Embedded Files
Annotating is in a way, like archeology.
Annotating is in a way, like archeology.
When I annotate scholarly works with historical arguments, I tend to markup key words and ideas and write small summaries in the margins, extracting the core claims of the paper. Essentially, I'm stripping down the text to reveal its underlying structure, its bare bones arguments, and the essential pieces of evidence. It is a process of sifting through the text (or digging through the dirt) to uncover the most important parts. The quotes and claims are like bones that when pieced together, make up the outline of the argument.
With an annotated version of a text, I find it easier to comprehend the text as well as see potential fallacies in the argument. It helps me determine whether I agree with the way the author has arranged the pieces of evidence or if I think there is a more accurate way to put them together.
And going along with this archeology analogy, historians (archeologists and historical analysts alike), participate in the process of compiling sources of evidence (whether it be bones, artifacts, letters, or research papers) and putting them together to form viable interpretations of history.
My Annotation Process
My Annotation Process
When reading scholarly works in history, I like to annotate by marking-up the text digitally on a tablet. That way, I don't have to print out like 30 pages of paper but I can still engage directly with the words on the page. I download the text as a PDF and use the built-in markup feature on the iPad, which allows me to highlight, underline, and take notes on the text (see screenshot to the right). I'll outline below how I annotate, using the first three pages of chapter 6 of historian Matthew Restall's book, Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest. First, you'll find a close-up of my annotations (which you can look through to see my annotations more clearly), then a key of the different colors and symbols I use, and lastly, an explanation or walkthrough of my annotations on this excerpt.
My Annotations Magnified
My Annotations Magnified
Colors
Colors
I usually use colors to differentiate elements of the paper, although it's not a set system. Sometimes I just use random colors and do whatever, but this is what the colors generally indicate in this particular annotation:
yellow : the author's key claims
blue : primary or secondary source evidence
red : ideas that the author disagrees with and/or things with negative connotation
black : random markups, interesting claims, restating/summarizing notes
Symbols and Words
Symbols and Words
In my annotations, I usually underline parts, circle words, and write in the margins. These aren't rules that I always follow, but typically when I make these types of marks, this is what it means:
underline : notable commentary/claim (straight lines for longer parts, squiggly lines for key phrases)
circle : key words (may include a brief definition on the side)
words in the margins : summarizing the main point of a section or noting the structure of the paper (e.g. indicating evidence or thesis)
A Walkthrough of My Annotations
A Walkthrough of My Annotations
In this page, since it's the beginning of the chapter, I take note of the chapter title and notice that it comes from a quote from Huaman Poma. Restall also introduces two sources - a primary source from Huaman Poma's Incan perpective and a secondary source from Nathan Wachtel's European perspective - who both support this myth of the traumatic impact of the conquest on natives.
On the next page, I underline in red the descriptive phrases of the "trauma" that Wachtel (the second source) uses. These phrases, although sympathetic to the natives, paints them as weak and not resilient, which Restall disagrees with. Restall argues that there is no evidence for a traumatic impact (which I briefly state/summarize in the margin). At the end of the page, I highlight one of Restall's key claims.
On the third page, Restall brings up other perspectives on the myth, using secondary sources from Sale and Berliner. I visually separate their opposing views with a black line and circle the key words of their arguments. In yellow, I highlight Restall's term of the "myth of native desolation" as well as his argument at the bottom of the page, which I take to be his thesis for the chapter.
Benefits of Annotating
Benefits of Annotating
Often, when I don't annotate, I fall into the habit of reading without comprehending, especially in regards to long scholarly texts. I waste time reading the same section over and over again without taking anything in. When I annotate, however, I'm more engaged with the text and am prompted to think about what the text is actually saying so that I can write something down rather than passively reading for the sake of reading it. The act of annotating helps me stay rooted in the argument and follow along with the logic; it also helps me distinguish the most important parts. And as a bonus, when I am done reading, I have an outline from my marginal notes, which allows me to see the biggest claims and find certain sections easily without having to spend much time searching. Hopefully, by learning about my process of annotating scholarly works, you too can become more engaged with the texts that you read.
Sources
Sources
Restall, Matthew. Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest, Oxford, 2003, pp. 100–2.
Page updated
Report abuse