Reading tips for graduate students in history programs

[MikeTheFronterizo]

On 9/2/2017 at 3:12 PM, nhhistorynut said:

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."

Thanks a lot!

This makes me feel more reassuring. I had a professor too tell us which parts are more "important" in terms of class content and themes. He also proceeded to sum up the same steps on how to skim/read books.

[AP]

Hello! I wanted to chip in.

• Begin with three literature reviews and write a summary of the book in your own words. 
• Identify big themes (race, ethnicity, immigration, etc)
• Jot down the table of contents
• Skim through notes and index to have an idea of what sources/archives the author uses, who they are engaging with, and what is the main focus in that big theme (e.g.: immigration in the Caribbean because you spotted Cuba, Jamaica, and Haiti).
• Read intro and take notes of main argument and chapters synopsis. 
• Read one chapter (at this point you should have enough information to choose)
• Read conclusion.

I also encourage everyone to have a look (if you haven't already) at Dr. Raul Pacheco's tips for note-taking, reading, identifying theses, etc. This is an excellent resource which I regret discovering only recently. 

[dr. t]

NB: Older works (say, pre-1980) tend to be more difficult to skim/gut.

[Sigaba]

On 9/5/2017 at 10:15 AM, telkanuru said:

NB: Older works (say, pre-1980) tend to be more difficult to skim/gut.

FWIW/IMO, I'd put the year closer to 1990 for works by Americanists.

A potential work around is to find journal articles and book reviews by the same historian that were published before a book was printed. Or, if a work ends up having lasting significance, one may learn enough about it in "roundtables" published in academic journals, stand alone historiographical essays, and state of the art collections of essays.

I would urge caution when using either tactic based upon how a professor talks about a specific work or her relationship with its writer. 

[JKL]

On 3/28/2012 at 0:45 PM, kotov said:

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.

That's pretty much it. It's also helpful to skim a few reviews beforehand. These let you know what to expect.

Edited September 7, 2017 by JKL