How and why do primary and secondary sources differ?

In the September 2009 issue of the journal Geology, a team of British scientists led by one Timothy Daley published an article describing their analysis of oxygen isotopes in fossilised Newfoundland mosses (Daley et al, 2009). Their research indicated that at the end of the last ice age, there was a period of severe cooling in eastern North America likely caused by an influx of glacier melt water into the Atlantic Ocean. The study came to the attention of the National Geographic Society, and it became the topic of a news article written by Kate Ravilious for the National Geographic News website (Ravilious, 2009). A comparison of the original scientific study and its subsequent report clearly demonstrates that primary and secondary sources vary greatly in their presentation of the same information.

The most obvious difference between the original study and the article summarizing it is the difference in format and style. See their respective titles: Daley’s study is called “Terrestrial climate signal of the ‘8200 yr B. P. cold event’ in the Labrador Sea region”, which appears dull and uninspired compared to Ravilious’s attention-grabbing headline “Global Warming Could Cool N. America in a Few Decades?”. Ravilious is a journalist, and so the intention of her title, like any news title, is to attract an audience for her story. Daley’s title is not meant to serve the same purpose; rather, it is straight-forward so that other researchers will understand exactly what his paper is about, and be able to judge its relevance to their own research (Booth et. al, 2008, p. 248). As a scientific paper, Daley’s article adheres to a strict format: there is an abstract followed by an introduction, a description of the methods used in the study, a presentation of the data, interpretation of the data, and finally a conclusion, all of it separated and well-formatted. This is the standard form of a scientific research paper, and by following the proper form, one can more easily earn the respect of the scientific community (Booth et. al, 2008, p. 14). Ravilious, on the other hand, is more concerned with conveying the story to the general public. She can therefore follow a less strict format. A final stylistic comparison pertains to the word choice of each article. Like most scientific papers, Daley’s report is filled with technical terms and symbols unfamiliar to the layman. It should be remembered, however, that the layman is not Daley’s target audience; rather, he is writing to his fellow scientists, who already understand the terminology being used. On the other hand, Ravilious’s news report is directed at a general audience, and so more familiar words and phrases are used. Although both papers are reporting the same information, the manners in which they present it are very different in approach.

Another major difference between the two articles is the amount of detail that each provides with regards to the research that was conducted. Daley’s journal article is about four pages in length, while Ravilious condenses the same material into about five hundred words. The reason for this is clear: primary sources must go into far more depth than secondary sources. In his article, Daley gives thorough explanation of the methods used during his research and the reasons for using his methods. This is so that other researchers can trust that Daley’s findings are accurate. The general public is not as concerned about the precise methodology of scientific research, but more as to what the results were and why they are significant. Ravilious can therefore afford to give a much briefer description of the study and concentrate more upon applications of the new information. This focus on the implications of the research leads into the last major example of how primary and secondary sources differ.

A final, crucially important consideration is how each article interprets and presents the results of the research. Recognition should be given to Ravilious for avoiding a common problem found in secondary sources: the exaggeration of claims. In science, hypotheses can never be proven, and results are never certain. The popular press, however, often interprets scientific research as having made fully established findings. It is reassuring, therefore, to find Ravilious’s article devoid of any “certains”. Rather, use is made of words like “could”, “might”, and “possible”. This mirrors the language used in Daley’s report, which avoids absolute certainty. Daley also acknowledges that many aspects of the topic “remain to be explained” and this is made clear by Ravilious. Such inclusions are noteworthy, for limitations of the research are often not emphasized in secondary sources. Many authors, including Ravilious, also make inferences that were not expressed in the primary sources. The main focus of Ravilious’s article, as stated in the title, is that Daley’s work suggests that the melting Greenland ice caps could trigger a period of cooling in North America similar to that which occurred 8200 years ago. This view is not explicitly endorsed by Daley’s article, which makes only one reference to the parallel between the Greenland ice cap and that which existed previously in North America. In some instances, secondary reports may entirely misinterpret the findings of the original article, or else apply the findings to ways they were not intended, either of which can have damaging effects. It is for this reason that interpretation and understanding of scientific findings is often the most important difference between primary and secondary sources.

This comparison of Foley’s scientific study and Ravilious’s popular account has demonstrated that primary and secondary sources often differ substantially in their presentation of information. The style and format are often very different, as is the amount of detail presented in each article. Perhaps most importantly, secondary sources often make stronger claims than the original research, and often the limitations discussed in the primary literature are downplayed in popular accounts. Secondary sources may often add their own inferences and conclusions to those made in primary sources. When all of these issues are considered, the underlying message becomes clear: an understanding of the differences between primary and secondary sources is an essential requirement for research of any kind.

REFERENCES

Booth, Wayne C. et al. The Craft of Research. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Daley, Timothy J. et al, “Terrestrial climate signal of the ‘8200 yr B.P. cold event’ in the Labrador Sea region”. Geology. September 2009, v. 37, no. 9. pp. 831-834. doi: 10.1130/G30043A.

Ravilious, Kate. “Global Warming Could Cool N. America in a Few Decades?”. National Geographic News. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090914-north-america-cooling-warming.html. September 14 2009. Accessed October 5 2009.