In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:
I'm a second-year PhD student, and I often struggle with deciding on what to read at all, how to prioritize the reading assingments I give myself, and how thoroghly I should read a text. As my time and my ability to focus are limited resources, I often find myself doubting whether a paper or a book I began to read is really worth the time, and whether I should rather read something else instead. These doubts occur quite frequently, and I begin to jump back and forth between papers and rarely finish one. Maybe one could describe this as a kind of fear of missing out on the most important readings. I would like to know how other people approach these problems.
This is a good query. In my experience, one of the traps that graduate students can run into is reading too much. Of course, it's important to read, so that you have a good grasp of the literature. But when I was in graduate school, I knew fellow grads who spent most of their time reading and little to no time writing–and it very much stifled their progress through the program and in publishing. So, it really is crucial to find the right balance. But what is the right balance, and what are some practical tips for finding it? I'm curious to hear what readers think. Obviously, I'm not a grad student, so my own approach may not generalize to the OP's situation. But here, very roughly, is how I go about things…
First, I keep an eye out for books and articles that either seem interesting to me or which seem relevant to projects that I am working on or thinking about. I do this by checking the PhilPapers list of new books and articles virtually every day. If I see an article that interests me (from reading the abstract), I download it–and, if I see a book, I usually go browse its table of contents and any readable content (such as the 'look inside' function on Amazon) to determine whether to buy it. If a book has been around a while, I'll also usually look up reviews of the book to see whether I want to buy it.
Second, I take care not to let my reading time encroach upon my writing time. I have a dog that I take to the park several times a day to play a bit, and I'll usually take a book or article with me–and sometimes I'll continue reading at the end of the work day before relaxing in the evening.
Third, the first time I read something, I read very quickly, skimming but underlining relevant passages, making brief margin notes, and folding page corners as a reminder. I can usually skim a journal article like this in maybe 30 minutes. Books, obviously, take a bit longer–usually a handful of hours, which I spread out over several days or a week. The point of reading so quickly is to be efficient, to determine how relevant the work is to my philosophical thought, and to lay groundwork (through underlining and margin notes) for a more thorough read later if I find the work to warrant it, given my projects and interests.
Finally, I normally do those more thorough readings only when I sit down to develop a project, which I normally do through the act of writing (I tend to 'think on paper', either while writing at my computer or taking brief notes on my iPhone). Whenever I have a paper idea (which is often based upon quick readings of things), I often get right to the task of writing something up. I'll often bang out a (very) rough draft of a section of a paper in a day or two, and during my writing breaks I'll usually do the more thorough readings of works relevant to what I'm currently writing–which usually in turn leads me to later go back to the (very) rough drafts I've banged out and do a lot of revising. The point of this, again, is to be efficient, and to approximate a good balance between reading and writing.
Anyway, these are just my strategies, and they might not work for everyone. What about you all? How do you determine what to read, and how do you go about the reading process, balancing it with the other parts of research (i.e. thinking and writing)?
Leave a Reply to TimCancel reply