This section has two aims
to help you read critically (analytically)
This means understanding an author’s argument fully, and (only then) developing your own ideas from it.
to prepare you to lead discussions (if needed) and write your thesis
Most importantly, to do both with lucid arguments based on solid analysis!
Critical Reading: Two Modes, Two Stages
It is helpful to think of critical reading as involving two modes or stages of reading:
reading with the author (trying to completely understand the author’s views
reading against the author (questioning the author’s views and argumentation).
The second reading mode is predicated on the first: once you have thoroughly understood the author's argument(s), you will be able to develop your own ideas and theories.
Reading With
Make sure you truly understand the author’s views and ideas. Summarizing and paraphrasing the argument in your own words may be helpful.
Accept the author’s ideas temporarily (even if you disagree). Use them as a lens to view the world, finding examples that affirm the author’s ideas.
Reading Against
Look through your own lens now. Question and challenge the author. Look for limitations, biases, faulty reasoning, unaddressed questions, problems, etc.
Form your own ideas and theories. Which ideas do you agree with? What would you change? What is your perspective? What's your evidence for that?
Learn more here, for example.
A précis is a kind of academic summary. As described below, it is a useful model for organizing your notes for an annotated bibliography (and eventually a literature review), for example. Because it requires you to actively analyze the text, a précis is also helpful for focusing your reading on the question, “What’s really important?”
A précis is a tightly focused summary of the argument expressed by a piece of academic writing. This is different from a summary of the piece itself. The word “argument” is often misunderstood; in an academic context it means the attempted demonstration of a claim (a thesis, “the point,” the answer to a question, etc.) via a structure of reasoning. A précis tries to show the purpose and conclusions of an academic article, book, etc., clearly and concisely. If you follow the reading guidelines above, this should not be too difficult.
Even better, there's a template! And it's just four sentences!
Remember, a précis should be as brief as possible without oversimplifying the argument you are summarizing.
You can (should!) add your opinions, observations, etc., to your notes, but do so separately from the précis.
(1) Charles S. Peirce’s article, “The Fixation of Belief (1877), (2a) asserts that humans have psychological and social mechanisms designed to protect and cement (or “fix”) our beliefs. (2b) Peirce backs this claim up with descriptions of four methods of fixing belief, pointing out the effectiveness and potential weaknesses of each method. (3) Peirce’s purpose is to point out the ways that people commonly establish their belief systems in order to jolt the awareness of the reader into considering how their own belief system may the product of such methods and to consider what Peirce calls “the method of science” as a progressive alternative to the other three. Given the technical language used in the article, (4) Peirce is writing to a well-educated audience with some knowledge of philosophy and history and a willingness to other ways of thinking.
As you can see, there are four basic elements highlighted above. 1 and 2 are required. 3 and 4 are not (for our purposes).
Each should be one sentence (2 max).
Publication data
author, title, date in parentheses;
Thesis (argument)
(a) accurate verb (“assert,” “argue,” “deny,” “refute,” “prove,” disprove,” “explain,” etc.) + “that…” clause containing the major claim (thesis statement) of the work
(b) explanation of how the author develops and supports the major claim
Purpose
followed by an “in order to…” phrase
Audience
Below are two more examples. See if you can identify the four elements:
Sheridan Baker, in his essay “Attitudes” (1966), asserts that writers’ attitudes toward their subjects, their audiences, and themselves determine to a large extent the quality of their prose. Baker supports this assertion by showing examples of how inappropriate attitudes can make writing unclear, pompous, or boring, concluding that a good writer “will be respectful toward his audience, considerate toward his readers, and somehow amiable toward human failings” (58). His purpose is to make his readers aware of the dangers of negative attitudes in order to help them become better writers. He establishes an informal relationship with his audience of college students who are interested in learning to write “with conviction” (55).
Toni Morrison, in her essay “Disturbing Nurses and the Kindness of Sharks,” implies that racism in the United States has affected the craft and process of American novelists. Morrison supports her implication by describing how Ernest Hemingway writes about black characters in his novels and short stories. Her purpose is to make her readers aware of the cruel reality of racism underlying some of the greatest works of American literature in order to help them examine the far-reaching effects racism has not only on those discriminated against but also on those who discriminate. She establishes a formal and highly analytical tone with her audience of racially mixed (but probably mainly white), theoretically sophisticated readers and critical interpreters of American literature.
You can combine multiple précises into an annotated bibliography, which is one useful step toward a literature review.
An annotated bibliography is a list of citations followed by brief (c. 150-250 words) descriptive and evaluative paragraphs, i.e. the annotation.
This page has a good summary of annotated bibliographies that includes some excellent examples. You can find a more concise guide here, too.
For our purposes, the annotation should serve two functions, divided into two paragraphs:
Summary (abbreviated précis)
Evaluation and/or notes relating the work to your own research
In other words, each source should be a full citation with 1-2 paragraphs summarizing the author’s argument and evaluating the work especially as it relates to your own research.
Here is one example I created:
Neves, Joshua. 2013. “Media Archipelagos: Inter-Asian Film Festivals.” Discourse: Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture 34 (2): 230–39.
Neves (2013) argues for the significance of Asian film festivals as sites for examining the production of distinctly Asian modernities. Using the metaphor of the archipelago (in opposition to the “media capital”), Neves asserts that the “alternative mapping” of inter-Asian referentialities observable at Asian film festivals is symptomatic of a shift in the post-Cold War cultural imaginary. Whether this is a decentering of the Eurocentric world of film (and, by extension, of the larger global conjuncture) or the creation of an elliptical, dicentric world is a question Neves doesn’t address, but might be worth considering. In any case, Neves sees the collapse of the Western media metropolis and rise of “manifold sites of exchange that need not be legitimized by Euro-American festivals” as an important phenomenon in film with implications for understanding the larger world of the phenomenon’s emergence.
This is an example of an evaluative annotation. In other words, in addition to the abbreviated précis (summary of argument), it includes questions and comments (in italics) that are part of my subjective reading of the text.
If you have lots of sources, consider adding hashtags to your annotated bibliography (and in Zotero!). For example:
Neves, Joshua. 2013. “Media Archipelagos: Inter-Asian Film Festivals.” Discourse: Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture 34 (2): 230–39.
#film-festivals #archipelago #eurocentrism
Some of you will find this a useful way to categorize your data. Others won't. Both are okay.
Note: This page was adapted from several online sources, all of which have disappeared to the land of 404... (TдT)/〜