On reading about reading

Prior to starting my studies, I spent some time thinking about the issue of reading and note taking. I borrowed two study skills guides and spent some time online with the University’s library study skills resources.  It does sound (and feel) bizarre, to be reading about reading (and writing), but that’s what I’ve been doing.

What worried me about starting a PhD was the amount of reading I would need to get through into three years. While I do love to read, the amount of material intimidated me. I have a very thorough, methodical approach to note taking. In previous courses, I have read through a large amount of material, but have managed to produce quite a substantial pile of notes too. I was self aware enough to realise that this current note writing strategy was not a good strategy to take into a PhD, but was uncertain how to proceed, so I’ve also been exploring other ways of taking notes.

Reading about reading has been incredibly helpful. It is interesting that something we all take for granted as part of studying can also be part of the reflexive process, if we're careful. Some of the study skills strategies suggested different approaches. In some cases, it is clear that some dense material, like handbooks or core texts, just take a long time to read. It is not unreasonable to read books in chunks of six pages at a time, and that it may take a substantial length of time to read such a book in total. Some recommend developing a skim reading approach, along with the understanding that a book may have to be read several different times, with a different agenda in the readers mind on each reading. Yet others recommend my current approach, the making of copious notes at one reading, and so the book doesn't have to be read more than once.  Others suggest that you use several strategies, choosing which one is appropriate to the book or article you’re reading.  If it’s a key text, you’ll need to spend time poring through it in depth, while if you’re familiar with the content, you can dip in and pick out particular sections.  I think an ideal approach for me would be to keep a key text going, while reading articles at the same time.  It takes so long to get through a dense text that sometimes you look at it and think: ‘is this all I’ve achieved?’  If I can intersperse chapters of denser material with (shorter) articles, it should give me time to reflect on the text, but also make me feel I’ve achieved more.

I have experimented with new approaches to note taking also. While I have attended sessions on mind mapping training, recommended for essay planning and subject mapping, I have not previously used this as an approach for note taking. Yet this is what I am currently doing. I discussed this approach with someone who has a similar approach to me, and since this is the approach they used, I thought it might work from me too. So I have been trying this out. Still, while using my ‘new’ note taking strategies, I half expect someone to lean over my shoulder and tell me I'm doing it all wrong.

I didn't expect to find trying a new approach so difficult. The approach itself makes sense, and is quite easy to undertake (although my spider diagrams have a tendency to expand past the limit of a page). However, the problem I am finding is inside my head. I now realise my previous approach was conceived out of fear - a terror, actually - of missing something.

My extensive notes are created by worrying not only about being able to attribute information correctly but also about inadvertently plagiarising someone's material.  I worry that if I paraphrase the information during note taking (which is most people’s approach), and then later use my summary to add into an essay, I might inadvertently repeat some of the same words or phrases as the original text used. Because of this, my notes have tended to be entirely comprised of quotes.  Pages of them. 

Starting the literature review has meant changing my belief about myself in the process. I am forced to reconsider my role as a neophyte, a sponge to absorb the information around me, but to see myself as a critical reader. I must view the information presented as one side of an analysis. In order to do so, I must view my own opinion as worthwhile, and experience some confidence in this. As it turns out, this has been the hardest part of all.

Having just read the first few books in one section of the literature, I find myself re-evaluating the information, re-ordering differing versions in a way that makes sense to me, and questioning one view not only with the information presented in another, but with my own questions. Rather than worry about it, I'm trying to have confidence in myself and the process.  This process itself might seem obvious to many people, but I have never experienced that level of confidence in my own academic knowledge. While my school teachers could tell you that I was a child of 'strong opinions, who prefers the company of like minded others', it turns out that, after two postgraduate degrees, I don't see myself as a competent judge of academic merit. I'm glad I have learned this early on in my PhD journey, but I am still staggered by this new awareness of myself, and am not yet sure how to address this insecurity. I think (and hope) that practice will improve my confidence.  Either that, or my supervisors will tell me I'm wrong, and then I'll try something else ...