Mark it Up! 7 Tips for Critical Reading
Last updated: Sept. 2023
Over the years I have held discussions with various university faculty members across the US spanning a wide range of disciplines. When discussing student performance—or lack thereof— in their classes, I have come to notice a trend. Faculty frequently lament over the fact that their students “don’t know how to write” but they [instructors] don’t “have the time” or “it isn’t their responsibility” to teach them. While I am no stranger to this sentimental reality, this pedagogical mindset is troubling. If a student arrives at an upper division class and so-called “doesn’t know how to write” when is (s)he supposed to learn?
Sure, most if not all universities have campus writing centers or curricular requirements that focus on writing. So why does this issue persist? Perhaps a misalignment with student perception of preparedness and instructor expectations (see Ambrose et al, 2010)? Perhaps it is a matter of genre? Variegated high-school foundations for writing? That a student may express herself better in another format that could equally display content mastery (Bean, 2011)? Or perhaps it is true that students just don’t know how to write. Regardless of the reason, it is vital that when educators notice this deficiency that we don’t pass-the-buck. In this short series, I aim to provide some perspective, resources, and curricular activities that can assist students “learn how to write”. As a preface, this series will take a social science perspective and primarily be geared towards academic writing but can hopefully be adapted to other disciplines and perhaps genres. Additionally, when considering a “right way” to write/argue/research we must remain cognizant of hegemonic educational standards and allow reasoned and appropriate and reasonable room for deviation, play, and alternative approaches (Marcus & Fischer, 1996; Nunley, 2011).
Academic writing is an engineered skill. And like much of academe, is a set of mutually agreed upon—though oftentimes arbitrary—standards that in most cases serve an end goal (Butler, 2001; Pinker, 2014). Certainly, we can argue the merits of the mainstays of disciplinary jargon, esoteric conceits, and hyper-specific vocabulary that may or may not be wholly invented (more on this later). But regardless of what side of the debate one lands on, it does not change that academic writing is —in whatever form it does or ought to take— a learnable skill. In order to do it though, it requires a number of precursory skills; one of which is reading. Academic texts can oftentimes be convoluted, dense, filled with obscure and esoteric references, have erratic commentative flows, and even be downright boring. Of which, I have found that many students have no protocol for effectively reading academic literature (Nothing astounds me more than seeing student copies of texts with absolutely zero notes!). What follows are some suggestions to develop a preliminary strategy to tackle academic texts.
1: Be critically-generous
Published authors—though not all— tend to be reasonably intelligent. But neither they nor the publication process are airtight nor are they comprehensive. While not recognizing this, students, based on prior knowledge of a subject or differing social backgrounds may react emotionally or dismissively to academic texts—especially those on controversial subject matter. Furthermore, students (mainly undergraduates but perhaps grad students with little experience in research and publishing) are unfamiliar with the politics that is peer-reviewed publications: compromising with editors and reviewers, balancing deep explanations versus citations and footnotes for the sake of precious word count, assumptions about intended audiences etc. Hence it is befitting to stress the importance of being critically generous. That is, consciously noting oversights, unresolved tensions, unsubstantiated assumption/biases, or poor phraseology whilst also considering the contexts/constraints that may have led to these apparent deficiencies. After all, there are distinct differences between an author being disingenuous or straw-manning versus an honest oversight credit to disciplinary or project scope. By underscoring that no academic text is perfect, but rather just ‘good-enough’ to contribute to a disciplinary oeuvre, prepares students to approach a text at eye-level rather than from ‘below’.
Instructors may consider:
Having students identify and discuss aspects of the text that were strong/done well AND aspects of the texts that could be better and consider why the text might suffer in this area.
Showing students his/her own published paper, then having them review the drafts, reviewer comments, and revisions.
Having students research the author. Be careful with this one! This can be useful but also be critically damaging. Texts should be evaluated on the basis of their evidentiary merits. While a fancy academic appointment and post-name initials might suggest that one has a degree of content mastery and credibility, it should not necessarily entail that that the author is more sound than someone without said accouterments. Moreover, an author's renown, infamy, or other aspect of his/her identity should be very cautiously examined as a fulcrum to assess potential standpoint or bias but should not detect from an evidentiary standard. (see Lackey, 2017; Fricker, 2007)
2: Why Are We Reading This?
Learning why to read is an essential precursor to learning how to read and which protocol to use. Sometimes we read for detailed and thorough understanding. Sometimes we read because we need to know the basic gist of a perspective. At times, we may read to gather argumentative, methodological, or citational inspiration. And at other times we may genuinely have no clue why we’re reading at all. However, it behooves students to understand the disciplinary presuppositions of academic writing. That is, for example, in order to effectively read Judith Butler, one often needs some foundation in Derrida, Foucault, and Kant. An attempt to read fashion studies articles—for example— with no knowledge of Simmel, Bathes, Breward or Veblen, may prove difficult. Point being, in order to read academic literature efficiently and with a degree of richness, students need to understand the importance of developing an active mental citational repertoire of texts, concepts, and theories. This citational repertoire is usually essential to resolving the why and how to read a particular article.
To reiterate, some of the most common reasons we read are for critical understanding, gist-work, formal inspiration, or genealogical context. And depending on which reason will suggest to you in what proportion you should close read or skim. Close reading is reading line-by-line attentively, digesting what is there and considering subtext while considering elements of form; skimming is cursorily reading, pulling out key/compelling bites of information. This article details techniques that are typically associated with close-reads but not exclusive.
Critical Understanding
For those new to academic reading, the critical understanding approach will be most helpful. If you are reading for critical understanding, you should certainly read the entire article. The following sections in the present texts will more clearly outline techniques that underscore close reading.
Gist-Work
If you are reading an article because you need to know a certain set of information, without the minutia and razor-thin details, then you might be reading for gist. In these cases, you are looking for what I call "that" information. You need to know that a person said X, or that an event took place, or that a result was yielded. This type of reading is useful for orientation and familiarity, but not necessarily for in-depth argumentation.
When reading for gist you can, but don't necessarily have to read an entire article or chapter. But it is helpful to at least skim it. In this scenario, close-read the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion. When present, intentionally skim the Method section until you have a grasp of the procedural aspect of the study. Any other sections or subsections may be skimmed if more context is needed. Additionally, it is pertinent to note that the format of your text comes into play here too. When reading for gist, book chapters do not always yield themselves to this type of reading. Make use of journal articles, white papers, or trusted secondary reviews in this case.
Formal Inspiration
When reading for formal inspiration, you are NOT reading the text for information. Instead, you are paying attention to structural elements. How does the author use quotations? What vocabulary is she using? How is she cordoning off her subsections? Does she sign-post? Develop didactic and precise explanation? Make use of metaphors or examples? When we read for form, we are taking note of what we as readers like and therefore can try to implement in our own writing. We are also looking at effectiveness. The work of Zora Neale Huston in her research covering early-20th century African American experience is a prime example. Hurston's work isn't written in "proper" academic diction; instead, her intentional writing style in the register of her interlocutors augments the experience of reading her work, makes the work more accessible to her research constituents, and provides it an evocative anthropological richness. Reading for form helps us to understand why certain techniques work or don't and circumstances for when to use them.
Genealogy
As previously mentioned, part of effectively reading academic text is to build a citational repertoire. Typically, this is a component of close critical reading but doesn't have to be. When reading for genealogy you are primarily looking at in-text citations and the References. Who is this actor citing? Which authors is he placing in conversation or in tension? Which texts from an author's oeuvre is he employing? While you can gain some sense of the citations by simply looking at the parenthetical, it is best to do this by close reading at first so that you are able to understand the rationale and nuance of the author's citational practice. When skimming, you run a greater risk of misreading.
3: Make Connections AND Predictions
When reading a text, you should be in the mindset of making connections and predictions. Making connections is simple: while reading the question "how is this similar or different to something I've come across before?" This can be ANYTHING. It could be another academic text, it could be a news article, a social media post, or a movie scene. When you recognize these linkages don't simply reminisce in bliss, jot it down in the margins! It likely will come in handy when needing to synthesize or apply abstract information in the text. (For an example, refer to the marked up Applebaum text. Note annotations are digital use Adobe Acrobat)
The second component of this section is to make predictions. This can be done actively or passively. The passive rendition of this stems from the "make connections” element. After you note a connection and jot it in the margin, continue reading. As you will soon find, the connection you made may very well appear later in the text and confirm your understanding or validate your read. For example, see the comments on pp. 39-40 of the marked-up Dancy & Edwards text. Near the bottom of page 39 I remarked "Subaltern à la Gramsci & Spivak/ this also reads of Byrd et al's concept of dispossession". Then, in paragraph 2 on p. 40 the authors cite to Spivak's Can the Subaltern Speak? This is a validated prediction and confirms that I was on-track reading the text.
Active predictions are slightly different and are good strategies when a text is confusing. If you feel you are not grasping a topic, jot in the margins "is this similar to X?" or "is the author suggesting Y?" Be sure to frame these questions in the affirmative. And continue reading. If the prediction is correct, then you validate that you are understanding the argument, and have in the process either built a solid new connection or paraphrased the information in language you can readily remember.
Lastly, don't fret if your predictions are not validated. Yes, it could mean that you misunderstood something or had a deviation in logic. Now you know! But it could also be that you and the author are working from differing reference points and simply have read different literatures. In these cases, check with a peer or professor to see if your angle is valid or not. Both you AND the author might be right!
4: Argue with/ ask questions to the text
Academic literature can come with a lot of prestige and authority. It may be difficult for students to feel comfortable pushing back against what is presented to be “definitive truth" (Redstone, 2019). No text and no author is above critique. Push back! Point out areas where an author is making an oversight. Take note when an author makes an unsubstantiated claim (Side bar: if you are reading anything prior to ca. 1950s just get over it. Empiricism and standards of rigor in publications were simply different). Yet while you want to push back, you'll also want to be humble and ask questions as you may be misunderstanding the text. Questions such as "Does this mean...?" or "Is the author considering...?" or (my personal favorites) "Yes, but..." or "But what about example X?" or "But (Rancière) might argue...". Let your whataboutism fly high and free!
5: Seeing Through Citations (Sorry footnote people)
In text citations can be extremely influential to the reading experience. By paying attention to in-text citations a reader can quickly notice overlaps of citations with multiple articles which may indicate similar arguments. Or, citations may simply serve as an exploratory tool for a reader to see where information is coming from. Citations can also clarify and fill in gaps. To recognize this, though, heavily relies on the development of a citational repertoire outlined in Tip 2. If a reader is sufficiently versed in Hegel, seeing a Hegel citation may work to resolve confusing or unclear commentary presented by the author. Citations also frequently act as argumentative shorthand...because word counts and all. Students should be aware of this trick when approaching academic texts as inexperienced readers. Journal articles typically run 14 to 30 pages (sometimes more). Book chapters can be 30-60 pages! Seeing these massive page counts on a syllabus can be daunting to readers who haven't yet developed a skimming protocol or can't read through citations. As instructors, we benefit from years of experience reading, discussing, arguing, and rereading texts and can frequently understand large chunks of a journal article simply by looking at in-text citations.
Instructors can consider:
Adding texts to the syllabus that intentionally reference previous syllabus texts to help hone this skill.
Be cognizant of calling things "quick reads"
Pair bulky texts with a clearer secondary review or summary when available
Use texts that have pictures. Nothing beats seeing pp. 4-25 on a syllabus and finding out 6 of those pages are pictures!
Students should know that:
In academic writing References can be 5 or so pages easily. The actual text might not be that long
If an instructor assigns 100 pages of reading in one week, he likely doesn't expect for you to close read all of it
6: Paraphrase and Just Keep Reading
We’ve all had that moment where we get stuck in the singularity of reading the same sentence over and over again. We’ve all had that moment where we get stuck in the singularity of reading the same sentence over and over again. If somehow, reading that sentence for the 38th time makes you finally understand it? In the event of such a time-loop, paraphrase what the sentence or paragraph is saying in the margins to the best of your ability (I do this by writing ‘i.e.’ then my paraphrase; or frame it as a question "Is the author saying...?") then just keeping reading! There is a good chance that more information may be given to explain or be more substantial than that one difficult sentence! If so, go back and update your paraphrase.
7: Annotate with Personality
Finally, when we read—so says Lacan— our text imprints upon us and we imprint upon the text. Herein that sociality of reading we are able to reflect, understand, critique, and grow. When reading, marking a text up becomes your journey through a text. And sometimes that journey can be vivid and fascinating. Other times it can be maddening or lackluster, so annotate with personality! Fill the margins with WTFs and LOLs. Write your snarky and visceral reactions. By channeling these emotional responses at the onset clears your mind from clinging hopelessly to those biases or irrational sentiments when you should be focusing on more critical aspects of the text.