suggestions for reading/note taking

S

Hello, I am writing this for suggestions for more time efficient methods for reading and taking notes. When I did my MS the time frame from start to finish for the research /write up portion was only about a year. I read and highlighted heaps of hard copy journal articles that I had organized by category. It seemed organized, and worked fine for that because it was a relatively short project. I am now in the first 1.5 years of my PhD and have a few more years to go and hundreds of things to read. That method is not going to work for this project! I have all my references entered in endnote for citation purposes, but did not like taking notes in endnote. Does anyone have any suggestion for reading and note taking that is organized, and time efficient, and that may eliminate me from re-reading the same articles time and time again?

D

I normally make an excel matrix with the method used, statistical analysis tests used and results by topic. I managed to publish 2 lit review papers with this method. After you have completed the matrix you can do a meta-analysis and compare with your results. You can go back to the matrix when you need to decide on the method or the analysis you plan to follow.

Good luck, and remember that a good literature review is the basis of a PhD.

N

I heard about a similar method before. Using Excel tables seems to be quite common. I am writing two paragraphs in Endnote - one is a little summary including question, method and result, the other is a personal assessment of the article and its relevance. I then copy these writings into one or two Word documents, which then, with some editing work and extra writing, become subject overviews.

I am just a few months into my PhD, so I will see how this method works ;)

S

Thanks for the input! Both sound like good advice, I am a bit old fashioned but aware the I reluctantly need to rip myself away from my hard copy paper! anymore advice is welcomed :)

E

Hard copy is always better for me. Cognitive neuroscientists agree with this

23995