Improve Your Reading Skills Archives

It has been a while since I wrote my last blog post which gave a list of Soil Science courses available in the UK. I have been writing in the background but I have not structured my thoughts enough to produce something that a. does not end up too long and b. makes sense! With this one I thought I would spice it all up a little with a somewhat controversial statement to provoke discussion. The statement is; "I don't read the introduction section of papers anymore." The introduction in a world of information overload OK with that bombshell, I should give a small caveat. 99% of the time I do not read the introduction section, but I do occasionally and it will be after everything else. It does not mean that you should not read it nor that you should not read it. But here is the thing. We are in an age of information. Information, information, INFORMATION. Information is at our finger tips 24/7; on a phone or laptop or tablet and I will even include the dazzling array of books that now exist. We have immediate access to an insane amount of knowledge and opinions. And this increases second by second. I mean, millions of new blog posts are written each day. That is pretty insane. Note I could not (easily) find a figure backed up by evidence so don't quote me on this, but accept that it's a lot. Steve Jobs said "… the computer is the most remarkable tool that we've ever come up with. It's the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds." But unlike a bicycle, it is becoming increasingly difficult to put said 'bicycle' in the shed and not think about it or use it for a while; our feet are taped to the pedals and we are forced to be in perpetual motion. So in the age of information, our problem is not cycling through and finding the knowledge through a search engine for example, it is filtering the knowledge. And of course having fair access to all the knowledge too. How can we make sure that what we are seeing is a true representation of 'knowledge'? Information comes at you from all directions. Photo by Luis Villasmil on Unsplash Whilst using a search engine usefully does require some degree of skill, being able to sort through the results and work out what is important and worth my time to read in detail, is essential. Therefore, the overall rationale behind not reading the introduction is that it's a major content filter. I just can not read everything. Pat Thomson in her 'not reading everything' Patter blog post, states "you don't have to feel guilty about not reading all the things. None of us can, or do." That is a little reassuring but it still leaves me with a sense of, 'but I should, shouldn't I'? So for me, I felt that there needs to be much more to it than purely 'not having the time to read'. And when I delved deeper, there is. What is the purpose of the 'Introduction' According to 'How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper' by Barbara Gastel and Robert A. Day (2017), an introduction should "supply sufficient background information to allow the reader to understand and evaluate the results of the present study without needing to refer to previous publications on the topic. The introduction should also provide the rationale for the present study." As such, the introduction has four main purposes; providing the contextintroducing and understanding the topicexplaining the authors' reasoning for studya brief overview of the research questions/ hypotheses/ study design required to answer the 'unknown' they have identified I do not argue with these. The introduction is designed to, and does, provide valuable information. So why do I not read it? One of the reasons for the introduction is to help the reader understand a topic. Photo by Zuzana Ruttkay on Unsplash Well for another caveat, it's not that I don't want to read it. Why I do not read the Introduction I do not need to know the research context because I have already selected the paper as important or relevant for my work by using the title and abstract. I have been working long enough in my field that I largely understand the topics too. I am not going to say I know the topics, because I could not remember something specific that someone has done for the life of me, I have not read everything and exciting new things are always happening. What I do know is that any work which contributes to my field, novel or otherwise, is important. Therefore it is an easy filter I can use to help avoid me reading things I understand already. As I have already mentioned, I can not read everything and nor can you. Basically I filter out text with the lowest return for me first. Now obviously if the topic is completely alien to me, then the return in investment in reading the introduction is higher and probably required. This is when I am likely to read it. The least justifiable reason I do not read the introduction is that a good number of papers mentioned in the introduction I have not yet read. This sends me off on a wild goose chase and I never end up reading the paper that's in front of me. Maybe that is a personal focus issue, but I suspect you have done it too… I am getting better at focusing on the paper at hand, but the temptation is sometimes too hard to resist. I am pretty sure the seams of my reference manager are already in need of repair… What the inside of my reference manager and brain looks like at most points in time... Photo by Caitlin Wynne on Unsplash The next reason is a really, really important one and the single biggest reason why I no longer read the introduction. The introduction is a place where authors need to justify their reasoning for a study; here is the evidence we found and here is why we (the authors) think it is important. This might provide a clue as to where I am going next. By reading the authors' arguments as to why the research is needed, it introduces bias into your own thinking before you have read what they actually measured. Bias and the introduction to a paper Often the bias is very subtle, but it is actually always there. It is delicately intertwined into the papers the authors have chosen and in the argument that they are building to justify their research. We all do it and we have to. Essentially, authors use research that supports a claim that they would like to make. But remember it is their claim, not yours. The best authors will try to provide this claim in a balanced way but it will favour one argument or another. Bias may seem like the wrong word. And it may seem harsh. To be 'biased' means "cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something"- (Oxford Languages, 2022). This definition starts ringing huge alarm bells because it includes 'prejudice' as a part of it. But this particular case of bias I've proposed cannot be avoided. In theory the current literature has led to a discrepancy or something that needs clarification and this is what the authors' work focuses on. The likelihood is that you as a reader also share the same opinion because the bulk of the scientific literature points to the same conclusion. But the authors, whether you consciously agree or not, are already shaping your mind to think from a certain angle. Everything you read will shape your mind. Photo by Michael Dziedzic on Unsplash. The authors are telling you specifically to think in a certain way, before you make your own interpretation of whether you think the work is important and/or justified. As scientists, being unbiased is the hardest and most valuable skill we can acquire. But every introduction (and discussion) section of a paper has bias. We could call it ' supporting evidences towards a particular line of thought', but whatever you call it, it's an 'inclination' towards one thing or another. You could argue that bias stems from an unsupported opinion, but alas it does not; this is known as the all to familiar and alarm-bell-ringing, 'prejudice'. I would like to therefore put a strong line between prejudice which is an unsupported and unjustified bias, and inclination which is a bias which is 'supported' (at least to some degree) by 'evidence'. Yikes, is this for real? I realise that I am treading a very fine line here. One that opens up all of science for criticism. I must admit, I got a little worried here. Is science based on bias? Arguably the same results coming up time after time, are not biased. But they are, they are just biased towards one thing. We could also ask the question, is it actually possible to be a truly unbiased scientist? Does that mean that hypotheses, by their very nature are biased? Conversely, is bias always a bad thing? Now thinking that I must not be alone in this idea, it seems that it is an actual thing. It's called 'philosophical bias' and "it is the one bias that science cannot avoid" [[andersen-2019-Philosophicalbias]]. And unfortunately, it's not something considered within reviews of researcher opinions around bias [[zvereva-2021-Biasesecological]] nor in the 'Catalogue of Bias'. "[Philosophical biases] are basic implicit assumptions in science about how the world is (ontology), what we can know about it (epistemology), or how science ought to be practiced (norms). [...] philosophical biases influence, justify and enable scientific practice: in short, they are an integral part of science." It is linked to the premise in science that we never use the word 'proves'. Instead the evidence collected within the work supports one theory or another. And over time these theories may change or they may almost forever conflict. Think of the long running Grime vs Tilman debate on species' resource acquisition and competition and how they drive community dynamics. I feel this debate will forever live on, well beyond the death of Phil Grime last year (2021). Whilst both Grime and Tilman provide extremely valuable insights into ecology and community dynamics, they each perhaps have one of the most well know philosophical biases about the causes and reasons for drivers. But arguably, neither are wrong by current knowledge as countless studies support one or aspects of both theories. Therefore philosophical bias is to science as a kid is to their favourite sweet shop on the high street, after having tried them all out. The short paper on philosophical bias by Andersen, Anjum and Rocca (2019) makes for an interesting quick read. I'm curious as to why this appears to be such a modern debate so I will be delving into this further as my time allows. I realise that I've just dangled a juicy carrot but unfortunately I will need to leave it there for now as I am going off on a tangent for a discussion I currently don't feel enlightened enough to have. So back to how bias more generally relates to the introduction, because I feel there may often be more than just philosophical bias occurring in this section. How I read papers in summary Consider this; many introductions are written after the discussion. I've been taught to write the introduction after the discussion. It's certainly easier, but is it correct to do this? Tell me how this is an unbiased section of the paper if it is written after the work has taken place? This must be more than just philosophical bias. Now clearly not every author will write the introduction post hoc, and I suspect the best authors do not do this. But how can we tell? In an increasing number of cases, even the data seems to come before the questions! So that all being said, I actually read the methods section first. This gives me the lowest bias account of what was actually measured. I then ask myself, what questions could I (and therefore the authors) answer from this information? Do I agree with the questions that the authors asked? At this point I will go back to the last paragraph of the Introduction and see if it agrees. Then I'll move onto the results. Have they given all the results equal opportunity? Are they particularly focused on one area of the results? This starts to inform me about their angle and their areas of expertise. How do they describe them? Do they seem unnecessarily complex or extrapolated? Does every result combination possible seem to be tested for (= data mining)? How are they presented? Remember when all results looked like this!? So much easier to understand. Photo by Isaac Smith on Unsplash Finally it's the discussion and this is the section that decides on whether I will read the introduction. If my thoughts about the work are on a completely different page from the authors, which they usually are not, then I will go back and read the introduction to see if I can find a reason as to why they are so misaligned. Is there something I am missing that causes us to view things in different ways? 99% of the time everything is hunky dory therefore I do not feel the need to read the introduction. Conclusions So now, in the interest of discovering something controversial or novel, instead of suffering from introduction information overload, I look forwards to the day when I read an introduction. I use this reading methodology to help expose not only the bias of others but also of my own. You may or may not agree with this interpretation and strategy! Please leave your comments below. I am interested in hearing your thoughts and constructive criticisms! Does the thought of not reading the introduction abhor you!? Is it a crime of science? Coffee I’m drinking: An Ethiopian coffee direct from Ethiopia! Books I’m currently reading: 'The Silva Mind Control Method for Getting Help from the Other Side' by José Silva and 'Neurotribes' by Steve Silberman Previous post: A List of Soil Science Courses and Degrees in the UK Thanks to all the photographers I used images from on Unsplash.