Formulating or asking "good" discussion questions?

[gnomechomsky22]

I am enrolled in an interdisciplinary seminar style course that I really find fascinating, but it completely intimidates me. Almost all of my classmates have their master's degree and have been working on their PhDs for at least 2 years. Most of them have published quite a few papers and have significant research experience. This is my first semester in graduate school and I am a grad certificate student planning on applying for my PhD either this fall or the next. I have some undegrad research experience under my belt, but I don't know the ins and outs of grad school and I feel rather stupid to put it plainly.

 

Anyway, this is the first semester I have spent reading academic journals (I really wish I had more experience with this in undergrad!). I am understanding the material (or researching it until I understand it) but I am struggling to come up with analytical "thought" or discussion questions. The class is set up in modules on a specific subject (i.e. experimental psychology, philosophy, etc) so that definitely helps, but I still feel like I am not reading at a critical level like I need to be.  Are there any resources for coming up with thought provoking questions? or is it just something that gets better with time and practice? I feel the "aha" moments after we start discussing the articles and at the end of class I do understand how the readings are related, etc, but its getting there that I am having a hard time with. I thought about talking to my professor during office hours but I just feel too intimidated to discuss my ignorance.

Edited February 27, 2013 by gnomechomsky22

[Dal PhDer]

Hi there!

 

I just wanted to start off by saying that you're probably not alone with those feelings. I think we've all felt intimidated at some point in grad school! But I wouldn't cut myself down, you're clearly skilled and experienced enough to have gotten this far! And you're motivated and eager to develop your critical and analytical skills- so that's great!

 

As far as changing the way you read/think about literature- it takes time and knowledge in the content area! 

 

If you google things like "critically reviewing literature" "critiquing articles" you get lots of documents that pose questions that you should ask yourself when reading the literature. 

 

I like to focus on the methods when I critique an article. (for example, the sampling frame, or the characteristics of the population; what was the study design? was there recognition of potentially confounding variables? what measures were used? how did they define the constructs being measures? would there be a better way to conduct the study?)

 

Also, sometimes if I'm feeling like I'm not sure what I think about an article, I'll just google it. Sometimes you can find other pieces of work that critiqued the piece you're looking at, and you can use that work to cite and build your own argument, or pose questions.

 

A portion of a critique is linking it to other work and knowledge bases, so if you spend a bit of extra time looking at pieces of work that are related to that field, you might be able to understand the major gaps and limitations in that area (literature reviews/meta-analyses are great for that)

 

The biggest things are that it takes time to develop those skills and it takes you always questioning the work you're given! It'll come in time

[Nerd_For_Life]

Agree with the above post When I'm really stuck on an article I google it. I look up what other people have said about it, how they have broken it down, and try to think about how it is relevant to my own research. Then I go from there. I normally start by coming up with some really simple straight forward question and then I look at those questions and think "Ok, how would I extend that simple question (which might have a one work answer) into some more provoking?" Relating it to other authors you've read, even if they're outside the discipline is great, just make sure that if they are rather obscure you provide a bit of background info on whatever your referring to.

[Katzenmusik]

It's totally normal to feel like you're out of your league when you start grad school.  Many of other students will have been around a while and have read a lot more -- but over the course of the program, you'll catch up.

 

I'd say to start simple.  Try to identify what the core of the scholar's argument is -- what's the point of the article?  How is it new, surprising, or different than what you'd encountered before?  What kind of evidence is used to support it?  Follow how the argument develops over the course of the article.  Is it convincing?  

 

Probably as you start out, you'll be reading for basic information about the subject -- but as time goes on, you'll start to clue in to the different debates that are happening among scholars, and you'll be able to place the article within this broader conversation.

[ladyling]

Everything Dal PhDer said is good advice. To add to it, one of the big question I ask myself when I'm reading articles is "Have they accomplished what they claim to have accomplished?" I.e., if someone claims their analysis gets X, Y, and Z data in a way that satisfies W constraint on the theory, I want to know (1) if the predictions of their analysis are borne out, (2) if the constraint on the theory makes sense, or if it ought to be rethought, and (3) if there's a simpler way to do the same thing which is not addressed in the analysis and discussion in the article.

 

Personally, I often think of (3) in terms of innovation versus interaction. If an analysis introduces a new piece of theoretical machinery, I want to know if that machinery is actually necessary, or if it's possible to get the same effect through the interaction of different mechanisms that are already available. If both are possible, you can then start thinking about the differences in what each variant predicts.

 

And, though you probably know this already, I'd add one other bit of advice: don't let yourself be intimidated. There's a huge difference between ignorance and stupidity, but if you don't raise questions that allow you to correct your ignorance, you'll never move past it. Remember that your professors are on your side: they want to help you become the best scholar you can. So be honest with them. Tell them there's a lot you still don't know, and ask for help acquiring the knowledge/skills/expertise you need to improve. You'll all be glad you did.

Edited March 3, 2013 by ladyling

[gnomechomsky22]

Thank you all for your advice! Everything has been super helpful and your words are super encouraging. I've just been discouraged because I feel like I'm severely lacking the critical skills necessary for reading scholarly journals; however, I realize that I would not be in grad school if I knew everything already.

 

Ladyling thank you for putting that into perspective for me. I get so intimidated and bogged down that I become my own worst enemy.

 

I think my problem is that I am trying to hard to think of innovative questions that I confuse myself. Should I try just concentrating on critiquing methodology and then going from there? Its really difficult for me as a psychology major to critique philosophy articles just because I don't inherently think inductively and I have a hard time comprehending whether or not the claims being made really are backed by theories or whether they are lacking evidence/explanation.