Instead of calling primary research or secondary, call them research using primary or secondary data. As most of the secondary data comes from institutions, they are regarded more reliable. However, at the same time, by using a rigorous approach primary data can also be equally reliable.

One of the key disadvantages of primary data collection is the amount of money and effort required. In contrast, secondary data is often readily available at minimal cost.

On the opposite side, however, the major advantage of collecting your own primary data is that you can cover exactly the topics that interest your most. In contrast, secondary data is often missing things that you would consider to be important for your purposes.

Carrying out your own primary data targets your research objectives, but as you mentioned you need secondary data depending on topic. I also agree with both David L Morgan and Muhammad Mumtaz Khan

Thank you Muhammad Mumtaz Khan, David L. Morgan, and Adita Maharaj for your valuable contribution regarding the topic. For sure you have lifted me from the confusion. Respect.

It's always better to go to the original source of the research if possible. That way, you are seeing it through only the author's voice, not the voice of an 'interpreter,' if you will. Yes, it can be time-consuming, and maybe expensive. However, I have found my local library to be of immense help in finding things at no cost to me. If you have a library at your university or in your town, use them!

Thank you Constance Fuller for you contribution. Really i appreciate it.

Yeah, it should be secondary or primary data, not secondary or primary research. New information is more frequently brought to the fore by primary data than is by secondary data

Thank you Josephine Oranga. Sure.

Very interesting topic.

Thank you Humberto Costa.

Primary data is more reliable than secondary data as such, researcher have to bear with whatever constraints comes his way

I am also of the opinion of primary data as opposed to secondary data , as data collected according to what I need as the researcher even though it comes with a cost and I can use it as I want

I think both kinds of data are equally significant. Secondary data lay the foundation of discourse, and primary data provides the bricks to confirm or, let's say, validate the claims of secondary data by adding new updates to the phenomenon. In my perception, both types of data are interwoven in each other.

Thank you Abdulsalam Idris, Baatshwana Pheto-Moeti, and Ambreen Alam, for your contributions.

This confuses me much. I do think, the method of data collection depends on the availability of such data. For example, if the data available in the sky, one cannot get them using sea way. It is impossible to collect primary data type using secondary method. So, the use of the data is something crucial than source of data. To get stationary or otherwise while analysisng, it does not choose to only secondary or primary. With all the types you may find unexpected results if not well setted, that is why we test the results to see the validity and reliability regardless we use secondary or primary data. So, if the secondary data method lays only foundation, why now nowadays researchers are busy doing secondary data researches?

Still i need the help, please.

Thank you.

Wakara, as others have said, sometimes you don't have a choice because primar.y data is not available. For your own research, the literature you refer to is simply providing a point of reference for your topic. Some will agree with your hypotheses, some will not. Then, as you say, it is up to you as the researcher to clarify with your own research. On the other hand, if you are using data that someone else prepared, such as archival information or reports, that is technically secondary information since you did not collect the information yourself, you are just analyzing it. In a case like that, you would clearly say in the description of your methodology that you are using archival information, where it is coming from, and the timeframe it covers. Bottom line, as someone has already said, is that there are two different types of primary and secondary information that may be involved in a dissertation. One is the kind that you read about. If it is from the original source, say the author of a book or article, it is primary. However, if it is from someone who used the original source in their own book and cited it, then it is secondary. For your own research, primary data is the data you create, and secondary data is data created by someone else, as in archival data mentioned above. Does that help???

Agree with Constance Fuller

Thank you Constance Fuller and Adita Maharaj for the nice and strong contribution.

Both Secondary and Primary data are reliable as at the time. The Primary data is current and requires the secondary data to make informed recommendations for a research guided lasting solution to the problem under study. Once the findings stand to be referred, the facts becomes secondary to help develop knowledge.

Yes I agree with others that Secondary data is information already available for one to use or you are using someone's existing information because of no choice of collecting you own primary data but it has its own limitations in terms of quality for example

Thank you Baatshwana Pheto-Moeti and Peter Mbevo Mutua for your contribution.

It all depends upon the availability of data. If secondary data are available for your variable of interest, use them. Otherwise, you have to collect data by yourself(primary data). Anyway, bear in mind that without doing primary data collection , there will not be any secondary data!

Thank you C George Thomas for your contribution.

I think part of your confusion comes from a lack of clarity between primary and secondary sources and primary and secondary data, and a lack of differentiation between qualitative and quantitative research methods. It appears that some of the people you've heard are not clear on the differences. In writing and using published information and citing the source, a primary source is always a better option than a secondary source. The primary source is where the information was first published. If it was quoted somewhere else, and you read it there, then that is a secondary source. You should not use and cite the quoted text or data from the secondary source, but go back and find the quote or data in the original, primary source and quote and/or cite it from there. As for the criticisms of primary data being less valid due to the subject's mood, I think that is ridiculous. That kind of data gathering you mentioned-- interviewing people directly, is a qualitative research method, and whether or not the subject was in a bad mood has nothing to do with the validity of the data you get from them. What the subject said in that moment IS the data. Data is data, and the fact that individual subjects may be different, biased, in a bad mood, etc. is just part of the risk inherent in the process of conducting qualitative research. If you think the person answered based on changing emotions and might respond differently at a different time, you just note that in your discussion of "Limitations." If you read a report of research and wonder about the reliability of the data, check what the researcher said in the Limitations section of the paper. Individual differences are a normal and expected part of qualitative research. The key thing is to use the kind of data that best suits your research design. In quantitative studies, good secondary data usually IS the best data to use: it is aggregate data, it often includes a large sample, and it is not difficult to minimize bias. In qualitative studies, you MUST use primary data. Neither primary nor secondary data is inherently better than the other--they are just used for different kinds of research and produced different kinds of data, and the researcher has different understandings and expectations about reliability and validity when using one or the other.

Thank you Linda Mayfield and all contributed to my discussion. I do value your esteemed contribution much and it is the moral of knowledge sharing. Thank you. The discussion was to clarify for the benefits of all who read the answers, presenters of such kind, and beginners. It is better to be known that, the choice of the method depends to a number of factors, as Linda Mayfield illustrated regarding quantitative and qualitative researches use secondary and primary data respectively among others. For sure what was sought is the clarity due to presenters make confusion while delivering, something makes the beginners to hate some of the research methods. This is what cited in my introduction. Thank you.

Thank you Linda Mayfield, however I would like to get a better understanding of your explanation. I am wondering, when we administer a questionnaire, are we not collecting primary data? I got confused when you said that quantitative studies are the ones that use secondary data/sources.

Questionnaire is a primary data collection tool. But this does not mean that, it collects only quantitative or qualitative data. What determines whether the data is for qualitative or quantitative research, is the type of questions used by the researcher. For example, when using open ended questions means you need views, ideas, logics, etc, and this is the qualitative data. And when asks closed ended questions means the researcher has transformed the requirements by coding, so that the requirements is quantitative data. So, what determines whether qualitative or quantitative data collected by questionnaire is the type of questions that makes the questionnaire be with structured or unstructured nature of questions. In this case, questionnaire is the primary data collection tool, which can be used to collect either qualitative data or quantitative data to fulfill the researcher's needs. I submit.

Hi. I asked why Mayfield said that quantitative studies are the ones that bring about secondary data. DOES IT MEAN THAT WHEN AM COLLECTING DATA by use of a questionnaire first~hand, that's not primary data or

a primary source. That only interviews, observation, and FGDs-to name but a few qualitative data techniques- produce primary data? That's how I understood Mayfield"s explanation".

When you conduct your own survey, that is primary data. But if you make it publicly available, then others may use it as a secondary data.

With qualitative data, it is much more unusual for someone to make their study publicly available, so secondary data is rare in that field

Thanks so much David L Morgan for that explanation. Would you please elaborate further what you mean by making the ''STUDY'' publicly available please? Does it mean

the same thing as publishing the study? If my understanding is right, are you saying in other words that qualitative studies aren't as frequently published as quantitative ones? Please help clarify this. Thanks a lot

Making the study available usually means archiving the data, so that other can download them. This happens much more frequently with quantitative studies and their data than with qualitative studies.

Wow!Thanks for the clarification.

Josephine Oranga, I did not address surveys in my Comment. If you administer a survey, you are collecting primary data. If you publish your results and someone else reads your article, to them, your article is a primary SOURCE because they are using material from the person who actually did the research--you. The data, however, to that person, is secondary DATA, because they did not collect it themselves. I hope that clarifies that issue. Regarding whether the survey data is qualitative or quantitative depends on how it is analyzed. If you ask questions then count how many answered in a certain way, or how many selected certain options, or where the scores fell on a Likert scale, or apply statistical analysis methods, then you are using quantitative analysis methods and your results will be quantitative. If you ask open-ended questions and analyze the responses using qualitative methodology such as analysis, coding, and interpretation, however, you will get qualitative results. I hope that helps clarify.

David L. Morgan, a significant body of qualitative research has been conducted and published in the science of nursing. Narrative Pedagogy, a phenomenological approach developed by theorist Dr. Nancy Diekelmann, has had a significant impact on nursing research around the world. I had the privilege of working at one of the US schools in which she tested her theory, and several of my colleagues accompanied Dr. Diekelmann to Australia where they intensively taught it as guests of the Australian national nursing organization.

Linda Mayfield What is rare in qualitative research is to make the original data available for secondary analysis.

Thanks so much Linda Mayfield and David Morgan for sharpening my understanding