TheScholiast

The Scholiast

a scholiast reads
with notes in the margins

Critical reading for qualitative research.

I read, map and track the literature for your project, so your time goes into thinking instead of drowning in PDFs.

The work is not just finding sources. It is seeing the theory a text works in, the argument it is making, the conversation it wants to join, and what any of that means for your project.

The work

Three ways to work together.

Start small with a single reading, go deep with a full review, or keep me on to follow your field over time. Whatever fits where you are right now.

Critical Reading Dossier €150–250up to 2 texts · 4 days Start here

Send me your project and up to two key texts. For each one I write a proper reading: what it really argues, how it does it, where it sits in the debate, what it gets right and where it falls short, and how you might use it in your own work. Not a summary. The notes you'd take yourself if you had the time. (More texts, a little extra each.)

Literature Review Strategy Map from €1,200per topic · field · proposal The deep one

Tell me your topic and where you think you're heading. I map out the whole conversation for you: who matters, how the arguments group together, where the gaps are that your work could fill, and what you still need to read. It's the groundwork a chapter or a grant proposal really rests on.

Literature Radar from €250/molab / group from €700/mo Keep it running

Every couple of weeks I go looking for what's new around your project and send you the few things that actually matter, with a few honest lines on why each one is worth your attention. So you never again find out too late about the paper everyone starts citing.

The deliverable

What you receive.

A structured document, with references formatted clearly for your own reference manager. For each text, a reading that covers:

  • Central argument. What it actually claims, beneath the abstract.
  • Method and object. How it makes its case, and on what.
  • Key concepts. The terms you need, defined as the author uses them.
  • Theoretical tradition. The conversation the text belongs to.
  • Contribution and limits. What it adds, and where it stops.
  • How to cite it. The precise points worth quoting, with anchors.
  • For your project. Where it connects to your work, and where it does not reach.
  • What to read next. The two or three texts that follow from it.

A sample

Here's what you'd actually get.

A short excerpt, on a well-known public text, so you can see how I read before trusting me with your own work.

Sample reading · excerpt

Rethinking the Public Sphere

Fraser, N. (1990). Social Text, 25/26, 56–80.

ArgumentFraser argues that Habermas's bourgeois public sphere remains useful for democratic theory, but cannot be taken as a neutral ideal. Its promise of open, rational debate was built on exclusions of gender, class and race. The problem is not simply that the ideal was imperfectly realized, but that exclusion helped constitute the very public that claimed universality.
Key conceptSubaltern counterpublics: parallel discursive arenas where subordinated groups develop counter-discourses, reinterpret their identities and needs, and prepare interventions into wider publics.
TraditionCritical theory after Habermas, feminist political theory, democratic theory, and the historiography of publics and counterpublics. Its account of exclusion and counter-discourse sits close to Black feminist and postcolonial work on voice and subordination.
For your projectWritten from your brief; shown here on one example. If your work is on digital publics, Fraser gives you footing to read them as responses to stratified public life, not just fragmentation. On your own topic, this section marks where the text reaches your problem and where it does not.
LimitsFraser concedes that counterpublics can be anti-democratic, but gives no criterion to tell an emancipatory one from a reactionary one, a gap the concept's recent extension to the far right (Kaiser and Rauchfleisch, 2019) has made unavoidable.

Read a full sample →

The difference

Why not just use ChatGPT?

A summary tells you what a text says. A reading shows what you can do with it. Same text, two very different things:

A generic summary

"Fraser argues the public sphere had exclusions. She introduces 'counterpublics.' Women and minorities were left out. An important article in political theory."

Repeats the content. Anyone with the PDF gets it. No judgement, no sense of what is at stake, useful to no one in particular.

A critical reading

"She turns exclusion into something built into the public sphere, not a flaw in it. That is the footing your own argument can stand on. And the line where she stops, the questions she never had to ask, is often exactly where your contribution begins."

It takes a side and ties the text to what you're writing. Then it shows you the opening your own work can fill.

In their words

"I really recommend this work. It does a complete curation and mapping of the literature, and it helps you formulate your questions and find gaps that would otherwise take you far longer to reach."

Sophia, master's student

Who it's for

Who this is really for.

Anyone doing serious research is welcome. But the prices make the most sense when there's some funding behind the work, when the reading has to be solid, and when someone's time is genuinely worth saving.

Professors with grants Research groups & labs NGOs & foundations Senior researchers with funding Funded doctoral candidates

Working with a lab or group? The Radar can run for a whole group (from €700/mo), new members can be brought up to speed with onboarding dossiers, and a Strategy Map can ground a new grant. Just say so when you write, and I will quote for the group.

How it goes

How it works.

01

Tell me what you're working on

Just describe it in your own words and send a few of the texts at the heart of it. Nothing formal.

02

First reading in about four days

You read it and tell me what feels right and what doesn't. I adjust to how you think, so the next one fits you better.

03

Keep going if it helps

Go deeper with a full review, or keep me on to follow your field. No contracts. You stay only as long as it's useful.

Questions

Before you write.

How long does it take?

A reading usually takes about four days. A full literature review takes one to two weeks, depending on how big it is. The radar comes every couple of weeks. If you're on a tight deadline, just ask, I can often move faster.

Do you revise the work?

Yes, one round of changes is always included. The first piece is really about getting on the same page: you tell me what works and what doesn't, and everything after that fits you better.

Is my project confidential?

Completely. I never share or reuse your topic, your sources or your ideas, and I'll delete everything once we're done if you'd like. Your work stays yours.

Is this ghostwriting?

No, and I won't. I read and organise the literature so you can write from a clearer place, but the writing is always yours. I don't write theses, papers or grants for people. It's help with the reading, nothing that crosses a line.

Who's behind The Scholiast?

The Scholiast is run by a postdoctoral researcher in the social sciences, based in Europe, with years of reading, peer-reviewing and teaching across the humanities and social sciences. The name stays in the background so the work can be judged by the reading itself.

How do I pay?

By invoice, once we've agreed on what you need. Nothing upfront. And while I'm just getting started, the first few researchers pay half.

Begin

Start with one reading.

Tell me your project and the texts at the heart of it. In about four days, you'll see whether this kind of reading is useful for your work.

Or email hello@thescholiast.com directly. I reply to every enquiry myself.