Hope for the Research-Leary
As I read Adler’s How to Read a Book, I felt nervous that I wasn’t doing it right—as if the book might somehow know that I had not bothered to inspect its jacket cover or write in its margins. The truth is, I instinctively do much of what Adler recommends for the first three levels of reading. Realizing this early on, I skimmed through Parts One and Two of the book, finding nothing new or challenging (but feeling affirmed that skimming was an appropriate approach). I totally skipped Part Three, making a mental note to refer back to this section should I ever (God help me!) pick up a book on Math or Philosophy. But then I arrived at Part Four—the pièce de résistance, or the “main dish,” as we Americans might say.
(I’m going to make a confession here. I don’t exactly see myself as DMin material. It’s not that I don’t think I’m smart enough or committed enough. It’s that research scares the bejeezus out of me. At the same time, I want to present a dissertation that demonstrates a deep synthesis of diverse thoughts and ideas and offers a new or innovative perspective on a topic. I don’t feel equal to the task. But Adler, and his explanation of “Syntopical Reading,” has given me some hope.[1] )
Syntopical (which isn’t even a word, but it certainly is a “term” that Adler uses, so I’ll stick with it!), syntopical reading is the type of reading that enables the reader to read several books on the same topic and “construct an analysis of the subject that may not be in any of the books.”[2] Aha! This was of great interest to me, so as Adler had suggested in previous chapters, I slowed my reading pace when I arrived at Part Four. I even picked up my highlighter.
Although Adler himself says a good writer “does not bury a puny skeleton under a mass of fat,”[3] I’m afraid the skeleton of Part Four had more flab on it than was necessary. I was eager to learn about syntopical reading, but Adler launches into a lengthy (six page!) discussion on the hypothetical topic of “love” before finally getting at his main point. Ah, but the point, when finally made, was worth it. It felt like serendipity that on the very day I completed my twenty-source bibliography for this semester, I also read a book that gave me a road map for what to do with said bibliography.
The most valuable instruction that Adler gives is this:
Since we are of course assuming that you know how to read analytically, we are assuming that you could read each of the relevant books thoroughly if you wanted to. But that would be to place the individual books first in your order of priorities, and your problem second. In fact, the order is reversed. In syntopical reading, it is you and your concerns that are primarily to be served, not the books that you read.[4]
This distinction between analytical reading and syntopical reading was critical for me. In the same section, Adler explains that when we read analytically, the book is the master and the reader is the disciple, but that when reading syntopically, the reader must stay the master—the book exists to serve the reader’s purposes. In fact the book might even be useful to the reader in a way that was not intended by the author.
This simple shift in how I ought to do research reading liberates me, as do the subsequent directives. My brain is already figuring out how I might do the following:
- “Coming to terms” (I determine the terms I will use and bring the author into my terminology!)
- What this means for me: In my project, I am using the language of missionary “effectiveness and sustainability,” but I’m already noticing much of the literature talks about the subject from the negative point of view, using the terms missionary “attrition,” “burnout,” or “fatigue.” I can stick with my terms in my project, while acknowledging that these articles are speaking to the same issue.
- “Getting the questions clear” (Which means that even if the author wasn’t aiming to answer my question, their response may be implicit in their writing!)
- What this means for me: So far, while many authors talk about the subject of cultural adaptation, few are linking it to the issues of effectiveness and sustainability. Furthermore, no one is considering the role of nationals in the cultural adaptation process or the opinion of nationals when measuring effectiveness. So I will have to read between the lines to discover if there are implicit links between these issues in the books and articles that I will read.
- “Defining the issues” (While I frame my question differently than any of the authors, It still needs to connect to all of them.)
- What this means for me: I seem to be asking something that no one is yet asking, which is “What is the role of national partners in the cultural adaptation process for missionaries?” The part that is connecting to other authors and researching is the importance of being culturally adapted.
- “Analyzing the discussion” (which is what will lay the foundation for future study)
- What this means for me: As I work to prove and define the problem that I want to explore in my dissertation, my goal for this first semester, I’m hoping that I will be laying the foundation for my own future study—or project. But to do that I need to have a good handle on what has already been studied and done.
So Mr. Adler gets my appreciation for these insights and hints. Understanding syntopical reading has given me hope that there might be a researcher inside of me after all.
[1] Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading, Revised edition (New York: Touchstone, 1972). 301.
[2] Ibid. 19.
[3] Ibid. 90.
[4] Ibid. 307.
About the Author
Jennifer Williamson
Jenn Williamson is a wife and mother of two adult sons. Before moving to France in 2010, she was the women's pastor at Life Center Foursquare Church in Spokane, WA. As a missionary with Greater Europe Mission, she is involved in church planting and mentoring emerging leaders. Jenn benefitted from French mentors during her transition to the field, and recognizes that cross-cultural ministry success depends on being well integrated into the host culture. Academic research into missionary sustainability and cultural adaptation confirmed her own experience and gave her the vision to create Elan, an organization aimed at helping missionaries transition to the field in France through the participation of French partners.13 responses to “Hope for the Research-Leary”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Jenn!
Wow, I don’t think you give yourself enough credit. Your writing is definitely DMin material!
I respected your writing about being instinctual readers in levels 1 to 3. Then you expounded on level 4, and I found myself wishing I was as smart as you. Your review of “Coming to Terms” was right on, and so were your other outlines on synoptical, or whatever that word means.
Great job, Jenn.
Jay
I’m pretty sure you’re being overly kind, Jay. You strike me as a deeply thoughtful, genuinely wise, and undeniably intelligent human being.
I too noticed a lot of ‘fluff’ or ‘fat’ in Adler/Van Doren. For a book that was clearly meant to be pragmatic in approach it took a long time to get to the point. It was the synoptical reading that would be most relevant to us and this type of reading is the antithesis of the approach I have had thus far. I am glad to see that this text has provided you with some clear purpose and direction for your own dissertation and I am slightly jealous as I do not feel I gained as much.
Jenn and Dan, I agree with the fat comment. I was particularly annoyed while reading about his method of syntopical reading with the love example. It was at that point that my skimming moved on to major skipping of sections to get to the end and move backwards through the text.
Jenn I so appreciate your adaptation to your own work and am looking forward to how your project will materialize in ways that are needed and not yet communicated for missionaries all over. I think I may even refer back to your blog post when I am doing my research. It is shorter and more helpful than our verbose author.
Seriously, his dissertation on LOVE aroused feelings of HATE. I get that he felt like he needed a comprehensive illustration, but that could have gone into an appendix as well. Then again, it isn’t like Adler was writing “How to Write a Book”!
So do you think that you will read “syntopically” going forward? I actually think I will use that part of the book as a reference as I weed through the literature.
Hi Jenn, great post! This book gave me hope as a researcher as well and loved the idea of being the master of the books I read and expecting them to give me what I need for my research or whatever else I am seeking. I also love how you skimmed the first part of the book that talked about skimming books so you don’t waste time with info that is not useful to you. Loved the time getting to know you in Cape Town and am blessed to have you and your perspective as a part of LGP8.
Thanks, Jake! Yes, so happy to have gotten to know you! And thanks for driving my wheel chair! That’s an experience I won’t soon forget.
Jenn,
I think you hit the nail on the head. There are many of us that feel inadequate to the research side of this mountain of project that we are committed to.
I like the emphasis on Adler quote, “In syntopical reading, it is you and your concerns that are primarily to be served, not the books that you read.” I too felt liberated by these words. Liberated to not fall in line and do what the author wanted but to use these books as the resources we need them to be. Thanks for the reminder
Now if I can just really make sure I’m mining the books for the nuggets I need without taking anything out of context. That’s my biggest fear with this method.
Hi Jenn!
Amazing post! You clearly gleaned what you needed from this text. I love the statement “the reader must stay the master” – it challenges us to be fully present and engaged in the value of what we can learn from a book and a great way to hold us accountable to our own learning! You are in a pivotal place to do some amazing research – and there’s no doubt that you will develop a meaningful, well-written dissertation.
It was great to spend two weeks with you in Cape Town! I appreciate your sister-hood, and hope you had a wonderful reunion with your husband.
Thanks, Jean. Yes, SO good to get to know both you and Ron. 🙂
Hey Jenn! Thanks for your thoughtful, thorough, and even vulnerable post. Your fears about the task that lays before us resonated with me. My fears are threefold: 1. Time – I fear I will simply go insane by what this is going to require of me on top of all my current unrealistic responsibilities. 2. Interest – I fear I will not be able to maintain interest in my research subject once I commit to it (Freud would have a field day with this fear). 3. Originality – I fear I will not be able to produce something original or useful. I think this book is limited to helping me with fear number 1, and not so much 2 or 3. However, Adler does help relieve guilt for not moving on from a book when I’ve gotten what I need out of it.
Hope you’re doing well and enjoying your Pinot! Thanks also for sharing about your research interest and your plan for how this book will help. I took some nuggets for my use. Missionary effectiveness and sustainability sounds very interesting!!