How to Read Journal Articles in the Social Sciences

A Very Practical Guide for Students

Phillip C. Shon

• Editorial: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Año: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781473933620
• Edición: 2
• Categoría: Persönliche Entwicklung
• Categoría: Schreib- & Präsentationsfähigkeiten

This superb guide teaches you how to read critically. Its no-nonsense, practical approach uses a specially developed reading code to help you read articles for your research project; this simple code enables you to decipher journal articles structurally, mechanically and grammatically.

Refreshingly free of jargon and written with you in mind, it's packed full of interdisciplinary advice that helps you to decode and critique academic writing. The author's fuss free approach will improve your performance, boost your confidence and help you to:

• Read and better understand content
• Take relevant effective notes
• Manage large amounts of information in an easily identifiable and retrievable format
• Write persuasively using formal academic language and style.

New to this edition:

• Additional examples across a range of subjects, including education, health and sociology as well as criminology
• Refined terminology for students in the UK, as well as around the world
• More examples dealing specifically with journal articles.

Clear, focused and practical this handy guide is a great resource for helping you sharpen your use of journal articles and improve your academic writing skills.

'I have used the book over the last five years with my students with great success. The book has helped students to develop their critical thinking, reading and writing skills and when it comes to writing a dissertation they have used the code sheet in their own writing.' - Pete Allison, Head of the Graduate School of Education, University of Edinburgh

The Student Success series are essential guides for students of all levels. From how to think critically and write great essays to planning your dream career, the Student Success series helps you study smarter and get the best from your time at university. Visit the SAGE Study Skills hub for tips and resources for study success!

1 The Challenges of Reading

Professors often tell their students to read carefully and critically. Students may then valiantly attempt to translate that benign advice into practice: they highlight blocks of text, sometimes entire pages, and try to answer those numerous questions that previous scholars have recommended that they ask themselves as a way of engaging with the text: What is the author’s main argument? What evidence does the author provide to support her claims? What presuppositions does the author make in order to make his ideas work, etc. (Cottrell, 2011). In attempting to be critical, I have noticed that students get bogged down. Moreover, readings in social science texts – books and articles – are challenging in another way if the subject of the readings is unrelated to a student’s area of interest. That is to say, there are many factors that interfere with a student’s ability to read in general and read critically in particular. Telling students to go read critically is different from teaching them how to read critically. To do the latter, students need to be shown what critical reading is and how it differs from ordinary reading – reading a novel on a breezy Sunday afternoon.

Students also do not have good reading habits. Although smartphones and tablets have enabled students to become connected with their peers and the world through various social media outlets, especially within the past ten years or so, they have provided an easy means to become disconnected from the text and the author through incessant distractions. Students will be listening to a lecture, answer a text message or a Facebook post, and then return to their lecture. They attempt to read an article for class, but stop midway to answer an instant message, text, or some other request for further communication. Those types of repeated interruptions do not make for careful readings that require full concentration. There are other challenges that arise while reading.

There are several models that attempt to teach students the techniques of careful reading. Two well-known techniques that are used to teach reading to college and university students are the SQ3R model and the EEECA model. The first method, SQ3R, purports to teach students to read ‘efficiently’ and to engage with the text in active ways (Ridley, 2012, p. 64).

1. Survey the text to ascertain the gist or general idea.
2. Question – while surveying the text, think about questions that you would like the text to answer if you decide it is relevant to read in more detail.
3. Read the text carefully if you think it is pertinent for your research.
4. Recall the main points after you have read the text.
5. Review the text to confirm that you have recalled all the main points that are significant for you and your work.

Readers are first instructed to skim and scan to determine if a piece of text should be read further – to discern whether a piece of text ought to be included in one’s careful reading. Once a ‘yes’ decision has been reached, students are instructed to ‘read and make connections with other texts’ as a way of enhancing recall. Readers are then told to recall and review the text after a ‘manageable’ chunk has been read by writing sentence summaries. The SQ3R method of reading begins with five directives to keep in mind as the reading begins. But in addition to the preceding five directives, students are told that reading critically and analytically entails more questions and steps that ought to be considered (Ridley, 2012, p. 66).

1. What is the author’s central argument or main point, i.e. what does the author want you, the reader, to accept?
2. What conclusions does the author reach?
3. What evidence does the author put forward in support of his or her argument and conclusions?
4. Do you think the evidence is strong enough to support the arguments and conclusions, i.e. is the evidence relevant and wide reaching enough?
5. Does the author make any unstated assumptions about shared beliefs with the readers?
6. Can these assumptions be challenged?
7. What is the background context in which the text was written? Does the cultural and historical context have an effect on the author’s assumptions, the content and the way it has been presented?

These questions that a student should ask during reading are absolutely correct. Readers should pay attention to the main points, evidence that supports an argument, the hidden assumptions behind the text, as well as the historical and cultural factors that may illuminate the contexts behind the text’s production. If readers can keep all of the aforementioned points in mind as they are reading, the questions would uncover an author’s main points as well as the assumptions that she makes about the topic she is writing about. In this spirit, the SQ3R model is consistent with the EEECA model that is also widely used (Jesson, Matheson, & Lacey, 2011, p. 48).

1. Examine or analyze the topic – try to examine it from more than one perspective.
2. Evaluate or critique the topic, thereby making a judgment about it.
3. Establish relationships and show how they are related.
4. Compare and contrast the ideas – are they similar to other work or how do they differ from other work?
5. Argue for or against something to try to persuade the reader to agree.

Both methods attempt to have their readers identify the relevance and suitability of the texts that they have selected for their academic writing projects. Both methods attempt to teach readers to be critical by asking pertinent questions during the reading process; both methods also attempt to get readers to develop a critique of previous literature on some grounds. In this sense, both models work quite well; they do what they are meant to do. If students can keep all those questions in mind as they are reading and then go on to answer them, they will have read academic texts in ways that were intended. However, the two methods do not differ significantly from the advice that other writers have already recommended. For example, Cone and Foster (2006) instruct their readers to be critical by keeping a record of observations while reading in order to arrive at a major insight about a topic based on those observations. Rudestam and Newton (2001) offer a list of questions to keep in mind while reading as a way of cultivating critique and structuring reading – all 21 of them.

The difficulty with the SQ3R and EEECA models, as well as previous writers who have instructed students to be critical readers, is that the benign advice is difficult to implement and execute. As noted, Rudestam and Newton’s (2001) list of questions to keep in mind as students read would translate into 21 questions that they would have to recall and answer. Similarly, the SQ3R would translate into 12 questions that readers would have to keep in mind during the act of reading. The difficulty so far with the existing reading models is compounded when the next step in the reading process is taken into consideration. The challenge arises when readers keep a list of the unwieldy questions, and then attempt to answer them. The answers would vary from one sentence to several sentences, thereby lacking consistency, succinctness, and precision.

The absence of a systematic and consistent coding system that captures the general structure of the answers would also hinder the retrieval of pertinent information – a palpable challenge, as each sentence would have to be reviewed individually rather than through casual inspection and identification. An effective reading method, therefore, should be complemented by an organization system that facilitates easy retrieval. The organizational system should be primarily visual – advice that is consistent with what others have reported (Jesson, Matheson, & Lacey, 2011; Machi & McEvoy, 2012; Ridley, 2012). The notes that result from one’s readings should be organized into visual – tabular – forms; tabular notes in the form of codes should expedite information retrieval, which then makes writing easier. Reading, writing, information storage and retrieval are all related components of the reading and writing – learning – process.

The reading codes that have been developed for this book are generally applicable to most social science journal articles, although I have found that the codes can be used in humanities journal articles and books too. Furthermore, the reading codes are organized and occur in such a way that readers can anticipate and predict the occurrence of certain codes at expectable locations, thereby structuring the reading process along the contours already delineated by the writing conventions of the social sciences. The reading codes usurp that pre-existing convention. For example, the codes RCL, RTC, WTDD, and RFW generally appear in discussion and conclusion sections; they do not appear in introductions and literature review and methods sections. Similarly, the codes SPL, CPL, GAP, and RAT generally appear in the literature review sections, although they tend to be repeated in the abstract, introduction, and the literature reviews in condensed forms. The use of the reading codes thus reduces the words needed to describe the functions of a block of text. The codes also facilitate visual inspection.

The reading strategy codes entail a bit more sophistication and practice. For example, the code WIL is a very advanced reading technique. Just from reading a question posed in the text or a sentence that is embedded in it, the reader ‘sees’ all the connections that will need to be made in order for a position or an argument to work, and asks if these connections will be teased out. When I took a course with a renowned literary critic, he would always identify sentences and questions that would, in essence, contain the hidden premises presupposed in a text to make a body of ideas work, which would then be supported in an author’s argument or become unraveled in subsequent analysis due to the tension and inconsistency embedded in the author’s logic and text. The literary critic would find those make-it-or-break-it sentences and ask the WIL question.

It was always awesome to see that literary critic read, interpret, and analyze a piece of text, whether that text was authored by Isaiah Berlin, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Hobbes, or John Rawls. The code WIL emerged from seeing that teacher’s advanced reading techniques. I rarely find myself using the WIL code because: (1) I am not that widely read; (2) I am not that smart; (3) I can rarely see beyond the myopic confines of my own discipline. To use the WIL code, the reader has to be at least three steps ahead of the author. Only talented scholars/readers are capable of such feats. Although it is entirely possible that an exceptional undergraduate or graduate student has read extensively and can challenge the assumptions upon which a work rests, the move is a very unlikely one.

Along similar lines, a reader would have to be well and widely read, and be familiar with the literature on a topic in order to see that an obvious point has been missed (MOP: Missed an Obvious Point). That is, a connection that should have been made by the author was not made – for whatever reason: perhaps the author has not read a key book or article in the field that she should have read; perhaps the author forgot to cite and mention an important scholar and his/her body of ideas that should have been discussed; or perhaps for some reason the author is simply slighting another scholar and deliberately omitting him/her from the paper. But the point is that those missed points ought not to have been missed, hence, MOP – missed an obvious point. Those obvious points that have been missed can be mined by students and pursued in another paper, for it is a Relevant Point to Pursue (RPP). Or the student may read something that could become a Point of Critique (POC), which could be used as a basis for a critique of previous literature (CPL). The codes POC, MOP, and RPP necessitate that the readers ‘see’ and understand the findings of the study that is currently being read and connect it to the broader literature – or make a connection to a topic and literature that one would not ordinarily expect. Making those unexpected and unforeseen connections is what leads to an original and creative claim. Of course, without adequate background reading, it is difficult to make those connections.

In the context of social science scholarship, there is one fundamental task that falls on the shoulders of readers: on what grounds will you – the student reader – critique the literature on a topic that you have selected? Will you be able to read through the vast literature on a topic you have selected (e.g., school climate research, undergraduate mentoring programs, juvenile homicide, news coverage of crime, women’s health) and develop a Critique of Previous Literature (CPL), which logically leads to a shortcoming (GAP)? From this critique that you have developed, you, the student, should be able to propose a way to remedy that very GAP you have identified.

For example, you may read through 30, 40, or 50 journal articles and come to the conclusion that previous works have carried out only cross-sectional studies of your subject population rather than longitudinal ones. Or you may notice that previous works use a very limited sample in their studies. Both criticisms, for most social science journal articles, may be valid. Students may be right to note that previous studies failed to include adequate samples or conduct a longitudinal examination of subjects. If one of these critiques is the ground upon which you the student are critiquing the previous literature (CPL), then will you remedy those very GAPs that you have identified? You may very well have the analytical skills, data support services, and the will to undertake such a project. However, if you do not, then you do not have the means to rectify that shortcoming that exists in the literature. You have correctly identified a shortcoming, but it may not be appropriate for you. It may be much more realistic and pragmatic for you to identify shortcomings in the literature that you can remedy without thinking yourself into an anxiety-riddled panic attack or crumbling under the sheer magnitude of your ambitious plans.

The CPL you develop should inform the research question that you ask and answer in your paper – whether that paper is a fourth-year capstone project, honors thesis, master’s thesis, or a PhD dissertation. The type of paper that you are writing varies according to the text’s requirements and the project’s scale and sophistication. However, the underlying form and logic of the social science articles, and the shortcomings that must be identified to justify one’s project, which leads to the formulation of research questions and the project’s successful resolution are similar for undergraduate- and graduate-level projects. Previous literature can always be critiqued on numerous grounds (Harris, 2014). The type of critique that is developed differs by scale, scope, and the sophistication of the student reader. The logic of the criticism remains the same: criticisms are fundamentally based on a negation – on what has not been done in the literature.

Reading also occurs on multiple levels. Rushing through the texts as if one is practicing speed-reading will not contribute to critical reading; one is apt to miss important points through such a type of reading. For example, when reading social science journal articles, the coding of the function of the texts should occur in the right margin where feasible (i.e., SPL, CPL, RAT, RCL, etc.). If a sentence, paragraph, or page provides a summary, a critique, rationale, or results, those codes should also be written in the right margin where feasible. This task is the first step in critical reading. When reading the literature reviews, methods, and results sections, thematic code insertions should be done in the left margins. That is, each paragraph should be distilled to one or two words that capture the essence of what that paragraph is about. That reduction and condensation will help organize the student’s own literature review as similar themes are noticed. This second step in being critical entails condensing complex ideas and words into one to two words that can be thematically organized and recalled later.

Once social science texts are coded along the preceding lines, students should be able to see the qualitative differences between social science journal articles. For example, students will begin to notice that a well-written paper provides a well-crafted rationale (RAT) for why the paper and the topic that the authors have selected are important and worth doing, while not-so-well written journal articles neglect to tell readers the significance and importance of their work. Students will begin to see that some authors fail to synthesize the literature in thematic ways, instead, discussing only one author throughout the course of a paragraph. Students should also be paying attention to the way sentences are syntactically, mechanically, and grammatically organized as well, for they will see differences from author to author. They will notice that some social science authors make elementary errors while others go to great lengths to craft beautifully written sentences. Once the preceding points are clarified, a reader can then go on to question hidden assumptions, the cultural and historical context of a text’s production, etc. Reading occurs on numerous levels and students should be treating the texts they are reading as a detective would comb through evidence at a crime scene. Every piece of evidence – paragraph, sentence, punctuation – is important, for it illuminates something about the author.

Although cheating in academia has been discussed in assorted ways, from cheating on tests to plagiarizing a paper, rarely do educators talk about cheating that occurs during reading. How so, you ask? As I have explained in this chapter and will demonstrate in later chapters, reading is a complex task that requires one’s undivided attention. Reading is also a moral act. Reading social science journal articles involves reading through all sections, from the abstract and introduction to the methods, results, discussion, and the conclusion, for the type of information that is available in each section will be invaluable later. However, students do not read the full text. Somewhere during their university education process, they learned – someone told them – that they only needed to read the introduction and the conclusion to ‘know what the article is about.’ That practice is a disingenuous act of a student and a scholar. Taking those kinds of shortcuts are insincere and unfaithful acts of a scholar. That disingenuous spirit transmits into writing as well, for some students cite authors and articles they have not even read. Those acts constitute academic dishonesty and fraud, for students are claiming to have done something that they have not. I cannot claim to have climbed Mt Everest when I have not. Doing so would mean deception.

When students cite authors they have not read, they are misrepresenting their work and themselves. Just as morality figures in important ways in the production of written academic work, it also plays an important part in the reading process. That a theft has not been discovered and that the thief has not been caught does not mean that a crime has not occurred. That theft may not exist in official records but it exists in two places. It would exist in the all-perceiving mind of God, according to Bishop George Berkeley. It would also reside in the heart of the offender. It would also exist in a third place. If an instructor has read the work that the said student cited but has not read, then she too would know. If such self-deception were to persist in school work (and in life), there are bound to be psychic consequences, at least according to some psychotherapists (Horney, 1950). Students may not see themselves as scholars; they may not even want to. However, when they are enrolled in a university, they become scholars during their tenure there, and ought to at least emulate the...