beetle Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 I'm in the process of writing my History EE and the majority of my sources are "secondary" sources, i.e. papers published in academic journals etc. Is this acceptable? Or are primary sources generally more well favoured by examiners? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcurrant Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) Neither is more favoured. A mix of both kinds is encouraged. One or the other will do,of course; but I daresay it will be rather more interesting for your readers (in this case the History examiners) and a good habit in History, if you can include both -- especially if you are providing an alternative explanation to an event to that given by more traditional / accepted interpretations usually offered by the secondary sources. Presumably, a more subtle reading of primary sources would be required. Or first-hand accounts coming to light. There should be plenty of examples of that interplay of primary-secondary sources in the more scholarly history accounts (I'm thinking Barabara Tuchman in her book_Guns of August or anything by Keegan; or the academic journals, for that matter.) Edited January 3, 2017 by Blackcurrant 2 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.