How (much) to read (and take notes)?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'inexperienced scholar' writes:

Standard advice for paper writing is not to let reading keep you from writing. However, I often choose to write about topics that involve extensive research, partly because I don't have any time constraints on my writing and I write out of a love of the craft. Right now, I have my outline and some of the paper written, but being still new to the process, I wonder how much reading is too much and how much is too little. Do professional philosophers take extensive notes on the literature they read? I tend to engage with lesser known scholars in the field as well as the big names, but I must admit that I have a compulsion to memorize and extensively document what I read, some of it primary lit and much of it secondary. Any advice as to how to manage reading in a way that is conducive to proper research, while not drowning oneself in papers?

This is a good query, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Allow me to share a few brief thoughts before opening things up for comments.

The OP doesn't mention whether they are a grad student, but given that they say, "I don't have any time constraints on my writing", and describe themselves as an inexperienced scholar, it seems like they are probably a student (or perhaps a postdoc?). Anyway, the reason that I mention this is that in my experience, one trap that grad students and inexperienced scholars run into is reading way too much--so much so that it seriously impacts their writing productivity. Now, of course, it's important to get a good general grasp of the literature in whatever area you're writing in, and one thing that really bugs me as a journal reviewer is when people submit papers who obviously haven't read much of the literature. Still, you don't have to do 'extensive research' and notetaking in order have a general idea what the background literature looks like. All you need to do is a quick literature search (e.g. a keyword search in Philpapers, etc.) and read things that are obviously relevant to your paper topic. Further, as I mentioned here, in doing this you don't need to read everything with a fine-tooth comb: certainly not every primary text and source in the secondary literature! When conducting background research for papers that I write, I always give papers a very quick read first (with some highlights and margin notes) in order to determine which papers I need to read more carefully later given my project. Otherwise, my experience is that if you try to read everything slowly and carefully, taking extensive notes, you'll never get any real writing done or get papers out for review.

Here is why I mention all of this: earlier in my career when I was a grad student and postdoc/VAP, I ran into the grad student trap that I describe above. I had so much free time that I tried to read and take detailed notes on everything...and I never got any papers of my own done. And I've seen this problem afflict many other grad students I knew. First, reading so much, and so slowly and with extensive note-taking, is extremely time-consuming--which is a problem because writing is very time-consuming. Second, taking so many notes can easily result in a kind of cognitive overload and confusion, landing one in the 'weeds', as it were. More is not always better. When I was a grad student, I often found myself with so many notes that I was unable to narrow down exactly what to address or not address in a paper--and I often found myself with so many notes that I had no idea what to write.

Anyway, perhaps surprisingly, one of the things that I have heard many times from more advanced scholars--which in my experience is absolutely right--is 'write first.' Once you have a basic grasp of the background literature (from reading things quickly and without a ton of notes), the best thing to do is to start writing. Then, as you're writing, in my experience it will become very clear which things you need to read super-carefully and take some notes on, and which things you don't. In short, what I do--and the main tip I would give the OP--is to let one's writing dictate what to read super carefully and take detailed notes on. Don't read everything and then try to write. Read a bunch of things fairly quickly without lots of extensive notes, write, then read more carefully and take extensive notes on things that your writing suggests is important to get careful and clear on. 

Of course, this is just my experience, and my advice may not be the best or generalize to others. So what do you all think? Here, again, are the OP's two main questions:

1. Do professional philosophers take extensive notes on the literature they read?
2. Any advice as to how to manage reading in a way that is conducive to proper research, while not drowning oneself in papers?

Comments

[Michel]

1. I take cursory notes--I highlight the important claims and parts of an argument, and keep track of thoughts or objections in the margins. My only "extensive" notes are what makes it into a paper.

2. Yes, write first. I wouldn't say there's such a thing as too much reading. Or, I don't think that's a helpful way of conceptualizing it. Instead, the question I'd ask is whether reading is impeding writing. If you feel like you have to read a few more things before you can start writing, that's a problem. It's also important to reiterate Marcus's point that writing helps to shape the pattern of your reading. You can't do that if you try to read everything first--you'll just exhaust yourself.

[Postdoc]

I have nothing useful to say about how much to read (probably not so much as OP suggests), but let me put in a strong vote in favor of taking and filing notes.

I type up 1-2 pages of notes on each paper I read, together with a paragraph summary, then file the notes away attached to the paper in Mendeley.

Two years later when it's time to cite the paper and I've forgotten everything about it, those notes are a lifesaver. In 1-2 minutes I remember everything I need to know about the paper, in words that make sense to me.

It feels like such a waste to put in the effort of carefully reading a paper, but not put in the extra ten minutes to keep that memory fresh.

I guess one thing about reading that's worth mentioning is that many people write lots of papers on the same topic(s). That way you can put in a lot of reading up-front to get to know the literature, but once you've done that you don't have to read a new literature for every paper.

[phil]

I'd add to Postdoc's very helpful point that it is important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good in note taking. My ideal notes are similar to those of Postdoc, but I have plenty of paper notes that are a paragraph or just a couple of lines summarizing a part of a paper that was of interest to me. Some reminder of what you've read is always useful, but these notes shouldn't eat into your writing bandwidth. Remember they are for *you*, and you should tailor them accordingly.

Also, sometimes I find that my notes are really a first pass at free writing for a paper.

[inexperienced scholar]

I am the original poster. Thanks everyone for your comments. Marcus, I am not actually a student, although I think of myself as a lifelong learner. I was a graduate student before I left due to illness and stress -- funded programs are stressful, especially with an undiagnosed illness I had at the time. Now I am an administrative assistant at my alma mater and I have quite a lot of free time during the summer. So I am rebooting an old paper of my mine on Husserl's theory of time-consciousness. I've presented it before at Duquesne and am connecting up with new philosophers too. I am friends with a retired faculty member whom I go dog-walking with on the weekends, and he gives me feedback on my work. And I am so serious about Husserl scholarship that I actually am taking German with my staff discount at a rate of about 100 bucks a credit hour, and I am meeting up with a Heidegger scholar who studied at Lueven (where the Husserl archives are) to talk about my paper too, in addition to joining an online Husserl reading group. Even though I'll never be a professional philosopher, I feel good that I can still do philosophy and am meeeting new people who like philosophy too (including a math lecturer at my uni who I am reading Simon De Beauvoir with). My question now, do you have any recommendations for areas for creative output? I always wanted to get a paper published, but I know my chances are slim. Given my circumstances as I've described them, do you have any tips for an aspiring phenomenology scholar? I saw a Medium blog called "A Schmidt Reader" where someone writes little commentaries on the philosopher. I thought about doing something like that. Maybe this is a completely separate query altogether, but it gives you a little more context. Thanks again everyone for your comments. Thanks, Marucs!