Should FixCitationPROFound in 2-5% of dissertations

Secondary Source Usage: 'As Cited In' Tells Your Committee You Didn't Do the Work

Flagged in 2-5% of citations. Every 'as cited in' is an admission that you're relying on someone else's reading of the original research. Your committee expects you to read it yourself.

FIX

Reduce reliance on secondary sources — cite primary sources directly.

What This Issue Is

A secondary source citation—formatted as '(Smith, 2010, as cited in Jones, 2020)'—means you're citing Smith's work without having read it. You're trusting Jones's interpretation of what Smith said. In a doctoral dissertation, this is a significant credibility issue. Your committee expects you to engage directly with the primary research. When they see 'as cited in,' they read: 'I couldn't find the original source' or worse, 'I didn't bother to look.'

Secondary citations are occasionally unavoidable. The original source may be out of print, in a language you don't read, or behind an institutional paywall your library can't access. APA allows secondary citations for these situations. But when a dissertation has five, ten, or fifteen 'as cited in' references, the committee sees a pattern of corner-cutting. Most primary sources are findable through interlibrary loan, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, or direct email to the author.

The deeper problem with secondary sources is accuracy. When Jones (2020) cites Smith (2010), Jones is selecting, paraphrasing, and potentially reframing Smith's work to serve Jones's argument. The nuance of Smith's original findings may be lost or misrepresented. By citing the secondary source, you're importing someone else's interpretation into your literature review as if it were the original. If your committee checks the original Smith (2010) and finds your characterization doesn't match, your credibility takes a serious hit.

Why Your Committee Flags It

Secondary citations ("as cited in") signal that you didn't read the original work. Committees view this as insufficient scholarship.

Why Students Get This Wrong

Students use secondary sources because they're easier to find in recent textbooks or review articles.

Think of it this way

Every "as cited in" is a red flag. If a source is important enough to cite, it's important enough to read.

Before & After Examples

Before

Piaget argued that children develop through stages (as cited in Neutzling, 2020).

After

Piaget (1952) argued that children develop through stages. (citing the original work directly)

Bandura's work is widely available—there's no reason to cite it secondarily. Access the original source directly.

Before

Self-efficacy is defined as the belief in one's ability to succeed (Bandura, 1977, as cited in Pajares, 2006).

After

Self-efficacy is defined as "the belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments" (Bandura, 1997, p. 3).

Classic psychology source cited through a popular website. The original 1943 article is freely available.

Before

Maslow's hierarchy of needs suggests that belonging must be satisfied before esteem needs (Maslow, 1943, as cited in McLeod, 2020).

After

Maslow (1943) proposed a hierarchical model of human motivation in which belonging needs must be substantially satisfied before esteem needs become salient, though subsequent research has questioned the strict hierarchical ordering (Wahba & Bridwell, 1976).

Foundational educational theory should always be cited from the primary translated source, which is widely available.

Before

Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (as cited in Wertsch, 1985) describes the gap between what a learner can do independently and with guidance.

After

Vygotsky (1978) described the zone of proximal development as the distance between a child's independent problem-solving ability and the level achievable through adult guidance or collaboration with more capable peers.

Self-Check Checklist

Tap each item as you review your chapter.

Frequently Asked Questions

When the original source is genuinely inaccessible: out of print with no digital version, in a language you can't read with no translation, or in an archive you can't access. Unpublished conference presentations, personal communications cited by another author, and historical documents that have been lost are also legitimate cases. Convenience is not a valid reason. If you can find it with a Google Scholar search, find it.
In-text: Give the primary author and date, then 'as cited in' the secondary source: (Bandura, 1977, as cited in Pajares, 2006). In your reference list: list only the secondary source (Pajares, 2006) because that's the work you actually read. Do not list the primary source in your references unless you read it directly.
Most committees consider more than two or three secondary citations in an entire dissertation to be excessive. Some programs explicitly limit secondary sources to a specific number or percentage. If you have more than a handful, your committee will likely ask you to track down the original sources. Budget time for this—interlibrary loan can take a week or two.
Cite the original source for what it actually says. This is exactly why secondary citations are problematic—the secondary author may have paraphrased inaccurately or taken findings out of context. If the discrepancy is significant, you can note it: 'While Pajares (2006) characterized Bandura's (1997) theory as X, the original work more precisely describes Y.' This kind of critical engagement impresses committees.

Check your chapter for secondary source overuse

Upload your chapter and get instant feedback on secondary source usage and 55 other checks committees care about. No credit card required.

Check My Dissertation Free

26 instant checks free. No account needed to start.