sabine221b
replied to your photo
“Do the math on this one and it comes about to just over ten minutes a...”
We were told not to spend more than 10 mins on each paper, you should be able to read the abstract, intro and conclusion in that time and determine if the paper goes in the good pile or bad pile. Those in the good pile you look at in further detail later.
I stand corrected. And of course you’re right. Though I was in philosophy, so it was less a good/bad pile than relevant/not relevant to the question I was working with - actual quality of thought wasn’t so quickly obvious. But yeah, there’s a definite culling process, and ten minutes per paper is actually a bit generous for that.
Here’s the bit that makes me giggle, though: once you’ve identified a good study/article, you’re still supposed to go back and read it in more depth. Except --and again this is speaking as a philosopher/theology/linguistics scholar, and this will probably vary by discipline-- nobody did this. Ain’t nobody got time for that, as the meme says. If you were quoting and positioning yourself against or critiquing or expanding on a certain piece of scholarship, sure, but if it was just a footnote reference, the ten minute skim was usually all you got.
Maybe I really was a bad scholar, I’m not sure! But it did seem like more than an isolated experience to me, and thinking back it is a bit amusing, this tacit acknowledgment that this was the level awareness so many of us had of our references and sources, by necessity.












