|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Study Aids - Reading Précis The following provides a set of rough guidelines for creating a reading précis of books or articles. While intended as guidelines for graduate students, all history students should adopt some form of systematic procedure for taking notes on what they read. The reading précis guidelines are available in the following formats: MSWord | HTML (see below) | pdf Some students prefer to use database or note programs to store their notes. If you do this, consider these guidelines as possible field labels for each work you read. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Full bibliographic cite: Author, Title, publication information. Read: The date your read the material, course (if any) you read it for, any special circumstances: Done in a hurry? Some sections need re-reading? Any book reviews consulted? About the Author: Background on the author: books written, training and current academic position, major prizes or positions held in the profession indicating status. Where did this information come from? About the author's intentions: What did the author say that he/she wanted to accomplish? What were his/her larger goals? How does this fit into his/her intellectual background (is it part of a larger writing project of multiple books?) and how does it fit into his/her abilities (will he/she be able to pull off this project given his/her background?) Thesis: A short statement of the main theme in the book, with perhaps one or two subthemes. How would you answer the question: “what is this book about?” Type of history that it is: There are many types of history: cultural, social, economic, institutional, military, political, religious, biographical, legal, gender…What type or types is this book (its dominant flavor) and how do you reach that conclusion? (Quotes, specific elements of the book?) Structure of the argument: How does the author build the argument? What sections come first, and how do they support what comes later? A simple summary of the table of contents might work, or if that is too vague, you will have to explain in your own words. Evidence used: What types of sources are used? Does a particular kind dominate? Are they the strongest that could be used? Can you identify any that are missing that seem necessary? Is the evidence used in a fair manner? Or does the author play with the evidence to make it say what he/she wants? Ideological orientation: Can you identify the author's point of view? There are political points of view (conservative, liberal) as well as scholarly ones (opposed to gender history, a structuralist or post-structuralist). Does the point of view shape the book in particular ways? Strengths of the book: Weaknesses of the book: Contributions of the book: What does the book add to the topic under discussion that was not there previously? How has this book moved the discussion of this topic “forward”? And in what ways? Sally Hadden Courses | Study Aids | Research | Bio All Contents © Sally Hadden
| |||||||||||||||||||||
