{"id":14147,"date":"2017-10-05T06:58:59","date_gmt":"2017-10-05T13:58:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=14147"},"modified":"2017-10-05T06:58:59","modified_gmt":"2017-10-05T13:58:59","slug":"hope-for-the-research-leary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/hope-for-the-research-leary\/","title":{"rendered":"Hope for the Research-Leary"},"content":{"rendered":"

As I read Adler\u2019s How to Read a Book, <\/em>I felt nervous that I wasn\u2019t doing it right\u2014as 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\u2014the pi\u00e8ce de r\u00e9sistance, or the \u201cmain dish,\u201d as we Americans might say.<\/p>\n

(I\u2019m going to make a confession here. I don\u2019t exactly see myself as DMin material. It\u2019s not that I don\u2019t think I\u2019m smart enough or committed enough. It\u2019s 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\u2019t feel equal to the task. But Adler, and his explanation of \u201cSyntopical Reading,\u201d has given me some hope.[1]<\/a> )<\/p>\n

Syntopical (which isn\u2019t even a word, but it certainly is a \u201cterm\u201d that Adler uses, so I\u2019ll stick with it!), syntopical reading is the type of reading that enables the reader to read several books on the same topic and\u00a0 \u201cconstruct an analysis of the subject that may not be in any of the books.<\/em>\u201d[2]<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

Although Adler himself says a good writer \u201cdoes not bury a puny skeleton under a mass of fat,\u201d[3]<\/a> I\u2019m 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 \u201clove\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

\"Livres,<\/p>\n

The most valuable instruction that Adler gives is this:<\/p>\n

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]<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

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\u2014the book exists to serve the reader\u2019s purposes. In fact the book might even be useful to the reader in a way that was not intended by the author.<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n