why it is helpful to read ‘out of your area’

Here’s a somewhat round-about explanation of this assertion… Bear with me through what might seem like a long way to get to an answer.

Once upon a time, when I was studying for a PhD, I joined a reading group. At the time I was enrolled at a university some 500 miles away from where I lived and it was hard to get there very often. I certainly couldn’t be part of an everyday research culture. I worked largely on my own, choosing the books and articles that seemed most germane to my topic.

Then, I was invited to join a reading group at a local university. The trouble was that all of the group was focused on literacy/ies and popular culture/s, while I was concerned with questions of policy and equity. There was of course some overlap between their concerns and my own, but their primary reading list looked very different from mine.

Nevertheless, I was keen to be part of a group and I was not uninterested in literacy/ies and popular culture/s so I decided that reading ‘outside’ my area would not be a major distraction. And I needed the sociality of the group.

As it turned out, the decision to respond positively to the invitation was a very good one. Initially, I was concerned that the group was reading a wide range of cultural ‘classics’, many of which I’d heard of but wouldn’t otherwise have picked up, since they didn’t seem to be required for my particular thesis. But this concern soon disappeared.

What I read with the group were books that sparked off ideas, and these made me think differently about the problem I was investigating. I made friends with some authors that were ultimately very useful in my research, even though I hadn’t imagined they would be. Indeed, they helped to provide the ‘originality’ of approach on which the examiners commented favorably. And some of these books and their authors have become staunch allies in the work I continue to do.

But equally important, I found that, in reading these books, I gained a deeper understanding of lots of others. And this is why reading widely and out of what seems to be the immediate area is important and useful.

Scholarship is highly inter-textual, that is, the texts that we write contain references to lots of other writings, often well beyond what is actually cited. This is writing of the kind that Bakhtin (1981) called heteroglossic. There are multiple layers of meaning in heteroglossic texts, and the more the reader understands the references that sit behind the actual writing surfaces, the more they get from their reading.

Let me give an example to make this a bit clearer. A text might contain a reference to surveillance. The actual piece might not explore this concept in any depth, if at all, because the writer assumes that the reader will bring to their reading an understanding of the way in which a theory of discipline and surveillance was explicated by Foucault. Even if Foucault is never ever mentioned, his work is there in the writing. It is hiding behind the term surveillance. If the reader understands this reference and its hidden allusions, then they will read the piece differently than someone who doesn’t have a clue that there is anything more to the term surveillance other than its dictionary meaning.

The point I am making here is that reading writings in the social sciences and/or arts and humanities is never just a question of reading the words on the page. It is always about inter-texuality and is dependent on what intellectual resources the reader can bring to the task. The more the reader understands key texts, histories of ideas, debates, traditions and trends within the discipline and field generally, the greater their appreciation and understanding of what is written is likely to be.

The upshot of my early reading group experience is that I’ve not forgotten the importance of reading outside my field. I currently have on my reading pile books about architecture, contemporary art practices, aesthetics, mobilities and memory. None of these seem to be directly related to my immediate research, but each of them is providing stimulation and new resources to think with. Overall, these disparate texts are deepening my understandings of knowledge-producing traditions in related areas and creating a deeper reservoir of potential meaning-making resources.

I now try to encourage doctoral students to read widely, and not just confine themselves to the ‘relevant’. Neither they nor I can predict how this wider reading might become directly applicable. But what I know from my own experiences, and about scholarship in general, is that much of it will at some time, and in some way, be worth-while. Of course this is not at the expense of what must be done in order to pass. But there is usually time, in a doctorate, to fit in more than the immediately utilitarian, and much to be gained from doing so.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.

About these ads

About pat thomson

Pat Thomson is Professor of Education in the School of Education, The University of Nottingham, UK
This entry was posted in academic writing, Bakhtin, intertetxuality, reading and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to why it is helpful to read ‘out of your area’

  1. Karenmca says:

    I totally agree, Pat. For a musicologist, I find myself reading about history, literature, poetry, cultural nationalism, politics, tourism – and considering my research is into SCOTTISH song collecting, it’s surprising how much I now know about Irish and Welsh ditto. Mind you, the most “far-out” thing was an early 19th century piece on landscape gardening! And my deceased graphic artist uncle once asked, “HOW ON EARTH does she know about Daniell’s illustrated tour round the Hebrides?” Ah, that’s a long story!
    You just never know when reading something apparently “off-track” sparks off a whole new train of thought.

  2. This raises the issue of ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ reading in peripheral research fields.

    For me, one of the advantages of following lots of blogs (many of which are from academics on the edges of my discipline) is that it provides me with an accessible ‘overview’ without the commitment to something like the intensity and relative narrow-focus of a reading group.

    Such ‘skimming’ or ‘shallow’ research activities are routinely derided (particularly in the popular press), as superficial and encouraging the low-attention spans of ‘net-gen’ learners.

    But maybe it enables a more dynamic and ongoing mapping of the research landscape (which can lead on to further and deeper enquiry where necessary), as well as helping reveal the socio-political relations that influences academic discourse – as I discussed here: http://phdblog.net/the-rationality-we-routinely-adopt/

    • pat thomson says:

      I think both are helpful and serve different purposes. In your area of research scanning seems likely to be the only way to keep up too, as ordinary paper publication is always lagging behind the edges if the field. Next post about the need to go to films and galleries!!

  3. Pingback: Inter-disciplined research | Carpe Diem Post Doc

  4. Pingback: Recap: #ECRchat on Interdisciplinary Research, 14th Feb 2013 | #ECRchat

  5. Pingback: A Pot of Gold for the Precautious Postgraduate | Thou ART:

  6. Pingback: Intra-disciplinary dialogue | Scott Eacott, PhD

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s