Which sources (primary vs secondary) should dominate your reference list?

I’ve been wondering about this ever since I started working on a paper about women’s roles during World War II. I’ve got a few letters and diaries (which I assume count as primary sources), but most of what I’m referencing comes from books and articles written by historians. My professor mentioned that we need to “balance” the sources, but didn’t explain much beyond that. I don’t want to overdo it with secondary stuff and miss out on what the paper actually needs. Just curious — when you’re writing something research-heavy like this, do you lean more on primary sources or secondary ones?

 

This really depends on the topic, but yeah — I’ve had a similar dilemma when I was writing a paper on climate policy. I had tons of secondary analysis from think tanks and journal articles, but just a few direct interviews and official documents (my primaries). What helped me figure it out was reading https://www.customwritings.com/howtowrite/post/how-long-should-research-paper-be/ — it breaks down how different types of papers might require different ratios. In general, I think secondary sources help you shape your argument and context, while primary ones give it weight and originality. But if your research is mostly analytical, like historical interpretation, secondary might naturally dominate — and that’s okay if you’re using them well.

 

Just dropping by this thread and thought I’d say — it’s actually cool to see people discuss the mix of sources like this. I don’t think we talk enough about how to use sources strategically, not just throw them in for the sake of meeting requirements. Seeing this kind of breakdown actually gives me ideas for how to rethink my next paper.