Critically Reading and Assessing Primary Sources In both the study of history and the study of politics the use of 'primary sources' is very important, and as a student you should know how to acquire and analyse primary source material. A primary source contains first-hand information on a topic or event, while a secondary source contains information that has already been analysed and interpreted. For further explanation, see here. Primary sources present unique opportunities for students, but also unique analytic challenges and limitations. Key questions to keep in mind are: 1.) Who is the author, and what is the purpose of the document? 2.) What is the context of the document? 3.) Who is meant to be the audience of the document? 4.) What is the 'shelf life' of the document? (i.e. when does the information it contains stop being accurate?) 5.) Did the author know that the document would become public? If they did, would they have reason to skew the 'message' in order to portray a particular viewpoint? 6.) What about the document would indicate its level of reliability? 7.) Is the information contained in the document supported or refuted by other sources? 8.) Does the document point to other sources you could acquire? (NOTE: It is important to keep in mind that a document can be either a primary or secondary source, depending on WHY you are reading it. For instance, the following document is a memorandum sent from the US embassy in Ottawa, Canada back to the US State Department in Washington. In it, a diplomat at the US embassy is explaining the Canadian security environment and the US-Canada relationship over security. If you are studying the relationship between the US and Canada on security or the US perception of Canada as an ally, this is a primary source because the US diplomat who wrote it is a direct participant in that relationship. In this case, you are analysing a direct result of the topic you are studying. However, if you are studying Canadian security policy this is a secondary source because the US diplomat who wrote it is commenting on (but not a participant in) Canadian security policy. In this case, you would be analysing another person's analysis of the topic you are studying. In this case, we will assume you are studying the US-Canada relationship on security, making the memorandum a primary source.) How to cite a primary source: A good general rule is to stay as close to the same citation format you are using for other sources, while still providing as much information as possible that would allow another researcher to re-locate the source. For instance, if you are using Chicago style citations, the entry for this document would probably look something like this: Memorandum from US Embassy Ottawa, 'Canada: 2005 Country Report on Terrorism' December 2005 (Washington, DC: Department of State) <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/133166.pdf> Accessed February 2013.