwork is evaluated
on its merits. A poll can be badly written. So that’s something also
that can be evaluated. The results of a
poll can tell me a lot about a particular
population that’s being polled in context of
events that are happening at that time, et cetera. So let’s say I’m a psychologist. My patient, my notes
that I take while I’m sitting there leaning back while
my person is being analyzed. Those are primary sources. Clinical trials. If I’m doing a clinical trial
in psychology or anything else, any information
coming out of that is going to be my
primary sources. If I’m a police officer
and I’m taking notes, that’s a primary source. In the social sciences, there’s
less bench science, obviously. And science might be
done through ethnography, or observation,
or from difference sorts of experiments. So all that data is
primary data as well. Theory generation. If I’m sitting
there and thinking about the grand,
unified theory of Star Wars in social sciences, that
theory is a primary source. Interviews, another classic
social science methodology. Statistical modeling,
focus group transcripts. And again, we’re going
to come back to it, original research
data and results published in a
scholarly journal. As well as all that
other stuff that we found with the humanities. Diaries, letters, all
those sorts of things. And dissertations and theses. And we have the same caveat for
our scholarly journal articles. That if you’re looking
at the abstract or the literary reviews,
are probably not primary, but more secondary. But we kind of ignore that
because, the vast majority of the work is going to
be primary work, so we’ll consider it that way. Any questions? So, secondary sources. And here it starts
getting interesting. Because, first of all–
actually, I think all of this is interesting. First of all, we have books
that synthesize information. And you know, I actually
really like books. A lot of people don’t want
to look at a 200 page book. They’re like, oh my
gosh, it’s 200 pages. But think about
what a book does. A book is an extended narrative. And we’ll talk just
a little bit more when we talk about using stuff. A book generally doesn’t
assume from page one you know everything there
is to know about that topic, or that you’re an expert,
the way journal articles sometimes do. So books can be really valuable,
because they’re synthesizing all that primary research,
and they have 200 pages or 300 pages to lay it all out. So they don’t have to be
really hugely condensed. So here we have our example,
Living in Lone Space, and this is talking about
Star Wars role play. So this is kind of
sociology, they’re looking at Star Wars fans. So that would be kind
of a classic example of sociological research. Critical works. Again, when I say
critical works, I don’t mean critical
as in criticizing, bur rather you’re critically
evaluating what are the strengths, what
are the weaknesses. Books, articles, blog
posts, et cetera. Book reviews, literature
reviews, again that analysis and systematic review. The other times [INAUDIBLE]
the same sorts of sources. There’s only so many
sources out there. Biographies, newspaper articles,
popular magazine articles, restating research. Again, [INAUDIBLE] our
popular social science books. Like here’s Blink
from Malcolm Gladwell. Malcolm Gladwell is not saying
anything original in Blink. He is synthesizing work that
has been done by other people and presenting it in a way
that is much easier for people to see, than reading
the original research. And then, the other
example over here, this is a article, Star Wars
of Myth– A Fourth Hope, which is sort of a psychological
treatment of Star Wars, which would very definitely
be a secondary source. So, I am, again, going back to
the analyzing and interpreting primary sources, here. So let’s look at
tertiary sources. It’s the same sort
of thing, but here I want to talk a little
bit about annual reviews. Annual reviews are one of my
absolute favorite sources. And you can make an argument
that annual reviews are kind of a weird combination
of primary, secondary, and tertiary. Because they’re kind of
literature reviews on steroids. Basically, I say I’m
the head of this, and I’m like, what
should sociology know about complexity. You can see this
slide over here. And so I say,
well, you know, I’m a giant in the field of
sociology, I know everyone. And I know that he,
and she, and she are people who are doing
stuff on sociology complexity. So I ask them to write
an annual review. And the this review
article essentially looks back at maybe
20 or 30 years worth of literature in sociology
about sociology and complexity. And it widens it all up. So it’s kind of a literature
review on steroids. But it does some
other things that are really, really interesting. Because not only do they bring
out the important literature. Not only do they discuss
is and put it in context, but they also identify gaps
in the literature, which can be really, really valuable. What they do not do,
unlike a systematic review or meta-analysis is draw
conclusions absolutely from all the work. They may draw theme, but
they don’t draw conclusions. So the [INAUDIBLE] kind
of a distinction there. Any questions about this? Ah, let’s see, I see
there’s a question. Is an annual review like
an annotated bibliography. Very interesting question. An annotated bibliography
would be more like a classic
literature review. So I would put that in
as a secondary source. Because you are reading the
original articles, and then you’re annotating them. A review article is kind
of doing that, but doing it through different lens. Kind of separating– remember,
going further and further away from that original research,
by looking at a whole pile of articles of drawing
out new conclusions. Sort of synthesizing that. So as you move from primary,
second, into tertiary, you’re synthesizing
more and more. You’re drawing out
the important things and leaving the less
important stuff behind. OK. So we’re back to
our diagram, now. And this part of the diagram
is where we say, hey, now we want to know about how do
we use these sorts of sources. So here, remember
when we were talking about the differences
between primary, secondary, and tertiary, how
that is created, we’re moving on this
diagram clockwise, over here to the right. But the way I recommend
actually using these sources is to move counterclockwise. Let’s say I’m writing my paper
on the physics of Star Wars. I don’t know much about it. I’m not going to start
with a scholarly article. I’m going to start
with that synthesis, and then start with a
reference work, which is going to give me the
essential points in providing context. Maybe all the other good
things that they help you with. Terminology that may help you
do that searching, et cetera. And then after I
start getting a sense of the outline of my topic
encyclopedia or reference works, then I may go to that
extended narrative in a book. And then when I’ve
digested that a little bit, then I’m probably going to
go to my scholarly articles. Because on of the
things we talked about two weeks ago in my former
webinar is scholarly articles, they’re usually very specific. They [INAUDIBLE] in on a
particular research question. And oftentimes
assume a certain body of knowledge on the
part of the reader. If you’re reading a
scholarly article cold, it can be really
hard to figure out. But it you’re reading it having
moved counterclockwise along out information cycle, starting
off with reference works, reading a book, then you’re
more likely to understand where they’re coming from, and
be able to make more sense out of it. Annual reviews, wonderful. There’s a database of annual
reviews called Annual Reviews. It is one of my absolute
favorite, favorite sources. It is so good. And the other thing about
[INAUDIBLE] by the way– I have to step out a little
bit and tell you about this. One of the things
it does, is it also helps you learn how to do
certain types of review articles. It helps you learn a
little bit about how do I incorporate a literature
review into my text. The best way to learn
how to do that, and be how professionals do that. So you can move away
from a block of text, and then how you
thought about it, and learned how to integrate
primary and secondary sources more gently into your work. So you can see, here we are. And I wanted to kind of
go back to that notion. I have this great
cartoon and I really wish I’d remembered
to put this in this, because it’s really funny. Because it kind
of talks about how as you move along
these cycles, that game of telephone, how information
can become distorted. And where it tends
to be distorted is along our publication
cycle, right over here in popular magazines,
and then on the internet. Where people are–
the classic example of that is many years
ago there was a study that supposedly– Time
magazine or Newsweek had a big cover article on it. That a woman over
the age of 30 was more likely to be killed by a
terrorist than she was to get married. Which was ridiculous. That was a very, very distorted
gloss of the original research. But a publication
that is usually pretty legitimate
like Time and Newsweek can really screw up sometimes. So it’s really important if
you ever have any questions, go back to the original source. Go back to primary source. Go and read that
research article. Go read that poem,
and see if you agree with how it was extracted
in your secondary source. Something to think about. OK. I’ve got some resources
for more information here. I really liked that diagram,
and this is from a PowerPoint from a Carol Green,
who’s a librarian here in the state of Washington. One of the things
that people are really interested in primary
sources for, of course, is here at WSU, if people are
taking a Roots Contemporary Issues class. And we have a really
nice tutorial on that. When people are looking
for stuff with Roots, a lot of time they
forget about some of these powerful
primary sources. If you like polling data,
or congressional testimony, or congressional
reports, et cetera. I wanted to finish
with an example of how complex it can get. Let’s think about a painting. And this painting is a painting
of something from history. Maybe it’s George
Washington crossing the Delaware of something.
is that a primary source or a secondary source? Because it’s a painting, right? It’s a creative work. So here we have to go
back to it depends. Because as a painting,
it’s a primary source. It is a creative work. It tells us something
about maybe the person who is actually doing the painting. It may tell us in
what it emphasizes a little bit about the
period in which it’s painted. But as a historical item,
it is a secondary source. Because this painter
was not there, watching George Washington
cross the Delaware. It’s not based on eyewitness
experience or eye witness testimony. There’s a certain amount
of historical imagination going on there. So that’s a secondary source. So that painting is
once, a primary source and a secondary source. And really through
all of this, we discovered we really
go back to it depends. So you really want to
think about what part of it you’re using, how are
you using it, what discipline are you using it. It’s all situational,
rather than absolute. Any questions? Have I confused the
issue even more? And if you want, feel free
to give me some examples and we can talk about this. Because if you’re
asking people, this can always create a discussion. If we went back to the things
that Josh and Carrie suggested, Josh’s form, his
responses to the form are obviously a primary source. And Carrie’s discussion
group post is maybe primary, but they also incorporate
elements of secondary work. So it depends. All right. Any questions? Anybody want to
throw out an example? What’s a Facebook post? Facebook post primary,
secondary, or tertiary? OK, Carrie says it’s
depends on the content. That’s right. Because if I’m writing a
Facebook post and I’m saying, oh I love my dog
and he’s so cute. That kind of primary, right? I’m just saying that. But if I’m linking to something
else, then that’s secondary. If I am linking to
something else that’s secondary, but if I’m putting
my own analysis of the link up in the status
[INAUDIBLE] that’s primary. Or secondary. Really, each
particular situation has to be evaluated [INAUDIBLE]. Exactly, exactly. Carrie suggests it
depends on the context, and that is always
going to be the case. We have to go back
this little thing here, that I should put again
at the end of my slide, but this notion
of our dimensions. Our information type,
our broad disciplines, and the context of use. What part of it, how are
we using it, and if there are arguments to be made here. And if you are interested
in these primary sources and secondary sources, if you’d
like another webinar perhaps in the future about
finding primary sources and evaluating primary sources,
talk to Olivia and Josh, and say, hey, this
is something you would like, because that
would be something, certainly, that we at the libraries
would be happy to do. There’s some really
great resources out there for primary
sources that a lot of people don’t know about. That could be really
cool for finding some of these sorts of things. And of course, the evaluation
can be a little bit tricky. How do I evaluate
a newspaper article that was written 100 years ago. How do I evaluate a cartoon. How do I evaluate a photograph? If there aren’t
any more questions, I’m going to say thank you all
for letting me come for three sessions here for this the
Star Wars series, our scholar series. And I really enjoy
doing these sessions. I’ve learned a lot myself,
because, let’s go back to primary, secondary, tertiary. This exercise has been kind of
a good tertiary exercise for me. It made me consolidate
my own knowledge and think about thing
in a broader way. So it’s been a lot of fun. And I’m going to turn this off,
and turn you back to Olivia. OLIVIA: Hi. Thank you so much, Lorena,
for making this presentation. I definitely learned a lot
more than I expected. Don’t forget to do the
survey link in the chat box. We love your guys’ input and
thanks again for tuning in. Stay tuned for future
events upcoming, and have a great rest of your night.