How can we train people in the art of learning to read scholarly research like a scientist?
Fascinated by this project that studied how biologists read papers, from undergrads to faculty, and why undergrads get so lost on things that experienced researchers find fast/easy.
More experienced readers focused on the data. More junior ones focused on the narrative.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21548455.2022.2078010
@natematias This makes sense to me. Experienced readers, by virtue of their experience, already have the context they need to understand the data. But more junior readers are lacking that context and look to the narrative portions to help them understand how the data fits into the bigger picture.
There's a similar phenomenon among programmers. Newer programmers prefer tutorials that take them all the way from point A to point Z. But more experienced programmers prefer technical docs that explain each point separately and in-depth, assuming the user already knows the greater context.
So, can you teach more junior readers to go to the data? Maybe, but that might mean they miss the bigger picture. There's just no replacement for established domain knowledge gained through experience.
@LouisIngenthron @natematias That's a really good point. I haven't read the paper yet, but I was confused by what it really meant about data- vs. narrative- focused. Looking forward to reading this paper. When I assign a journal article to students, I call the assignment "paper interrogation" and frame it in the context of interrogating a crime suspect--you're purpose is to extract useful information.
@LouisIngenthron @natematias you said what I came to say but more eloquently. Thx.