As Luhmann did, I'm trying to more frequently write summaries of articles—both actual academic articles and things like blog posts, news articles, even recipes. I prefer to handwrite these notes.
For web links, I was thinking of using pinboard's caching feature which assigns a url like https://pinboard.in/cached/01234567890a/ and recording down the 48-bit identifier.
Alas, what happens when my online service of choice fails? So, maybe the Zotero citation key?
I'm wondering what others' experiences are with hybrid written/digital research workflows, and cross-referencing. Anyone have a "personal DOI" that works really well?
I use it for exactly that, especially since he's quite upfront (and funny) about how hooped everyone could be if he's ever hit by a bus.
I had never heard of it, but I found this article about it: https://medium.com/emvi/luhmanns-zettelkasten-a-productivity...
This post is quite good aswell: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NfdHG6oHBJ8Qxc26s/the-zettel...
I'm currently contemplating how to use it as functionally as possible (categorise articles by subject? By hypothesis? Both?), so would love to chat about it if you'd like
What I do is an interaction between the following:
Article <-> Tags <-> Hypotheses <-> Synthesis <-> Prediction <-> Research
So I might read an article, then tag the article/figures with the relevant tags. If it's for a specific project, I keep a list of tags on a separate page. This ensure that I use the tags consistently, so that I can find all the relevant articles later.
I purposefully keep the tags general, like "psychiatric conditions" rather than "depression, mania, schizophrenia" etc. When I reach the hypotheses page, this means that I can form relatively general hypotheses, and then nest them into gradually more specific hypothesis that are specifically supported by the articles.
Then, I use those hypotheses to form new predictions. These predictions turn into new research questions, which I either explore via the literature or doing my own experiments.
An example of this might be: "Wood 2018" <-> #Procedural Memory #Habits <-> Habits are part of procedural memory [[H]] <-> Habits are part of procedural memory [[H]] & Procedural memory is stored in the basal ganglia [[H]] <-> Damage to the basal ganglia disrupts habits [[H]] <-> Seger 2011
This affords me a lot of flexibility in total processing time; I don't spend a lot of time forming hypotheses that aren't interesting/necessary for me, I can quickly tag a lot of sources, and I can quickly collate those sources on a specific topic when necessary.
You might say that the first half of the workflow is "induction", the second half "deduction and confirmation".
I would love it if you had any questions or comments, but just writing this up has been useful for me as well.
You can shoot me an email on "mr [dot] sh4rpeye" at gmail.
Could you give more details about this ? Do you sync the notes to a folder ? How do you do this ? And how to you browse your notes ?
* free software
* Linux and multi-platform support
* browser extension "that just works" for ingesting items and magic lookup tool for DOIs and arXiv IDs (and I hardly ever have problems with the metadata)
* shared group libraries for collaboration with students
* offline only as well as sync
* the ability to add notes, tags, and relational links between items.
After reading about Luhmann's Zettelkasten[1] system, I've also had a great productivity boost by implementing a similar scheme in Zotero. After reading an article, I write up a summary of my ideas and thoughts and attach it to the article as a literature note. I then keep a primary repository of notes in a flat folder with links between them and the literature notes as my makeshift Zettelkasten. While not as stream-lined as some special purpose note taking tools, Zotero can do a pretty decent job at this while also having all the advantages of it's bibliographic system, file syncing, etc.
Something I wish it had for this purpose was an "auto-complete" for other entries and a graphical tree viewer of relations. However, these aren't so bad not to have, part of the genius of Luhmann's original paper card notes system seems to have been the critical thinking required to determine which handful (1 to 3) of notes are most related and the serendipitous discovery process from having to manually walk the note files when you need to find something.