Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
In terms of reading lists, I like starting with a couple of basic books about the discipline itself, and those from authors with possibly deviating opinions (and even from different 'eras'). Start 'em off early with the basic theory so that they can at least understand where some of the other readings may be coming from.
Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
As a method to impart practical/useful knowledge, I submit a a reading list should:

a.) Refer to a discreet specific and definable subject. - "Falklands War. Land Operations," - with a defined purpose. "Conduct of Land Warfare."
b.) No more than 3-5 books.
c.) Detail what each book imparts as useful - thus "Describes the Battle of Goose Green in detail."
d.) Point out any serious flaws or omissions in each work.
e.) A list of 8-10 exam questions to be answered - "What was wrong with plan to land at Fitzroy?"
f.) Be part of wider course of study and discussion and not a stand alone task.
I think there's a lot of good points and overlap, here. Mike, a really good literature review should do what you say although, in my experience, a lot of them set up the "opposition" as straw men.

If we were to slightly expand the subject or, rather, to situate it within the context of a "course" of some type, then I think we have a pretty good idea of how it should appear. Start with a quick and dirty theory / methods overview (i.e. paint a very broad picture) with an emphasis on the language used ("Centre of gravity? yeah, like Newton, man! Got it!!!!"), and then follow it up with Wilf's a.-e.

I'll admit, I aim to try and get my students to think and argue for themselves, so I would probably modify some of Wilf's points c & d a touch, probably along the lines of "This is why I find this useful. What in the work struck you as being useful for you? Why would we have different opinions of what is and is not useful?".... stuff like that.

Case in point; I'm teaching a COIN course in the summer, and what struck me about a particular work will, I have no doubt, be quite different from what would strike Mike who has actually been doing the stuff. Even if Mike and I actively colluded on "Why this work is important", we would both have flashes of insight while we were teaching that would be in our own areas of experience. Also, I wouldn't have the experience base to know, in my gut I mean, why something was important to Mike and vice versa. What would be really interesting is where we both went "Yeah, THIS is why it's important" and we were pointing to the same thing .

Which brings up something that has been churning in the back of my mind for a bit. If we were to take Wilf's list which, if I haven't said it yet is great, Wilf , and modify points c. & d. such that, say, four or five people from different backgrounds all pointed out the uses and the flaws of a given book, would that work better? (BTW, I'm assuming that there are some type of pocket bios for the people involved so that the students / readers would know where people are coming from).

Cheers,

Marc