Discovered in Grad School That I Dont Like Reading

And so you got into graduate school. Congratulations!

(Note: I went through a humanities program, and most of my advice in this and future posts in the Grad School Survival Guide is aimed toward humanities/social scientific discipline programs. Difficult sciences and advanced degrees in fields like law and medicine take their own skill sets, although yous'll still probably detect what I say here somewhat useful.)

You're probably looking at the title of this postal service and thinking, "I learned to read in the commencement grade, dummy." Of course you lot did. (Or didn't. I assume if you're reading this y'all've mastered the skill at some point.)

When you make it in the humanities or social scientific discipline graduate programme of your pick, however, y'all may find yourself in the following situation. Mayhap it'll exist the second seminar. Maybe it'll exist the fifth. But you lot may notice yourself realizing that other people in your seminar seem to have an awful lot to say most the readings for this calendar week…and you lot don't.

Why don't I have anything to say? You lot will ask yourself.Is there something wrong with me?

The answer to the second question is probably all-time left to the medical or mental health professional almost familiar with your specific instance. The answer to the kickoff, still, is much easier to address: it's considering when y'all go far in a graduate seminar, the professor expects you to know how to read academic books and articles, only well-nigh graduate programs offer little to no guidance on how to do this.

This will especially be the example if you lot've entered a graduate program in a dissimilar bailiwick than your undergraduate degree. In my case, I did my undergrad in International Relations, my principal's in Eye Eastern Studies (an interdisciplinary program), and my doctorate in History. I was always playing take hold of upwards.

How You Learned to Read and Why Information technology's Wrong

Nigh of us learned to read for class in form school, using dry, corporately produced, written-by-committee textbooks that make people think they hate history because it's presented equally a listing of ane fact afterward the other, to be duly memorized, spit out at test time, and and so forgotten.

A lot of us employ the same skill as undergraduates. When assigned capacity from a book, nosotros search for names, dates, events–tangibles we can get concord of and cling on to–and ignore the dry stuff. If we asked ourselves the question of what was of import near the reading, we usually meant some variant of "what is important to know for the test?"

Much of the time, our undergraduate classes consisted of lectures in which the professor echoed the material presented in the books, and often past the cease of the semester we had stopped reading because the fabric was redundant and the professor was more interesting and had the added advantage of knowing what was going to exist on the final.

In graduate programs in humanities and the social sciences, however, most classes consist of smallish groups that engage in discussion for the whole of each session (If you're in the UK, substitute "module" for what I call a "class"). Professors lead discussion, only they don't lecture. They expect you to evidence up with something to say almost the readings. It'due south bewildering at outset, because you'll experience like yous're constantly unprepared. And you may discover yourself staring at a folio of text trying to will yourself to have an opinion virtually information technology.

For me, the moment of realization came in a graduate seminar taught past a Proper name Professor housed in the department of anthropology. Every week, this seminar met and his doctoral students–a doting, adoring (nay, sycophantic) bunch–would dominate discussion. Their commentary was completely unintelligible to united states of america lowly Master's students, and they seemed to exist engaging in some sort of unspoken competition to invoke the most obscure French poststructuralist.

[For the record, seventeen years, two graduate degrees, and 5 semesters of teaching afterward, I am more than than e'er convinced that this isexactly what they were doing.]

I would stare at the material and think,Why am I not seeing this? Why don't I have annihilation to say?

If this is causing deja-vu, Fright not, I have suggestions.

How to Larn to Read–Again

Unless yous're in a graduate programme–or were lucky enough to be in an undergraduate programme–in which someone takes the fourth dimension to explain to y'all how to read an academic monograph or an article out of an academic journal (and these are, sadly, few and far between) you're probably approaching the material in the verbal aforementioned manner you approached a textbook.

Herein lies the upshot.

Stop seeing the material as a series of facts to be memorized, written by an infallible author, and start seeing it like an academic (which you are): an argument-driven thesis written by a scholar whose piece of work may not be perfect.

Academic monographs are an argument presented past their author. This is why they're not that lovely, flowing, piece of cake to follow narrative employed in a textbook.

The entire text has an argument. It'due south set out to prove something (and conduct in mind that what the author wants to prove may be ahow orwhy rather than awhat orwhen). Each affiliate has an statement that is meant to back up the overall argument of the book in some fashion.

The argument will have nuance. You're not going to read an article or monograph that argues that the French Revolution happened in France in 1789. Yous may read an article or monograph stating that the French Revolution happened, in role, considering of a meeting that happened in Switzerland six years earlier (I am, for the record, not a French historian and am completely making these examples upward). Or that the French Revolution happened in 1789 because there was a menstruation of warm weather that caused crops to fail in Bordeaux the previous summertime, and we just figured this out based on atmospheric data.

So, if you find yourself feeling left behind in class discussion, or like each class coming together is like dropping into the middle of a conversation that started without you (and believe you me, I felt this alot), it about likely boils downward to this: your classmates are treating the book as an statement that can exist critiqued, while yous're viewing it equally a gear up of facts to be taken at confront value.

My classmates in the anthropology seminar were using theorists to suggest that, if one looked at the argument from a different perspective, one could deconstruct and reconstruct the author's argument in radically unlike ways. (This does not change my decision they were trying to ane-up each other in naming obscure theorists, though).

Where do I discover the argument?

Well, funny plenty, information technology's probably been staring you in the face all forth.

Monographs and articles are structured in much the aforementioned way–at some signal, you'll be instructed on how to construct your writing this way, too.

Start with the introduction. These are wildly inconsistent–sometimes the introduction is called "Introduction," sometimes it's called "Chapter 1." (It's never the acknowledgements and usually non chosen Preface.)

They usually brainstorm with a hook to become y'all into the story. An anecdote, something to illustrate why what is existence discussed is important. (They don't always–some of united states of america [embarrassed coughing] utilise this technique heavily, others just jump right in.)

And so yous'll get into an arc that volition nowadays the bones issue, normally explaining how information technology's traditionally been seen in the field.

And then there will be a literature review. Yous'll know this department considering of all the footnotes or inline citations. (Pro-tip: if you found this book or article because you lot're writing a inquiry paper, this is the department to mine if you're looking for tips on who else has written about this topic). This is the second nigh of import section of the introduction.

And so y'all'll see a line that says something similar "[Title of monograph] argues that" or "I posit that" or "The thesis of this book is that …" Here's your argument. Star it. Underline information technology. This is, for the author, and for y'all, the person who has to talk over what the author has washed,the most important sentence in the unabridged volume. (Annotation: in an article this announcement may come before the literature review.)

Afterward presenting the argument, the author will lay out their strategy–and the way they will practice this is past outlining the book for y'all. In Chapter 1, I will describe A and demonstrate B. Chapter two continues this past describing how B and so led to C. And so on.

In other words, it'due south the section yous're often tempted to skip correct over because y'all're going toread the book. Why in the world would I waste what fiddling time I have reading about what's in the book when I can merely read it?

Now that you know what the author's statement is, you can explore why it matters.

Dorsum up and look at the literature review. (In history books the literature review tends to come before the author's presentation of their argument, only this isn't set in stone. It may come up later).

The literature review is meant to respond 1 basic question: how has the event that the writer is presenting been described past other scholars who've approached the same or similar problems?

Your chore as a reader is to answer ii basic questions:

1. How is what the author is doingrevisionist? (read: new and different. In the field of history,revisionist can be a bit of a loaded term.)
2. How have other authors written about this topic before?

If you lot can respond these two questions, 75% of your work is done.

The remainder of what you need to accost in your reading of the material consists of:

3. Does the author'southward argument make sense?

four. Is the author's argument convincing? (This is similar to, simply not the same as, the previous question. It is perfectly possible for someone to put forrad a sensical argument and and so exercise a poor job of backing it upward. This is, in fact, a expert place to start your evaluation of the text.)

Yous'll notice I haven't asked yous if you can think what happened on November 10, 1789. And your professor probably won't, either. Think, it'southward not that kind of form.

Okay, I did that, just I still don't have much to say …

If you're withal a little lost, or have washed all of this but aren't certain how to move from "Okay, I understand the author'south argument, but I even so don't take much to say most information technology," don't exist afraid to look at volume reviews of the championship you're reading (this is harder with journal manufactures, but not impossible. Check out Google Scholar and search by both championship and author).

This is particularly of import to exercise if you notice that the author takes particular issue with another scholar's work–see if that scholar responded or had something to say nearly your author's critique. Evidently if one of the 2 was dead when the other was published, this won't work every bit well.

Reviews also give you some insight as to where to start looking if you're not certain how to go about critiquing. Your beginning semester in, you probably aren't married to a detail theory, school of thought, or accept a favorite theorist–and that'southward perfectly fine (I yet don't).

Even if you plant the argument and accept answered questions 1 and 2, you may nonetheless be a trivial unclear as to how to go about answering questions 3 and 4.

First off: Information technology's okay! You lot're still learning. A expert graduate seminar will pull in a lot of books from different perspectives, and information technology'due south totally understandable that you won't exist well-versed in all those fields.

You should, however, be able to follow what's going on when classmates offer critiques or comments better than you were before. The more you do this kind of reading, the ameliorate prepared you'll be. And after a few weeks, you'll be able to jump into the discussion yourself.

Next up:

How to read a book (or more) a week … for each seminar … and notwithstanding have a life. Information technology is possible!

wenzelmagireer.blogspot.com

Source: https://christophersrose.com/2019/05/15/grad-school-survival-guide-how-to-read/

Share this post