How Much Do You Read?

[Septerra]

I apologize if this is a topic that has already been discussed at length.

So I am in my first semester of my PhD program (I came in with an MA). I think that over the course of my MA program I read somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 books and probably 50-70 articles. This is just an estimation based on class hours, and additional readings I conducted during my thesis research. Some books I read nearly cover to cover, while other books I skimmed a lot. I rarely read a book that was not either assigned in class or pertinent for my thesis research.

However, I am wondering what a productive amount of reading looks like at the PhD level. Right now, I am on a fellowship that stipulates 12 hours (4 courses) of graduate credit per semester for the first year. Thus, I am sometimes reading 3-4 full books a week for these courses. Of course, I skim more than anything, since I have never been the kind of person who could speed read entire books. Once I am ABD, I'm sure I'll have dozens of books that I will want to read in full or in part for my dissertation. However, I don't see myself going "above and beyond" in reading the latest scholarship in my field, or trying to absorb the entire canon of my major and minor fields. The general exams for which I'm preparing require "reading" upwards of 200 books, and that I am expected to complete that within the next three semesters.

Meanwhile, I have met several colleagues that seem to make reading additional scholarship a hobby, and can cite scholars and arguments in conversation with ease. This is still a challenge for me, and I can cite perhaps a handful of scholars and their major ideas off the top of my head. While this post may seem to be directionless, I guess what I'm really asking is, how much are you guys/how much have you read as a PhD student? Do you think being able to cite scholars conversationally is more a product of heavy reading, a good memory, or just a coincidence of being familiar with that particular work? Just curious!

[nevermind]

I'm in my first year and have approximately 500 pages of reading per class (also 12 credit hours). I make a decent attempt at finishing all the readings, but sometimes find it necessary to skim. Right now, I am focused on meeting my program's requirements and spending time looking at archival materials. I plan on doing some readings during break to write a paper that I plan on presenting at a conference in the spring. I think having (1) an in depth knowledge of the historiography in your field is imperative as well as (2) knowing how general theory/theorists and trends relate to your work. For me, I feel like these are basically built into my program and I don't need to do additional reading to make up a lack of theory or historiography (though there is always more to know) but rather focus my time on acquiring skills (like language fluency) that will help my original research in the future. My effort is rather ensuring I don't burn out and setting up times for breaks, hikes, time with friends, etc.

Edited November 30, 2016 by nevermind

[TMP]

A couple things:

1) I felt exactly the same as you!  Just ask any of your colleagues what their first semester was like.  Most people really do question reading along the same lines as you are.  I hear this sentiment every year.  We "more advanced students" just kind of.... repress that memory once we pass our exams.

2) You will learn SO much when you're actually reading for your exams.  I know it sounds incredibly improbable right now but there is actually no better time than exam reading to actually learn a lot about your field.  Because there were no courses (only independent study) for my major field, I did not do much reading for my major field until my third year.  I was overwhelmed for a long time but I kept reminding myself that I had been reading for minor fields during my courses in my first and second years.  I also knew I should be be super happy to have all this time to read only in my major field before tackling my minor fields, it was... too much at times.  I often threatened my adviser that I was going to take a break from the major field to read in other fields.  She shrugged and said, "You're in control of your reading.  You'll get everything done eventually."  So yeah, it was keep reading in the field and meeting with her or take a break... there were no shortcuts  

3) If your aim to is achieve ABD status by the end of your second year, then you need to be prepared to spend the upcoming summer actually reading for your exam.  Most graduate students find that they do need at least 9 months of no interruptions (including classes and travel for research) to get most of the exam reading done.  I needed my entire third year (no classes except for one audit in my field) before I felt more ready to take my exams after spending 2 summers traveling and 4 semesters of coursework.  I really *should* have spent one summer reading but... life.  My peers who came in with MAs actually spent their first summer reading whereas I went to Germany to study German and did zero reading for exams.  They took their exams the following spring and it was definitely clear that I had to wait another year before I could take mine.

4) You do exactly what you're comfortable with.  Your exam lists are just the basic foundations of what you need to achieve ABD status and "knowledge equity" with your peers and professors.   I had no concept of Foucault or Marxist history until the end of my second year, FWIW.  The exam lists are designed to get you minimally conversational for engaging with scholars and their presentations, anytime and anywhere (except for some high-toddity jerks, which people will quickly warn you if you ask about conversing with them).

Through your seminars and conversations with the faculty (and your adviser), you will learn the art of conversing as scholars.  I also went to a lot of academic talks and listened to the Q and As to pick up these soft--but important-- skills.

[knp]

I'm also a first year and I'm very self-conscious about not reading enough.  Reading is my least favorite of the main academic tasks: research (various components), writing, reading, and teaching. I do like it under some conditions, but having only reading to do is getting me down.

At the same time that I say that I don't like how reading is monopolizing my time right now, I'm weirdly looking forward to exams: when I have periods to learn things by myself, I can structure my reading time so much more efficiently and pleasantly. Moreover, the more I know about an academic topic, the nicer it is to learn more things about it. Right now, being very new to my field, all the books I'm reading are citing, between them, literally thousands of books and articles I've never heard of. Some these are cited lightly, and sometimes surprise Heidegger! So I'm hoping and somewhat expecting it to get easier as I actually find my footing in the scholarship.

[AP]

Oh my, my first week I panicked. 

A book and an article per week per seminar sounds about a good pace. You'll manage that as your exams draw closer and then you'll just won't remember a time when you read everything on any book. I remember also those people who could cite authors and arguments in any given conversation, and comparing myself to them (even at my stage) has been a source for insecurity. My advice is don't do it! 

A good way to keep your reading game at the top is to take notes. You'll need everything you need now for your exams so you might as well gear your skills towards that while also addressing your seminar topics. Note-taking is also a skill and as you take notes, you also make connections between authors, themes, and arguments. 

I am now reading documents, not books, but I can see how reading skills are paying off for organizing information about who said what when. 

All the best for the rest of the semester!

 

 

[Sigaba]

9 hours ago, Septerra said:

I apologize if this is a topic that has already been discussed at length.

So I am in my first semester of my PhD program (I came in with an MA). I think that over the course of my MA program I read somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 books and probably 50-70 articles. This is just an estimation based on class hours, and additional readings I conducted during my thesis research. Some books I read nearly cover to cover, while other books I skimmed a lot. I rarely read a book that was not either assigned in class or pertinent for my thesis research.

However, I am wondering what a productive amount of reading looks like at the PhD level. Right now, I am on a fellowship that stipulates 12 hours (4 courses) of graduate credit per semester for the first year. Thus, I am sometimes reading 3-4 full books a week for these courses. Of course, I skim more than anything, since I have never been the kind of person who could speed read entire books. Once I am ABD, I'm sure I'll have dozens of books that I will want to read in full or in part for my dissertation. However, I don't see myself going "above and beyond" in reading the latest scholarship in my field, or trying to absorb the entire canon of my major and minor fields. The general exams for which I'm preparing require "reading" upwards of 200 books, and that I am expected to complete that within the next three semesters.

Meanwhile, I have met several colleagues that seem to make reading additional scholarship a hobby, and can cite scholars and arguments in conversation with ease. This is still a challenge for me, and I can cite perhaps a handful of scholars and their major ideas off the top of my head. While this post may seem to be directionless, I guess what I'm really asking is, how much are you guys/how much have you read as a PhD student? Do you think being able to cite scholars conversationally is more a product of heavy reading, a good memory, or just a coincidence of being familiar with that particular work? Just curious!

As you already have an MA and are on fellowship, I recommend that you set a gold standard for yourself in which read/skim/digest at least one book a day and one journal volume a week in addition to your assigned course work. Some weeks, it's going to be the tin standard. Some days, it will be the pepperoni pizza and a ball game standard. But what's procrastination without self flagellation? (Also your professors are paying attention to your progress and comparing notes regardless of how hands off they may seem.)

You don't need to read every book from cover to cover.  (In fact,you may be doing it wrong if you're reading most books cover to cover.) However, you do need to know which books you're supposed to know cover to cover.

IRT obtaining a level of conversational ease when discussing scholarly literature, the challenge you're encountering may be directly related to your reluctance to go "above and beyond" when it comes to reading the latest scholarship or the "entire canon."

IME, works that represent the leading/bleeding edge of scholarly inquiry on a given topic often have brutally efficient summaries of relevant historiographical debates not just on that topic, but on the broader field as well. Moreover, the references will lead you to very dense historiographical essays and give you strong hints as to which books you really don't need to read at all.

If you spend enough time repeating this exercise on various topics and fields, you'll become increasingly comfortable with "reading for the argument" and stopping when you know what that argument is.

(Also, while you're competing against yourself when it comes to maximizing your potential as a professional academic historian, when it comes to getting a job, you'll be competing against those who are going above and beyond right now. Someone is going to earn that tenure track job at the University of Happyland--why not you?)

 

[danwaterfield]

During my MA (UI, 18c history), probably 10 articles / chapters per week and a book or so. But I wasn't really putting that much effort in, as I also found the time to read a few novels per week, shifting to more MA books as I wrote up the dissertation over summer.

I'm now doing a PhD, and I read about 110 books per year. I don't really count articles. 

[ManifestMidwest]

I'm in my first year in a PhD program with 9 hours per week.  My reading has really varied depending on the class.  My Atlantic World and Methodology classes were both around 500 pages of reading per week, but my Digital History course had far less (because it was a bit more practical).  However, next semester I'll have significantly more.  I'm doing a Methodology of World History which is a book per week, plus two books in addition to the regular load; a research seminar, which is a book per week plus research; and a directed study in my main area where the prof wants me to do 4-5 books per week, so that'll be about 56 books for the fourteen-week semester.  Altogether, I'm looking at nearly one hundred books for the semester.  I don't know if this is the norm, but it should be manageable, for the most part.  From my own experience, it's best to try for 4-5 books per week plus some journal articles.

[Chiqui74]

I'm a second year, and during the first three semesters I read three books and several articles a week. I also read over the summer.  I am now preparing for comps, which I will take at the end of the Spring semester, so I am reading closer to 1.5 books a day, 5 days a week. It's intense!