How to research?

[Shearaha]

I couldn't find another thread on this subject, if there is I'm sorry for the repeat.

I've noticed that many of the regs have all kinds of source texts and refrences that I just don't seam to be able to find. I've had many people tell me to go research, but I've never had the type of studing or training that required this type of researh. I have found myself at a complete loss. I have no idea where to start. So I thought that I would make a thread so that those with experiance would hopefully share their knowledge on how to research. Just a basic starting place so that those of us who don't know how to research have a starting point to learn how to research. I really hope that made sense sweatdrop  

[maenad nuri]

First, you start with a topic. A narrow one is best. When I go to research, I'm not researching "Paganism", I start with something more narrow: maybe a specific religion, type of withcraft, historical period, etc. Narrow enough that I don't have five thousand sources, but not too narrow that I can't find anything, or that I need specialized training to understand. The topic can also be a question, or a thesis -- whatever, however you approach it is fine.

Then I start looking for broad overviews. In the past, this used to be encyclopedias, so that I could look at their "further reading sections". These days, I do head to Wikipedia. I read over the article, but pay closer attention to the sources area.

I look for reviews of those sources, espcially reviews that are critical. Then, I start to read the best of the books and articles. I look for the primary and secondary sources those are based on. I look for reading lists by people in those areas.

I use a variety of sources -- all the way from the tetriary (biblographies, reading lists) to seconday (say a book like "Greek Religion", or someone who writes commentary on primary sources) to primary texts (Say, reading the Illiad, or Nonnos).

In many respects, I use the same research skills I learned as a Freshman in high school, except I'm a lot more critical of my sources these days, and I have a lot more databases at my fingertips.  

[Oniko-inuki]

Also, if you get your books from the library; take copicious notes and keep a bibliography of the works you're reading.

I know it seems pretty obvious, but when I started out I would either just read the book straight up or keep a notebook marked by subject and nothing else. Which seemed to work for a while, until I realized that I had a ton of information with no idea on where any particular piece came from, no clue as to its accuracy, and no way to verify it since I didn't have the books anymore. Boy, did I feel stupid at that point. gonk  

[maenad nuri]

Oniko-inuki

Also, if you get your books from the library; take copicious notes and keep a bibliography of the works you're reading.

I know it seems pretty obvious, but when I started out I would either just read the book straight up or keep a notebook marked by subject and nothing else. Which seemed to work for a while, until I realized that I had a ton of information with no idea on where any particular piece came from, no clue as to its accuracy, and no way to verify it since I didn't have the books anymore. Boy, did I feel stupid at that point. gonk

Oh it could be worse. I keep forgetting to TAKE NOTES. It's always been a problem for me, and I remember impressions more than anything else.

This is why I buy books though. Cause I can usually remember where I read something.  

[Wrath of Ezekiel]

maenad nuri

Oniko-inuki

Also, if you get your books from the library; take copicious notes and keep a bibliography of the works you're reading.

I know it seems pretty obvious, but when I started out I would either just read the book straight up or keep a notebook marked by subject and nothing else. Which seemed to work for a while, until I realized that I had a ton of information with no idea on where any particular piece came from, no clue as to its accuracy, and no way to verify it since I didn't have the books anymore. Boy, did I feel stupid at that point. gonk

Oh it could be worse. I keep forgetting to TAKE NOTES. It's always been a problem for me, and I remember impressions more than anything else.

This is why I buy books though. Cause I can usually remember where I read something.

You guys have it all down pat. I read, absorb, and if it sticks, it sticks.

I haven't bought any books and I mostly due library book reading.  

[Oniko-inuki]

SpaceTerminal Destiny

maenad nuri

Oniko-inuki

Also, if you get your books from the library; take copicious notes and keep a bibliography of the works you're reading.

I know it seems pretty obvious, but when I started out I would either just read the book straight up or keep a notebook marked by subject and nothing else. Which seemed to work for a while, until I realized that I had a ton of information with no idea on where any particular piece came from, no clue as to its accuracy, and no way to verify it since I didn't have the books anymore. Boy, did I feel stupid at that point. gonk

Oh it could be worse. I keep forgetting to TAKE NOTES. It's always been a problem for me, and I remember impressions more than anything else.

This is why I buy books though. Cause I can usually remember where I read something.

You guys have it all down pat. I read, absorb, and if it sticks, it sticks.

I haven't bought any books and I mostly due library book reading.

The 'if it sticks, it sticks' method just doesn't work for me because the most useless and irrelevant stuff will invariably be what sticks.

I wish I could afford all the books I've used as reference, and you know, life would be so much easier if "that book written by that guy, really, I can picture it in my head" was an acceptable reference. As it is I just purchase the ones I keep going back to.  

[too2sweet]

Like Nuri said, starting with a narrowly defined topic works best. I usually start on the internet, then dig deeper into the sources and such. I have found that the Inter-Library Loan System is my best friend. By checking stuff out before I buy it, I not only save a lot of money while I am wade through crap, but more often than not they have access to some of the older out of print books that I can't seem to find anywhere else (or if I can, would cost me an arm and a leg to buy).

I've been taking some notes as well, but I think I've come to the decision that unless it's a book that only has a few small bits of wisdom in it, I'd rather just buy it, because if it's a good reference, then I end up copying half the book. xd  

[Shearaha]

Thanks everyone! This is the kind of responses I was looking for. I really think that there are a lot of us who are just starting out who just have no idea how to research. I know that I don't. Nothing I've ever had to do required more then just a very basic set and was usually restricted to what a given location had on hand or I was alredy given what texts I could draw from. This school system stinks, I wnet all the way through college and still didn't know how to do basic research crying  

[TeaDidikai]

maenad nuri

Oniko-inuki

Also, if you get your books from the library; take copicious notes and keep a bibliography of the works you're reading.

I know it seems pretty obvious, but when I started out I would either just read the book straight up or keep a notebook marked by subject and nothing else. Which seemed to work for a while, until I realized that I had a ton of information with no idea on where any particular piece came from, no clue as to its accuracy, and no way to verify it since I didn't have the books anymore. Boy, did I feel stupid at that point. gonk

Oh it could be worse. I keep forgetting to TAKE NOTES. It's always been a problem for me, and I remember impressions more than anything else.

This is why I buy books though. Cause I can usually remember where I read something.

I like to include direct quotations and citations.

When I get really into it- I even make a Quick Ref. List, wherein themes with page numbers are noted.  

[PrometheanSet]

TeaDidikai

maenad nuri

Oniko-inuki

Also, if you get your books from the library; take copicious notes and keep a bibliography of the works you're reading.

I know it seems pretty obvious, but when I started out I would either just read the book straight up or keep a notebook marked by subject and nothing else. Which seemed to work for a while, until I realized that I had a ton of information with no idea on where any particular piece came from, no clue as to its accuracy, and no way to verify it since I didn't have the books anymore. Boy, did I feel stupid at that point. gonk

Oh it could be worse. I keep forgetting to TAKE NOTES. It's always been a problem for me, and I remember impressions more than anything else.

This is why I buy books though. Cause I can usually remember where I read something.

I like to include direct quotations and citations.

When I get really into it- I even make a Quick Ref. List, wherein themes with page numbers are noted.

That assumes that any ol' book in your library will have legitimate info. What's to stop them from just getting ol' Silver Ravenwolf from Barnes & Noble because it sells? That's usually the criteria that libraries use to get books these days.

I'd rather see you get academic stuff from anthropologists, than some fluffy carp published purely for the sake of a dollar. Is there a local university where you can wander into their library and ask for the anthropology and world religions sections?

Another big thing is who does the author cite? If you're looking into Wicca, something by Margaret Murray is absolutely laughable. She's an anthropologist that everyone cites about "the burning times" when she was laughed out of the field.  

[TeaDidikai]

PrometheanSet

That assumes that any ol' book in your library will have legitimate info.

Not really- since Nuri already addressed the quality issue, and I was merely expanding upon a tool used.

Also- some people do use quotations and citations from Silver Ravenwolf. Research is research, no matter if you're forming an argument against Ravenwolf's flop or writing a piece on the history of Modern Witchcraft.

Quote:

What's to stop them from just getting ol' Silver Ravenwolf from Barnes & Noble because it sells? That's usually the criteria that libraries use to get books these days.

I'd rather see you get academic stuff from anthropologists, than some fluffy carp published purely for the sake of a dollar.

Depending on what you're researching of course. I could have sworn you had issues with assumptions just a minute ago. confused

Quote:

Another big thing is who does the author cite? If you're looking into Wicca, something by Margaret Murray is absolutely laughable.

Unless of course you're examining source text used by Gardner to generate assumptions about his own cult-mythos.

But heaven forbid we actually consider the scope of the piece in question... that would almost be too much.  

[PrometheanSet]

TeaDidikai

PrometheanSet

That assumes that any ol' book in your library will have legitimate info.

Not really- since Nuri already addressed the quality issue, and I was merely expanding upon a tool used.

Also- some people do use quotations and citations from Silver Ravenwolf. Research is research, no matter if you're forming an argument against Ravenwolf's flop or writing a piece on the history of Modern Witchcraft.

Oh. Okay about the quality thing. My bad.

Wouldn't writing an argument against Ravenwolf's mess or "a history of modern witchcraft" be beyond the scope of someone who's in a beginners' forum?

TeaDidikai

PrometheanSet

What's to stop them from just getting ol' Silver Ravenwolf from Barnes & Noble because it sells? That's usually the criteria that libraries use to get books these days.

I'd rather see you get academic stuff from anthropologists, than some fluffy carp published purely for the sake of a dollar.

Depending on what you're researching of course. I could have sworn you had issues with assumptions just a minute ago. confused

No, just fallacious assumptions in philosophy. Ask your librarian and your bookstore how they choose their books - both often go off of the same top seller lists.

TeaDidikai

PrometheanSet

Another big thing is who does the author cite? If you're looking into Wicca, something by Margaret Murray is absolutely laughable.

Unless of course you're examining source text used by Gardner to generate assumptions about his own cult-mythos.

But heaven forbid we actually consider the scope of the piece in question... that would almost be too much.

Heaven forbid we actually do our research about the "source text" Gardiner used to generate his Wicca. Murray was a laughing stock once she stepped outside of her Egyptology bubble.  

[TeaDidikai]

PrometheanSet

Oh. Okay about the quality thing. My bad.

Wouldn't writing an argument against Ravenwolf's mess or "a history of modern witchcraft" be beyond the scope of someone who's in a beginners' forum?

Why are you assuming the following:

That this is a beginners forum?
That being new to the pagan scene means you're unable to form researched arguments or positions on certain subjects?

Quote:

No, just fallacious assumptions in philosophy. Ask your librarian and your bookstore how they choose their books - both often go off of the same top seller lists.

You misunderstand. While I completely agree than primary sources and some anthropological material is very useful, I'm not going to make such hasty generalizations about what material should be used as a reference without context- nor am I going to paint all of anthropology with a big OK sign. I mean for ******** sake! Leland's anthropology on the Rroma was atrocious! Why would anyone in their right mind endorse it along side truly respectable authors?

The cosmic irony below is pretty good too- since The Witchcult of Western Europe was subtitled "A Study in Anthropology".

Quote:

Heaven forbid we actually do our research about the "source text" Gardiner used to generate his Wicca. Murray was a laughing stock once she stepped outside of her Egyptology bubble.

You say that like I don't already know it.

I've actually read Cohn. That said, who is suggesting that we don't take time to evaluate the source texts used?  

[PrometheanSet]

TeaDidikai

PrometheanSet

Oh. Okay about the quality thing. My bad.

Wouldn't writing an argument against Ravenwolf's mess or "a history of modern witchcraft" be beyond the scope of someone who's in a beginners' forum?

Why are you assuming the following:

That this is a beginners forum?
That being new to the pagan scene means you're unable to form researched arguments or positions on certain subjects?

Quote:

No, just fallacious assumptions in philosophy. Ask your librarian and your bookstore how they choose their books - both often go off of the same top seller lists.

You misunderstand. While I completely agree than primary sources and some anthropological material is very useful, I'm not going to make such hasty generalizations about what material should be used as a reference without context- nor am I going to paint all of anthropology with a big OK sign. I mean for ******** sake! Leland's anthropology on the Rroma was atrocious! Why would anyone in their right mind endorse it along side truly respectable authors?

The cosmic irony below is pretty good too- since The Witchcult of Western Europe was subtitled "A Study in Anthropology".

Quote:

Heaven forbid we actually do our research about the "source text" Gardiner used to generate his Wicca. Murray was a laughing stock once she stepped outside of her Egyptology bubble.

You say that like I don't already know it.

I've actually read Cohn. That said, who is suggesting that we don't take time to evaluate the source texts used?

Now you have me listening. A little more polite, and I won't be such an arse myself!

However, with it being an academic field, the research comes in peer-reviewed journals. So yes, you'll have the occasional person (who's job it is to be an expert) seem like they're on crazy pills. However, overall, I'd trust a large group of them, over time to get a bit closer to the truth than anyone else.

My whole point to being here is to plug this idea - if we want to get anywhere, we gotta be willing to study our history. If you've got better info on Wicca's history (for example) I'd be interested in seeing where you got it. You know, something that didn't come from pop-culture? It's sad when that's the only thing that wouldn't be more credible if it cited Erisian chainletters as a source!  

[Diamond Leaf Clover]

I don't want to start an argument, but I am a beginner, and I have read a book by Silver RavenWolf and I did not suddenly believe everything she wrote. If anything, it helped me learn what to avoid when researching. I suppose reading her books aren't all that bad-when a former friend of mine used to quote RavenWolf as if she was the ultimate authority on the topic, I used some of the things I had read in that book to disprove some of the claims she had made. (Not in the whole 'I'm right and you're wrong!' way, I was reasonable. When my friend laughed at me for being 'new' to paganism and told me that I was wrong, I didn't argue. I just promised myself that I would learn as much as possible, so I could become more knowledgeable about my beliefs.)

My point was, just because I am new, doesn't make me stupid or unable to argue against some of RavenWolf's claims? I'm not an expert, sure, but we all start somewhere.