Academic reading

How to do it

Why are you reading?

• Strategies for reading academic texts• Try this with any text you need to read:• Before reading1. Think about your reasons for reading the text:• you are interested because it is about your subject, or it is

related to your subject• you want background information, or detailed information• you want to know what the writer's views are • You are going to have a discussion later• you are going to write an essay on this subject later

Getting started

• You need to learn to read efficiently - you cannot read every word of every book.

• skim the contents pages, indexes to find the relevant parts you need

• scan the chapters to find out if they are useful• read in detail.• Learning about how texts in your subject are

structured will help you to read more efficiently; this comes with practice.

Reading is an activity

• Therefore your mind needs to be active; you need to construct the meaning of the text for yourself from what the writer has given you. Meaning = writer’s mind + reader’s mind.

• The meaning of a text never belongs to the writer alone – she offers the text and we add to its meaning through our reading.

5 types of framing

• Extratextual framing - using information outside the text, your background knowledge and experience, to understand texts.

• Intratextual framing - making use of cues from the text, such as headings, sub-headings, key words and language patterns, to understand texts.

• Intertextual framing - making connections with other texts you are reading to help to understand your text.

• Circumtextual framing - using information from the cover of the book, title, abstract, references etc. to understand the text.

• Critical and cultural framing – what have others made of this text? What is its critical and cultural context?

Note-taking• We read for a purpose. In academics, it is to find information, ideas and

perspectives relating to a topic or question• A key skill is to be able to distinguish the main idea from supporting detail –

you need to get to the relevant stuff.• When you find the relevant stuff, you need to capture it. One way is to

photocopy it. After that, you still need to process the content. How?• A useful way to start is to use a highlighter pen to show the main parts• One way is taking notes by summarising, paraphrasing or synthesising

(combining what several texts say).• Another is to copy text down verbatim because you want to quote it• In all of these methods, you need to record the name of the text, the edition

and the page number• Whatever you do, reference every idea you take from a source! If your

note-taking is accurate and meticulous, there will be no problem.

Critical reading

• It is important to read critically. Critical reading requires you to evaluate the arguments in the text. You need to distinguish fact from opinion, and look at arguments given for and against the various claims. This also means being aware of your opinions and assumptions (positive and negative) of the text you are reading so you can evaluate it honestly. It is also important to be aware of the writer's background, assumptions and purposes. All writers have a reason for writing and will emphasise details which support their reason for writing and ignore details that do not.

Purpose and Background

• Why are you reading this text? What is your purpose?

• What type of text is it: research report, essay, textbook, book review?

• What do you know about the subject of the text?• What else has been written on the subject of the

text?• What controversies exist in this area? How does

this text fit in?

Author and text

• he author and the text• Who is the author? What do you know about the author?

What authority does the author have?• Who is the intended audience?• What is the author's purpose? Why has the text been written?• What is the source of the text? Is it reputable? Who is the

publisher? What reputation do they have?• What is the date of publication? Is it appropriate to the

argument?• What is the writer's attitude towards the topic?• What conclusions are drawn?

Evidence

• Is there a clear distinction between fact and opinion?• Is evidence used to support arguments? How good is the

evidence? Are all the points supported?• In an experimental study, was the sample size adequate and

are the statistics reliable?• Are there any unsupported points? Are they well-known facts

or generally accepted opinions?• How does the writer use other texts and other people's ideas?• Are the writer's conclusions reasonable in the light of the

evidence presented?• How do the conclusions relate to other similar research?

Assumptions• What assumptions has the writer made? Are they valid?• What beliefs or values does the writer hold? Are they explicit?• Look at the language that is used, e.g. active/passive verbs,

nominalisations, pronouns, ergative verbs, articles, etc. Is it always possible to identify participants and processes? e.g. compare: the government increased taxes; they increased the taxes, taxes were increased; taxes increased; the taxes increased, there was an increase in taxes

• Look for emphatic words such as it is obvious, definitely and of course.• Look for hedges: possible, might, perhaps.• Look for emotional arguments, use of maximisers: completely,

absolutely, entirely, or minimisers: only, just, hardly, simply, merely.• How else could the text have been written?

Building up vocabulary

• One constructive thing you can do while reading is to write down words whose meaning/s you do not know. Then, later, look them up in a dictionary and learn the meanings over a period of time.

• The disadvantageous aspect of this is that it can slow you down when reading, and you lose the gist of the passage.

QUIZ: READING COMPREHENSION CHALLENGE 20 MARKS

The book review, below, contains both positive and negative comments about the book, The Russian Revolution, by Leonard Schapiro. Look at the 10 paragraphs and decide whether or not they reflect a positive or negative view of the book. Write down words from the text which indicate the positive, negative or neutral viewpoints expressed.HELP: Olga Semenova wrote 10 paragraphs about Leonard Shapiro’s book. She is said to have used: 3 positive paragraphs, 6 negative paragraphs and 1 neutral paragraph. This means that in 6 paragraphs she displays a negative view of the book she reviews, in 3 her opinion is positive and in one paragraph her view is neutral because she merely describes the content in the book reviewed.

How to do it• Fill in the table below, firstly by identifying which paragraphs are positive,

which negative and which neutral. (1st column, 10 marks)• Then quote from the text to demonstrate which words provide you with

your answers. (2nd column, 10 marks)

Paragraph no. Evaluation: positive, negative or neutral?

Examples of language which gives you this information (a few words will do).

0 (example only) Negative view ‘This book reflects ridiculous, outdated opinions.’

Your turn 20 marksParagraph no. Evaluation: positive, negative or

neutral?Examples of language which gives you this information (a few words will do).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Book Review: paragraphs are numbered for you.

Olga SemenovaIn sadness

1917: The Russian Revolution and the Origins of Present-Day Communism by Leonard Schapiro, Temple Smith, £12.95

1. Leonard Schapiro was exceptionally well-qualified to write a book on 1917. A leading academic authority on the Bolsheviks (Professor at the LSE, author of The Communist Party of the Soviet Union etc.), he witnessed the Russian revolution as well. Schapiro completed 1917 in 1983, just before he died. His book is the distillation of a lifetime's teaching and reflection on the Russian revolution. It is both a concise and lucid narrative and a highly-charged piece of political analysis.

2. As narrative, 1917 fills a surprising gap in the literature on the subject. There are a large number of detailed studies of different aspects of the revolution, some of them brilliant works of scholarship. But no simple, comprehensive account of the two revolutions and the civil war exists. Schapiro's book is brief, but covers all the main points with absolute clarity. It also incorporates the conclusions of the most important recent research on the subject. The reader gets both an excellent introduction to the Russian revolution and an idea of how new material is causing thinking about it to change.

3. The value of Schapiro's analysis is more questionable. Schapiro was old and rigid, an adherent of the cold war/totalitarianism school. His interpretation of the Russian revolution is crude and unashamedly biased. He hates the Bolsheviks. He looks at the Russian revolution purely from the point of view of political power.

Paragraphs 4 - 6 4. Schapiro's thesis goes roughly as follows. After the disintegration of the monarchy in February 1917,

there was general support in the country for a broad-based socialist coalition. This quickly came to mean support for the Soviets, rather than for the Provisional Government. However, support for the Soviets did not mean support for the Bolsheviks, but for the 'traditional ideals of Russian socialism', represented by the SRs and, especially, the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks were a small band of disciplined fanatics. They were able to seize power in October because no one organised to stop them. They held on to it by annihilating their opponents, ruthlessly manipulating public opinion and militarising the economy. Right up to 1924, they were 'a largely unpopular party'. The first choice of a majority of the population would have been 'some form of moderate socialism'.

5. While it is undoubtedly true that the Bolsheviks were unscrupulous in their choice of methods and that they were not supported by a majority of the population when they seized power, Schapiro's thesis is prejudiced, one-sided and outdated.

6. Schapiro's hostility to Leninism (which he sees as the precursor of Stalinism) leads him to maintain a position on the Bolsheviks which has been shown to be wrong. He presents them as an autocratically run and conspiratorial organization, staffed by a group of men whose opinions were (with rare exceptions) uniform. Recent research, however, including that of Rabinowitch (whom Schapiro himself quotes, has shown that the Bolshevik party was not a homogeneous body, but a collection of committees. Each of these tended to run its own affairs independently and take initiatives of its own, regardless of the opinions and instruction of the Central Committee.

Paragraphs 7 - 97. Other problems with Schapiro's work stem from the fact that he was an old-fashioned political historian. 1917 is

based on the premise that it is possible to understand the Russian revolution purely in terms of political power, without reference to social or economic questions.

8. This, firstly, leads Schapiro into errors of interpretation. He concentrates exclusively on the mechanics of the Bolshevik seizure of power. This approach allows him to avoid discussing the appeal which the Bolsheviks' program held for industrial workers and peasants. He seriously underestimates the degree of popular support which the Bolsheviks enjoyed: the strong power base which, by October, they had in the cities; and the enthusiasm generated by their land policy in the countryside, which was probably the crucial factor in their victory in the civil war.

9. Secondly, Schapiro's purely political orientation affects his choice of period. He picks the dates 1917-1924 because they delimit the transfer of political power. But, for any real understanding of the Russian revolution, one needs to go both further back and further forward. 1917 is not the right point at which to start. The events of that year make sense only if viewed in the context of the rapid industrialisation of Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 1924 is not a good place at which to stop, because the most dramatic changes resulting from the Bolshevik takeover - the social and economic transformation of Russia undertaken by Stalin didn't happen until 1928-1933. Schapiro doesn't consider these events part of the Russian revolution. Most younger historians, however, would argue that they were and that a revolution should he defined as the period of upheaval, social and economic as well as political, which intervenes between the fall of an old regime and the firm consolidation of a new one. This is the approach taken by Sheila Fitzpatrick, in her recent appraisal of the Russian revolution, a work which forms an interesting contrast to Schapiro's.

Final paragraph

10. Schapiro's enduring advantage over more modern historians, however, is that he lived in Petrograd as a boy (from 19l7-l920). This has helped him to bring what is essentially just a well written text book to life. He has managed to breathe into it something of the feel of the time - the euphoria, excitement and suffering of revolutionary Russia.

New Statesman, 20 April 1984

Answers

Paragraph no. Evaluation: positive, negative or neutral?

Examples of language which gives you this information (a few words will do).

1 Positive ‘The distillation of a lifetime’s teaching and reflection …’ ‘It is both a concise and lucid narrative … ’

2 Positive ‘… covers all the main points with absolute clarity …’ ‘…an excellent introduction …’

3 Negative ‘His interpretation of the Russian revolution is crude and unashamedly biased… ‘

4 Neutral ‘Schapiro's thesis goes roughly as follows.’ (The rest sums up his content and is presented neutrally.)

5 Negative ‘Schapiro's thesis is prejudiced, one-sided and outdated.’

6 Negative ‘… leads him to maintain a position on the Bolsheviks which has been shown to be wrong.’

7 Negative ‘Other problems …’ ‘old-fashioned’ ‘purely in terms of political power …’

8 Negative ‘… errors of in interpretation’. ‘He seriously underestimates the degree of popular support which the Bolsheviks enjoyed.’

9 Negative ‘1917 is not the right point at which to start.’ ‘1924 is not a good place at which to stop.’

10 Positive ‘He has managed to breathe into it something of the feel of the time – the euphoria, excitement and suffering …’