# A Field Guide to Grad School  ## Metadata - Author: [[Jessica McCrory Calarco]] - Full Title: A Field Guide to Grad School - Category: #books - Cite: [[@calarcoFieldGuideGrad2020]] ## Highlights - For identity and status reasons, those disciplinary departments tend to view scholars trained in interdisciplinary programs as lacking the expertise to teach in a disciplinary program. ([Location 273](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=273)) - That said, the solution isn’t just to skim haphazardly or skip half the readings on the syllabus or quit reading entirely. The solution is to approach reading like research—with a set of questions to answer and set of strategies to use in the process. ([Location 1914](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=1914)) - [[How to Read in Grad School]] - When I do sit down to read, I almost never read beginning to end. Instead, I start with the abstract and introduction, then skip around a bit, with a few strategic goals in mind. Here are some suggestions for what that looks like. First, read as much of each article or book as it takes to identify: The central research question The data/methods used to answer the research question The central argument/answer The key patterns that support the central argument/answer The evidence that points to those larger patterns (e.g., statistical correlations, examples from field notes or interview transcripts) The limitations (i.e., what questions it doesn’t answer; what perspectives or possibilities it doesn’t consider) How you would cite the article/book/chapter in your own work (e.g., as an example or explanation of a particular method, to define a specific concept or term, or to highlight key findings from empirical research) Second, figure out how each reading relates to other things you’ve read, especially other things by the same author or in the same subfield/genre. Does this particular study: Support, explain, clarify, extend, or challenge what’s been said before? Develop a new theoretical model? Use a new method? Add a new case/population? Third, decide if this is a book, article, or chapter that you’ll need to read in full. Some readings are going to be highly relevant to your own research, and those readings deserve a more in-depth read. In that case, you’ll want to read carefully, and you’ll want to take more detailed notes. In addition to noting the pieces of information outlined above, you’ll also want to be able to articulate how these books, articles, and chapters inform your work and also how your work is (or will be) different from the research reported in the studies you’ve read. ([Location 1927](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=1927)) - Once you get to the library web page, I’d recommend looking for annual review articles related to the topics you’re studying. Most disciplines have a journal that’s dedicated to publishing review-style ([Location 1953](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=1953)) - Annual review articles are chock-full of citations to potentially relevant research on the topics you’re interested in studying. ([Location 1963](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=1963)) - Rather, if a professor asks you for a literature review, they probably want you to use evidence from existing research to make an argument about what we do and don’t know about a given topic. To get to that point, and as Dr. Raul Pacheco-Vega lays out in a very helpful blog post,11 the first step is to essentially map the research on a given topic, looking for key themes, disagreements, and unanswered questions. ([Location 2037](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=2037)) - To build that kind of justification, you want to write a literature review that identifies: What we know about some issue (or what scholars in a given subfield generally agree on) (this lays the foundation for your argument) What we don’t know about that issue (or what scholars in a given subfield disagree about) (this points to your research question) Why that unanswered question (or point of disagreement) is important to address (this points to the potential implications of your study) What existing research tells us about the best way to answer that unanswered question (or resolve that point of disagreement) (this becomes the justification for your data/methods/analysis) What existing research might predict in terms of the answer to that unanswered question (or the resolution to that point of disagreement) (this becomes the justification for your hypotheses) ([Location 2043](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=2043)) - First, comprehensive exams are intended to help you become an expert in a particular subfield. That usually means ensuring that you: Can explain the central theories and concepts used in your subfield (and how those theories and concepts have evolved over time) Can adjudicate key debates in the subfield (and situate your own work within them) Are familiar with the data and methods used by scholars in your subfield (and can use those data/methods in your own work) Recognize the standards of evidence in your subfield (i.e., what counts as evidence and how much is necessary to support an argument) ([Location 2319](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=2319)) - Pivot, for example, allows you to create a profile and find information about funding available to scholars at all career levels in your field. ([Location 2902](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=2902)) - 17 UCLA’s GRAPES database, meanwhile, is useful if you’re looking for direct funding for your graduate training and research. ([Location 2905](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=2905)) - Structure-wise, for example, academic writing generally follows a story arc—it walks the reader through the story of the research from beginning (the research question and justification) to middle (the data collection and analysis) to end (the results and conclusions). ([Location 3081](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3081)) - An argument is essentially an abstraction—it’s a generalization you make based on your findings, which are in turn a generalization about the patterns you find in your data. ([Location 3132](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3132)) - Deductive research includes most laboratory science, experimental research, and quantitative, survey-based research. With deductive research, you start with a hypothesis. Then you test that hypothesis with your research. If your research supports your hypothesis, then your hypothesis becomes your argument. ([Location 3152](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3152)) - And yet if you don’t publish (or at least try to report) your null findings, then someone else might end up wasting time and resources doing the same experiment you did, only to get the same null result. Ultimately, then, it’s important to publish (or at least try to report) null findings, even if they’re not what you expected or hoped to find. ([Location 3169](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3169)) - With inductive research, you start with a question rather than a hypothesis. Then you identify forms of data that you think will allow you to answer that question. Then you gather those data and analyze them to identify patterns. Then you develop an argument about the significance of those patterns. That last step is rarely easy. ([Location 3174](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3174)) - When I’m writing, I typically start by outlining the analysis/results section. I work out, roughly, what I can argue with my data. Then I backtrack from there to outline the contribution I can make to the field. I get those two outlines “right” (or at least logically organized and consistent) before I write any full sentences or paragraphs. Then I write the introduction, which, for me, serves as a roadmap for the rest of the paper. Then I write the full analysis/results section, revise the overall outline based on any changes that happen in that process, and then write the background/justification section. Data/methods sections I find to be fairly easy to write (you’re mostly describing what you did). So I save them for a day when my energy is low ([Location 3371](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3371)) - Then, the actual last thing I do, at least before editing and word-cutting the whole paper, is write the abstract. It’s the shortest part of the paper. ([Location 3378](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3378)) - Along those lines, and when I’m writing abstracts, I typically follow this six-sentence formula that outlines the rest of the paper: Sentence 1: What we know Sentence 2: What we don’t know Sentence 3: How you answer that question Sentence 4: What you found Sentence 5: What you conclude from those findings Sentence 6: Why those conclusions are important ([Location 3389](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3389)) - Paragraph 1: Describe the gap in the literature you will address with your data. What do we know? (Prior research tells us that …) What do we not know? (And yet, we do not know …) What do we suspect? (Given prior research, however, there is reason to suspect that …) Paragraph 2: Identify your research question and explain how you answer it. What question will you answer/hypothesis will you test? (This study examines that possibility. Specifically, I ask …) What data will you use to answer this question? (To answer that question, I draw on data from …) What do you find? (In analyzing those data, I find …) Paragraph 3: Explain the importance of your findings. What is your central argument (i.e., the answer to your research question)? (Given these findings, I argue that …) How does this argument broaden, clarify, or challenge existing knowledge? (These findings are important in that they …) What implications do your findings have for research/policy/practice? (With respect to research/policy/practice, these findings suggest that …) ([Location 3413](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3413)) - As we’ll talk more about at the end of the chapter, groups like the Scholars Strategy Network work to connect researchers with journalists, policymakers, and practitioners who might be interested in their work. Meanwhile, groups like the OpEd Project train researchers on how to translate their research into the kind of narrative format that works best for engaging nonacademic audiences in short form articles and reports.13 ([Location 3854](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3854)) - He signs up for emails from places like Express and Banana Republic and J. Crew and then waits for the big sales (usually twice a year) to replace the ones that are worn. ([Location 5073](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=5073)) ## New highlights added July 11, 2023 at 8:41 PM - Inductive research includes work using ethnography, interviews, archival research, textual analysis, and other forms of qualitative research as well as some forms of descriptive quantitative research. With inductive research, you start with a question rather than a hypothesis. Then you identify forms of data that you think will allow you to answer that question. Then you gather those data and analyze them to identify patterns. Then you develop an argument about the significance of those patterns. That last step is rarely easy. ([Location 3172](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3172)) - When I’m writing, I typically start by outlining the analysis/results section. I work out, roughly, what I can argue with my data. Then I backtrack from there to outline the contribution I can make to the field. I get those two outlines “right” (or at least logically organized and consistent) before I write any full sentences or paragraphs. Then I write the introduction, which, for me, serves as a roadmap for the rest of the paper. Then I write the full analysis/results section, revise the overall outline based on any changes that happen in that process, and then write the background/justification section. Data/methods sections I find to be fairly easy to write (you’re mostly describing what you did). So I save them for a day when my energy is low and I’m not feeling particularly excited to write. ([Location 3371](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3371)) - In my research (most of which is published in fields where it’s standard to have a separate and often highly theoretical background or justification section) that typically looks something like this: ([Location 3455](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3455)) - I give my grad students a writing outline for their methods sections that looks like this: ([Location 3483](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3483)) - In my analysis/results section, each subsection describing a key pattern in the data typically looks something like this: ([Location 3516](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3516)) - When I’m writing discussion and conclusion sections, I typically follow an outline that looks like this: ([Location 3551](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3551)) - Your bibliography shows who you’re in conversation with. Within every field and subfield there are clusters of scholars working on similar topics. Within those clusters, there are often debates about the right methods to use or the right theories to invoke or the right kinds of conclusions to draw from evidence. Your bibliography shows how you position your research within those debates. And when it comes time for peer review, the editor is probably going to pick someone on your side of the debate and someone on the other side too.21 Your bibliography also shows whether you’ve done your homework. Readers, reviewers, and editors want to see that you’ve read the foundational work on your topic. ([Location 3583](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0859PDXVX&location=3583))