Reference Secondary Sources Harvard Style

Written By

Ethan Carter

✔️ 97% Satisfaction | ⏰ 97% On Time | ⚡ 8+ Hour Delivery

One of the most frequently asked referencing questions and one where students consistently lose marks. Understanding what a secondary source is and how to reference it correctly matters.

What Is a Secondary Source?

A secondary source is a source you cite because you found it mentioned in another source, not because you read it directly.

Example: You read Jones (2020). Jones cites Smith (2015) and quotes something interesting that Smith said. You want to use Smith's idea in your dissertation. But you haven't read Smith's original paper. You found Smith through Jones.

Smith (2015) is your secondary source. Jones (2020) is your primary source (the one you actually read).

This is different from using Smith's paper as a source after you've tracked it down and read it yourself. If you find Smith's original paper and read it, Smith becomes a primary source.

The Correct Harvard Format for Secondary Sources

In-text citation: (Smith, 2015, cited in Jones, 2020)

Reference list: You include only Jones, 2020. You don't include Smith, 2015.

Example of how this looks:

In text: "Research suggests that peer support is most effective when endorsed by institutional leadership (Smith, 2015, cited in Jones, 2020)."

Reference list entry: Jones, J., 2020, Organisational change and staff wellbeing, London, Routledge.

The reference list doesn't include: Smith, K., 2015, Peer support mechanisms, London, Sage.

Why This Format?

Because you didn't read Smith's work. You're relying on Jones' representation of what Smith said. If someone wanted to verify your claim, they could read Jones. They couldn't verify the Smith claim directly from you because you haven't read it.

The "cited in" format signals to your reader (and your supervisor) that you're citing something secondhand. This is transparent academic practice.

When Is Secondary Sourcing Acceptable?

Students sometimes assume secondary sourcing is always wrong. It isn't. There are legitimate reasons to cite secondhand.

Historical sources you can't access. If you're writing about Medieval history and want to cite a thirteenth-century manuscript that only exists in one archive and you can't travel there, secondary sourcing is reasonable. You cite the scholar who has analysed that manuscript.

Out-of-print works. Some older books are hard to obtain. If you've tried and genuinely can't access the original, citing through a secondary source is acceptable. But try first.

Languages you can't read. If an important paper was published in Russian or Mandarin and you don't read that language, citing through someone who has translated or analysed it's acceptable. Try to find an English translation first.

Even in these cases, try to access the original if you can. A university library can often obtain out-of-print books through inter-library loan. Translations exist for many important works. Only resort to secondary sourcing when you've genuinely exhausted options.

What Your Supervisor Expects

Good supervisors recognise that secondary sourcing happens. They don't expect your dissertation to contain zero secondary sources. But they do expect secondary sources to be rare and justified.

If your reference list shows that half your sources are secondary (cited in format), your supervisor will ask why you haven't engaged with the originals. This signals that you've done surface-level reading rather than deep engagement with the literature.

Use secondary sources for truly inaccessible sources. Everything else, find and read the original.

Common Mistakes

Citing a source secondhand without marking it as secondhand. If you write "(Smith, 2015)" in text but you found Smith through Jones, you're claiming to have read Smith when you haven't. This is dishonest and a mark-losing error.

Including both the original source and the source you read in the reference list. Wrong: Your reference list includes both Smith, 2015 and Jones, 2020. Correct: Your reference list includes only Jones, 2020.

Using a different "cited in" format. Some students write (cited by Jones), or (as cited in Jones), or (Smith in Jones). Harvard format is consistently (Smith, 2015, cited in Jones, 2020). Consistency matters.

Different Referencing Systems Handle This Differently

Harvard: (Smith, 2015, cited in Jones, 2020) with only Jones in the reference list.

Chicago (Notes and Bibliography): Typically the same approach.

OSCOLA (legal referencing): Different. OSCOLA prefers you track down and cite the original. If you cite a secondary source, you must indicate clearly that you're doing so and note that you haven't read the original. This matters more in law because accuracy is most important.

APA: (Smith, 2015, as cited in Jones, 2020) with only Jones in the reference list. Nearly identical to Harvard.

Check what your institution requires. Most UK universities expect Harvard or OSCOLA depending on your discipline. Harvard is standard across social sciences, humanities, and sciences. Law uses OSCOLA.

The process of receiving and responding to feedback from your supervisor is one of the most valuable parts of the dissertation journey, yet many students find it difficult to translate written comments into concrete improvements in their work. When you receive feedback, try to approach it as an opportunity to develop your academic skills rather than as a judgement of your intelligence or your worth as a student, since supervisors give feedback because they want you to succeed. If you receive a comment that you do not understand or disagree with, it is entirely appropriate to ask your supervisor to clarify their feedback or to discuss your response with them in a meeting or by email. Keeping a record of the feedback you receive throughout the dissertation process and revisiting it regularly will help you to identify patterns in the areas where you most need to improve and to track your progress over time.

The concept of originality in dissertation research is often misunderstood by students, many of whom assume that producing an original piece of work requires discovering something entirely new or making a novel contribution to knowledge. In reality, originality at undergraduate and taught postgraduate level means applying existing theories or methods to a new context, testing established findings with a different population or dataset, or synthesising existing literature in a way that generates new insights. Even a dissertation that replicates a previous study in a new setting can make a valuable and original contribution if it produces findings that either confirm, challenge, or add nuance to the conclusions of the original research. Understanding this more modest but entirely legitimate conception of originality should reassure you that your dissertation does not need to revolutionise your field to achieve the highest marks; it simply needs to make a clear, focused, and well-executed contribution.

When You're Tempted to Use Secondary Sources but Shouldn't

The literature review is vast. You've found 150 papers. You're tempted to cite Smith through Jones because you haven't finished reading Smith's abstract yet.

Don't. Find and read Smith. If it's truly not relevant after you read it, you don't need to cite it at all. Secondary sourcing is for genuinely inaccessible sources, not for sources you haven't got around to reading.

You found a quote from Smith in Jones that perfectly supports your point. You're tempted to use the "cited in" format.

Don't. Track down Smith's original. The quote matters. You need to know the full context. Using it secondhand risks misrepresenting Smith's meaning.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: If I can only see an abstract of a paper, can I cite it? A: You can cite the abstract and note that you've cited the abstract, not the full paper. "Smith et al. (2020, abstract) report that..." This is more honest than pretending you've read the full paper. But try to access the full paper. Your university library can usually get it.

Q: What if I read Smith but my university has a paywalled access so I accessed it through Jones' citation? A: If you read Smith's work (even if you accessed it through a link in Jones' article), then Smith is a primary source. You cite (Smith, 2015), not (Smith, 2015, cited in Jones, 2020).

Q: Can I use secondary sources in my methodology chapter? A: Yes, if appropriate. You might cite a methodological framework through a key paper that applied it. "Thematic analysis was conducted following Braun and Clarke's framework (Braun and Clarke, 2006, as discussed in Smith, 2020)." But try to cite Braun and Clarke directly. They're accessible enough that there's no good reason for a secondary source.