Reading tips for graduate students in history programs

[Sigaba]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the different approaches to reading that one might use as a graduate student in a history program.

I respectfully request that all participants in this thread state clearly how far along you are in your program. This information can be as simple as "I'm in my second year of coursework," or "I'm taking my qualifying exams in two semesters."

I also respectfully request that participants differentiate between methods that they've heard and ones that they've used and to distinguish among those methods that have worked very well, moderately well, and those that have crashed and burned. And, since history is the study of change over time, please do mention any significant changes or even minor tweaks you've made to your reading methods as you've progressed through your program.

It might also be helpful if participants in this thread said a little about their views towards reading historical works. That is, what are your basic objectives when you read various types of works?

[kotov]

I'm finishing up my first year of my Ph.D. program.

A professor of mine gave me this format to follow:

Read in this order:

1. Preface

2. Intro

3. Conclusion

4. Table of Contents

5. Skim body

Identify:

1. Thesis

2. Methodology

3. Argument/Structure

This always works well enough for me when I'm just reading to discuss in class. If I'm writing a paper on it,

When I'm actually writing on the book, I'll usually just keep a notepad out and keep running notes on the book so that I can get a quick summary in and then be able to tie the author's evidence back to the argument/structure/methodology part. It's worked fine so far for me. I guess my way of note-taking is a bit old-fashioned, but it's what works for me, and it's even helped me when I've been working on lit review for seminar papers, journal articles, etc.

[grlu0701]

When I'm actually writing on the book, I'll usually just keep a notepad out and keep running notes on the book so that I can get a quick summary in and then be able to tie the author's evidence back to the argument/structure/methodology part. It's worked fine so far for me. I guess my way of note-taking is a bit old-fashioned, but it's what works for me, and it's even helped me when I've been working on lit review for seminar papers, journal articles, etc.

When I read through monographs I normally take notes in a word document. I create large documents based on topic with all related monographs in the same document for easy use of the search function. I'm just finishing my undergrad this semester and it has worked great for me, especially while writing my thesis. It has saved me a lot of time, as I do not have to return to the actual texts and can keep my notes for use during my graduate studies.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this process? It seems like it may be too slow for grad school, given the massive amounts of reading we are expected to do.

[CageFree]

Thank you for starting this thread, Sigaba. I was thinking of doing it myself to get some advice.

[lafayette]

I am finishing up my Master's program.

I feel over the past two years I've mastered the monograph skim, much in the way kotov helpfully lists out. I am also all about the book review. I usually will first read the introduction and then do a search for book reviews in j-stor or similar databases, read those and then determine what the meatiest parts/chapters in the book are. It also helps cement the author's argument in my mind before parsing through the evidence.

For whatever reason, I have yet to figure out how to do a good skim of longer articles. I feel as if I do more reading during a week when a bunch of different scholarly articles are assigned. Anyone have any tips in that area?

[runaway]

I'm almost embarrassed to ask this question, but: when describing methodology, what is a sufficient understanding of methodology? ie, "this is an archival based examination of xyz" vs. "this is an examination of xyz based on a, b, and c, archival collections"? Or am I totally off-base?

[Sigaba]

I'm almost embarrassed to ask this question, but: when describing methodology, what is a sufficient understanding of methodology? ie, "this is an archival based examination of xyz" vs. "this is an examination of xyz based on a, b, and c, archival collections"? Or am I totally off-base?

Runaway--

I would add the following diagnostic questions:

• What type of work is the piece under discussion (Examples include: a narrative history of the conduct of operations during the American Civil War, a community study of Cincinnati from x to z;, a journalistic account of the Eisenhower presidency, a social history of Chicago, a cultural history of the movie industry during the 1970s, an international history of the Korean War, a psycho-biography of Richard Nixon, a political polemic disguised as a historical work.)
  
• For whom is it written? (Examples include: a popular narrative history aimed at educated laypersons, a reference work, an introductory work for undergraduates, a monograph written for graduate students and specialists,)
  
• What does the work seek to accomplish? (Does it refine existing arguments? Does it tentatively explore a new direction? Does it seek to reopen closed issues? Or does it seek to change radically the trajectory of scholarship?)
  
• What school of thought/project does the work represent? (A revisionist account of America's decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan, an analysis of slave culture informed by the works of Gramsci, a materialist examination of American foreign policy during the late nineteenth century)
  
• What is the precise nature of a work's primary sources? (Archival research can mean personal/private papers/letters, recently declassified government documents, tax records, court cases/transcripts, and oral histories. The more precisely you define the nature of the sources, the better you'll position yourself to make informed decisions down the line about other works covering the same topic.)
  
• How well are the primary sources used?
  

A suggestion. Please do not let your sense of embarrassment ever deter you from asking questions, especially in class. Chances are, some of your classmates will have some of the same questions. Sometimes, the asking of an "embarrassing" question will help you to understand who among your peers you can trust and those you might be better off avoiding. And sometimes, the willingness to ask that question will earn you the respect of a professor.

HTH.

[czesc]

One almost wonders why academics bother writing books and not simply introduction/conclusions with some long supporting foot/endnotes, which is essentially the way most academic books are read (the meat being optional).

Edited March 29, 2012 by czesc

[Riotbeard]

So apparently I answered this in the wrong thread but...

Read the intro word for word. Then read the first paragraph of every chapter and the first sentence of every paragraph. This was day one grad school info. you are looking for argument, not content...

Oh and I am finishing my second year of my PhD program, and am in my last semester of coursework.

[Gene Parmesan]

Read the intro word for word. Then read the first paragraph of every chapter and the first sentence of every paragraph. This was day one grad school info. you are looking for argument, not content...

Just to add to this....I like to read the same way as Riotbeard. I also like to choose 1 chapter, 1 case study, or one example and read the crap out of it. That way I can use it for the content aspect so I can easily bring up in discussion or just to help me remember, and I don't have to read the whole book. Usually one can tell which chapters really reflect the book and which ones are just kind of floating in there.

[Sigaba]

Does anyone have any thoughts on this process? It seems like it may be too slow for grad school, given the massive amounts of reading we are expected to do.

grlu0701--

My primary concern centers around backing up your files. Please consider saving copies of your notes in multiple formats (.txt, .rtf, .docx, .PDF) and in multiple locations (your computer's HDD, a back-up HDD, and in the cloud) and having also at least one hard copy of your notes.

Please keep in mind that as you go through graduate school, it is likely you'll become an increasingly skilled reader and note taker. Therefore, I recommend that you perform periodic self assessments to find ways to streamline your reading/note taking. Today you may need to take ten pages' worth of detailed notes for a book while in two years, sometimes five to nine bullet points will do the job just as well. That is, develop a frame of mind that allows you to trust your own judgement so that you can use methods appropriate to each particular circumstance.

Also, please find out as soon as you can what tools you'll be allowed to use when you take your qualifying exams. If you have a very old school professor on your exam committee who says "no computers!", you might be well served by taking your reading notes by hand so that your penmanship and spelling skills don't deteriorate too badly between now and then. (I use the computer so much that my hand writing is just about illegible to me.)

HTH.

[Ganymede18]

I'll repeat my response to RiotBeard, also in the wrong thread:

So apparently I answered this in the wrong thread but...

Read the intro word for word. Then read the first paragraph of every chapter and the first sentence of every paragraph. This was day one grad school info. you are looking for argument, not content...

Oh and I am finishing my second year of my PhD program, and am in my last semester of coursework.

I've heard this before, but it really just doesn't work. people don't always write middle school-style 5-paragraph essays. sometimes you need to dig into the actual paragraphs for the most important information. shocking!

I'm not against skimming of course, but I'd recommend a more holistic approach. Not much point otherwise. Also just generally, it's good to get tips on reading, but ultimately how you read is going to happen organically, and will improve, as noted above. I wouldn't go in with a fixed idea of a right or wrong method, or it may take you longer than necessary to find one that works for you.

As for me, I'm not in a program, but do have a couple of advanced degrees, and I've been involved and surrounded by academic scholarship of various kinds for the past 10 years or so.

[Sigaba]

I'm not against skimming of course, but I'd recommend a more holistic approach.

Ganymede18--

Please elaborate on what you mean by "a more holistic approach" to reading.

[grlu0701]

Thanks for the thoughts Sigaba. I didn't even consider how handwriting could impact qualifying exams. Mine's pretty bad, so I'm hoping that computers are allowed.

[Simple Twist of Fate]

I'm an undergraduate senior, so I'm not sure about the applicability of this to graduate study, but I've found a program called Evernote to be very useful for research projects. It has several advantages to just taking notes in word documents:

1. Each document is easily searchable and taggable. For my thesis, having tags for certain sources was extremely helpful when I started to analyze them all together. I can use tags to categorize both secondary and primary sources.

2. It translates easily across devices. I use it on my laptop and my iPad. I'm sure it exists for iPhones, etc also. When I have pdfs of articles or sources open on my laptop and I'm trying to take notes, I frequently use both at the same time.

3. It's backed up on an external server and on my hard drive simultaneously. I don't have to worry about losing all my data.

It's free, also. And I promise I'm not involved with that company - unlike someone who seems to have posted an ad in another thread lately.

[Kelkel]

Status: One year post-undergrad, starting MA program in the Fall.

One of my professors would always ask questions about books that could only be answered if you read the acknowledgements. Now, I always at least skim the acknowledgements even if it's a book I'm reading for myself. There are some books (that I read for myself) that I feel guilty for just skimming that part. This has become my burden in life!

I have no idea if this will make a difference in grad school, but you better damn well believe I'll do it anyways.

[Sigaba]

If a member of this BB disapproves of the question I posed in post #13, I think he/she might advance the conversation more effectively by saying why rather than simply using the voting button.

As you go through graduate school, you'll find that different historians will define terms differently and that they often pause to ask "What do you mean by X?" and the conversation proceeds from there.

[Ganymede18]

are you referring to me? nothing wrong with the question, just didn't have an easy answer so didn't give one. i also didn't vote anyone's post up or down! Truth be told, I find it more rewarding to read part of a text carefully and understand it well rather than skimming for the argument and missing the subtleties. But then, I'm in law (and legal scholars write articles, not books), not a doctoral student in the humanities!

but for skimming, for a typical book, I would make sure I understood the thesis very well, and generally understood why the chapters were what they were in the order they were in. And then try to understand the point of each chapter. I'd also probably focus on the chapters that were more interesting. i think it's important not to think you have to take in everything equally, and in so doing sacrificing learning more in depth about topics you're more interested in. and honestly, no one is really going to "read" evenly everything they're assigned. figuring out what you need to read and what you like to read is just as important as figuring out how to take apart texts quickly and effectively, imo.

this method wouldn't necessarily work for everything though. i guess that's what I meant by holistic, you've got to go by what the author gives you, get a sense of how they write. i'm just going off the top of my head here, so may not be of any value at all, but I generally find that generalized formulas in any endeavor rarely work, but particularly when it comes synthesizing webs of ideas such as books.

[Sigaba]

i guess that's what I meant by holistic, you've got to go by what the author gives you, get a sense of how they write.

Thank you for your reply.

FWIW, I guessed that this was what you meant but wanted to be sure. My approach to reading does incorporate this sensibility. Sometimes, the crux of an important--if not central--argument will be found in the most unlikely places.

[Lola Wants]

A professor of mine gave me this format to follow:

Read in this order:

1. Preface

2. Intro

3. Conclusion

4. Table of Contents

5. Skim body

Identify:

1. Thesis

2. Methodology

3. Argument/Structure

I'm in the second semester of my master's program. I used to think that I had to read the whole book (on top of my other readings) to grasp the complete arguments but I recognized that this was not be the best approach. Reading everything was a mistake because the extra details prevented me from retaining significant components of the book. I find the intro/skim the body/conclusion method as the best way for books. My history professor in undergrad told me that this was how students read books in grad school but for some reason I didn't internalize this whole heartedly. I find that most academic books include esoteric language with a lot of details that aren't recognizable to people outside of the field and it interferes with the identification of their arguments/methodology and your reading experience! However, not every book is written the same and sometimes when I'm skimming the body I have to read more than the introduction/conclusion of every chapter to grasp the "meat" of the book.

I read all of my articles because most are generally under 50 pages and I feel they are too short to skim without missing pertinent information (correct me if I'm wrong here). Articles are condensed anyway so the author has no choice but to write about the most important information (while leaving out all the other pesky details that don't help you understand their argument).

[Riotbeard]

grlu0701--

My primary concern centers around backing up your files. Please consider saving copies of your notes in multiple formats (.txt, .rtf, .docx, .PDF) and in multiple locations (your computer's HDD, a back-up HDD, and in the cloud) and having also at least one hard copy of your notes.

Please keep in mind that as you go through graduate school, it is likely you'll become an increasingly skilled reader and note taker. Therefore, I recommend that you perform periodic self assessments to find ways to streamline your reading/note taking. Today you may need to take ten pages' worth of detailed notes for a book while in two years, sometimes five to nine bullet points will do the job just as well. That is, develop a frame of mind that allows you to trust your own judgement so that you can use methods appropriate to each particular circumstance.

I mean sure, if you read something and go "Oh what is this about?" you stop skimming for a little bit. If I find a bit of info that may be pertinent to my research, etc., I don't keep skimming for the sake of sticking to my guns. But as an overall approach, I think what I proposed is very helpful. Early on, the reading load can seem very daunting, and this will help you plow through works while getting used to the demands of grad school. You have so much to read in grad school that you need to have a method (whatever works best for you obviously), and the most important thing is to get the argument, especially for the sake of class discussion. I definitely read slower for books that are pertinent to my M.A. Thesis, although even here some skimming is required.

[natsteel]

I'm finishing up my first year of my Ph.D. program.

A professor of mine gave me this format to follow:

Read in this order:

1. Preface

2. Intro

3. Conclusion

4. Table of Contents

5. Skim body

Identify:

1. Thesis

2. Methodology

3. Argument/Structure

I have a similar approach which I got from a history professor on CHE. I generally gather a couple of reviews, particularly if there is an RAH or any other long review. I start by reading the introduction and conclusion or epilogue. Then I read my way through by reading the first (or first two) and last (or last two) paragraphs of each chapter. After that, I read the reviews and then I go back through and pick what seems the most important chapter to read completely. Sometimes, I will actually read the first (or the first and last) sentences of each paragraph. For regular, everyday seminar discussion on a book outside of my field, this has proven to be enough. Sometimes, when I find that the book is regularly referencing another work or two, I will find reviews for those also so I have a better idea of the arguments they are either extending, amending, or refuting.

[Gene Parmesan]

Since we've been discussing how to read books effectively in a short time, I'm curious to learn how many of you take external notes on monographs. This is somewhat related to the thread, "To Buy or Borrow?" In a more recent post a few people mentioned checking out books from the library and taking extensive notes externally outside of the margins. I've been experimenting with a few note-taking strategies, and they include the following:

-Using thin post-it notes to mark pages in a book. Typically, I'll use two colors like blue and green. Blue for argument/method/theory, and green for content/evidence/case studies that are relevant to a write up or relate to something else I've read. This can get tedious or confusing sometimes, so I'll just use one color and mark all relevant pages.

-Writing a list of the author's critical vocabulary in the first blank page of the book if I own the book. So for example, I just read Don Mitchell's Lie of the Land and marked all relevant definitions of landscape and cultural geography in the blank pages. This works for identifying periodization, too.

-External notes on blank paper that identify thesis and method. I also take notes of the author's outline of chapters that they generally put in the intro. That way when I skim chapters I can refer to my paper note to quickly remember what the point of the chapter was in their words. Later I try to go back and type all my notes.

On a good day, I'll be able to practice all three of these strategies, but sometimes it ends up being an odd mixture of the them. So if anyone would like to share how they take notes or if they have a particular strategy that works for them, that'd be great, as I'm trying myself to learn an effective combo of strategies. Also, I noticed some people are starting to use kindles/e-readers more, at least for articles and PDF. Maybe they can share how they take in-text digital notes.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Gene Parmesan

[MikeTheFronterizo]

Hi all,

Just wanted to resurface this thread since many of use just started school. 

I also wanted to ask a question about the amount of time it usually takes you to skim/read a book? I am trying to break the habit of wanting to read a book cover to cover but it is just super hard. I am in my first year so I am trying to adapt to a more efficient way of skimming books that I either do not have to write about or that are not related to my research interest.

So far I have followed the steps mentioned in the thread and it has been a great help. I feel like I have a good grasp on the book. It took me about 3 hours of work to feel comfortable with it and I can not shake the feeling that I a missing out of a lot of content and only taking 3 hours feels like a cop out since I technically have a week to read the book. (albeit, I have 2 other books and 3 articles to read this week as well)

How long does it usually take you to skim/read a book? Do you feel like you have enough content for class discussion? Should I not be worried of "reading" a book in a day as long as I "feel" that I have a good grasp of it?

[nhhistorynut]

2 hours ago, MikeTheFronterizo said:

How long does it usually take you to skim/read a book? Do you feel like you have enough content for class discussion? Should I not be worried of "reading" a book in a day as long as I "feel" that I have a good grasp of it?

2-3 hours for me. Sometimes less if it's a shorter book (under 250 pages, for example). I'll read the intro/conclusion, the preface if there is one, any sort of epilogue if it exists, and then skim all the other chapters.

Yes I always feel like I have enough. As long as I know the argument, why the author thinks its important, and where it fits in the historiography. I also like to pull random tidbits from the text that I found sort of interesting. I've never had anyone say "in the sixth paragraph of chapter 5, the author talked about [insert obscure example here]" and then expect everyone to know exactly what they're talking about with all the details.

In my first reading class of my PhD program this semester, the professor actually told us which parts to read lol. "Read the intro, read the conclusion, skim sections 1 and 2, and then choose either section 3 or section 4 to also skim."