Skip to content
Skip to main content
header search
ahihi OpenLearn
OpenLearn
Menu
sticky search

About this free course

Become an OU student

Download this course

Share this free course

Course content Course content
An introduction to software development
An introduction to software development

Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.

More free courses

8.1.3 Assimilating an academic article

Some of the most challenging information resources that exist come from the academic literature: even the most experienced researcher will not expect to read an academic paper once and immediately understand it. Accordingly, the workflow for assimilating the information is complex. In this subsection you will explore this complexity by using a workflow suggested by the author of the paper you have just ‘discovered’.

The barriers to understanding a paper are many and high. An academic paper is considered good if it makes a contribution to knowledge; therefore, to understand an academic paper is to understand the contribution to knowledge that it makes. This may require a substantial investment of time and be very challenging.

Understanding an academic (or other) article may require you to understand a new concept or new terminology, to look at an existing model, concept or ‘thing’ from a new perspective, or to see a group of things in a new relationship. Accomplishing tasks such as these will very probably take more than one reading.

If you were on holiday – for instance – you might be able to dedicate a full weekend or a week to an academic article and read it through as many times as you need. However, you will probably not always be able to dedicate a block of time to the many readings an individual academic paper might need, and so you must find a way of recording your understanding of a paper from one reading to the next.

Annotation

Here are the annotations we made on the published version of Keshav’s paper. They appear in red and as electronic highlights in yellow.

Described image
Figure 2 Our annotation of Keshav’s article (Keshav, 2007)
Show description|Hide description

An image of a PDF of Keshav’s paper showing annotations added by the author. The annotations can be described as follows.

At the top of the paper are two sets of comments:

  • ‘21/12/12: From abstract and skim read, looks a good introduction to reading an academic paper. MAY BE most useful to a peer reviewer, however.’

  • ‘First read: 21 December 2012’

    ‘Second read: 23 December 2012’

    ‘Third read: 15 January 2013’

Other annotations are as follows:

  • In the Introduction section the following phrases are highlighted: ‘to review them for a conference or a class’; ‘keep current in their field’; ‘Learning to efficiently read a paper is a critical but rarely taught skill’. In the margin alongside this highlighting an annotation reads ‘23/12/12 Two appropriate reasons’
  • In the Introduction section the phrase ‘are frequently driven to frustration’ is highlighted and in the margin an annotation reads ‘23/12/12: We’d like to avoid’
  • Alongside the section 2 heading an annotation reads ‘23/12/12 A good workflow’
  • In section 2 the paragraph from the words ‘Each pass’ onwards is highlighted. The associated marginal note reads ‘15/01/13: we say it may take many i.e. more that [sic] three passes’
  • In subsection 2.1 the sentence starting ‘This pass’ is highlighted and the accompanying annotation reads ‘15/01/13: 5 mins! discipline needed’
  • In subsection 2.1, point 3, the word ‘conclusions’ is highlighted; the accompanying note reads ‘23/12/12: Not all papers have conclusions (including this one)’
  • In subsection 2.1 before the second list the term ‘five Cs’ is highlighted with an accompanying annotation reading ‘15/01//13
  • In subsection 2.1 the words ‘choose not to read further’ are highlighted and the accompanying annotation reads ‘23/12/12: a first pass may not be enough to know this’
  • In subsection 2.1 the words ‘someday prove relevant’ are highlighted and the accompanying annotation reads ‘15/01/13: ok, of relevance someday’
  • Alongside the first paragraph in section 2.2 an annotation reads ‘15/01/13: how to deal with new nomenclature?’
  • In subsection 2.2, point 1, the sentence ‘Common mistakes like these will separate rushed, shoddy work from the truly excellent’ is highlighted and the accompanying annotation reads ‘15/01/13: interesting point, quick markers for poor work’
Figure 2 Our annotation of Keshav’s article (Keshav, 2007)

Activity 17

By looking at the text of the notes, identify and list the three dates on which the paper was read. What do you think we were trying to convey with the annotation?

To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Discussion

The dates are:

  • First read: 21 December 2012
  • Second read: 23 December 2012
  • Third read: 15 January 2013

The notes appear to record observations on the workflow, and any differences from what the reader had expected. For instance, in two cases an initial note is followed up with a further note. The first case has:

  • ‘23/12/12: A good workflow.’

followed up by:

  • ‘15/01/13: we say it may take many, i.e., more that [sic] three, passes.’

The second note has:

  • ‘23/12/12: a first pass may not be enough to know this.’

followed up by:

  • ‘15/01/13: ok, of relevance someday.’

The first pairing of notes suggests that in the reader’s experience, you sometimes have to read an academic paper several times before you really understand it.

The second pairing of notes shows the reader’s growing understanding of what the purpose of the first pass is.

Keshav (2007) advocates following a workflow for reading an academic paper. There are three passes to this workflow, and the subsections that follow will examine these as a way of assimilating the information presented.