Secondary, and Tertiary Sources in a Secondary

¶ … secondary, and tertiary sources in a secondary search.

Primary sources may include actual documents from the historical period being researched or hard data derived from experiments. The distinctive characteristic of primary research is that it has "not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation. Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based. They are usually the first formal appearance of results in physical, print or electronic format. They present original thinking, report a discovery, or share new information" (Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, 2006, University of Maryland Libraries). Secondary research is a commentary upon primary works, such as a journal article evaluating and interpreting a scientific study or a work of literature.

Journal articles can be either primary or secondary sources -- while a report of a study would constitute a primary source, a literature review of a variety of studies would constitute a secondary source. Secondary sources "are not evidence" but rather are "commentary on and discussion of evidence" (Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, 2006, University of Maryland Libraries). A tertiary source consists "of information which is a distillation and collection of primary and secondary sources," such as an encyclopedia, textbook, or guidebook to the discipline (Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, 2006, University of Maryland Libraries).

Q5. Some researchers find that their sole sources are secondary data. Why might this be? Name some management questions for which secondary data sources are probably the only ones feasible.

Managers cannot always conduct extensive research upon different types of behavior. For a new product launch, a manager might conduct market research upon consumer preferences. But when structuring a new performance-for-pay initiative, the manager cannot conduct a longitudinal study to determine what sorts of pay structure incentives motivate workers. For psychologically-oriented types of experiments, such as how to motivate workers to function effectively as a unit, managers are unlikely to have the type of background in psychometric research to conduct such a study, much less a budget to do so. Determining how to create a safer workplace, based upon available evidence, is likely to require knowledge of secondary research conducted as to whether specific conditions are hazardous or not amongst a large cross-section of people.

Q7. What problems of secondary data quality must researchers face? How can they deal with them?

The first problem with secondary data is that of conscious or unconscious researcher bias. Researchers may present the data in such a manner that the reader is likely to be more sympathetic to their position. Even researchers without a specific 'agenda' in terms of how they present information may not give enough weight and emphasis to results that do not immediately pertain to their object of study, but could be potentially significant. There is also the risk that the data could be accumulated in a faulty manner. This is why it is so essential that researchers give careful scrutiny to possible bias amongst authors of primary data studies, and carefully review their methods. Cross-comparison of different studies and conducting an adequate literature review can also guard against using potentially inaccurate primary data. If a study's findings are inconsistent with the rest of the scientifically-validated literature, their findings should be regarded with caution.

Q1. How does qualitative research differ from quantitative research?

Qualitative research is experiential research, and is not data-driven in the same manner as primary research. Usually, it is recorded in words rather than numbers. "In qualitative research, a hypothesis is not needed to begin research. However, all quantitative research requires a hypothesis before research can begin," otherwise it is merely a presentation of raw data (The qualitative vs. quantitative debate, 2011, University of Colorado). Qualitative research, however, can take the form of an ethnography of case study without a clear purpose other than the presentation of a specific type of phenomenon. "Typically qualitative data involves words and quantitative data involves numbers, there are some researchers who feel that one is better (or more scientific) than the other. Another major difference between the two is that qualitative research is inductive and quantitative research is deductive" (The qualitative vs. quantitative debate, 2011, University of Colorado). Quantitative research attempts to prove or disprove a general hypothesis, while qualitative research details specifics that may or may not be generalized to a wider population

Q2. How do data from qualitative research differ from data in quantitative research?

Most obviously, qualitative research takes the form of words rather than numbers. Quantitative research often constructs a specific situation, such as a study with control groups or a questionnaire, to elicit responses that are particular to the hypothesis. Qualitative research is less directive than quantitative research and often takes the form of participant observations on the part of the researcher or open-ended formats such as question-and-answer sessions. "Quantitative research often 'forces' responses or people into categories that might not 'fit' in order to make meaning. Qualitative research, on the other hand, sometimes focuses too closely on individual results and fails to make connections to larger situations or possible causes of the results" (The qualitative vs. quantitative debate, 2011, University of Colorado). Unlike in quantitative research, the observer or researcher is often 'present' in recording the results, as he or she discusses his or her impressions of the subjects, and possible biases and assumptions he or she brought to the work.