HOW TO WRITE AN ACADEMIC PAPERFrom conception to publicationWorkshop 1

I. The genre

How is an academic paper in the Humanities different from: A student essay A lecture A newspaper or magazine article A scientific paper?

II. The rhetorical model: a process of rational persuasion

Three triplets: The rhetorical triangle: Topic/message – speaker/writer – audience Logos (argument), ethos (self-presentation), pathos (emotion). Only a limited range

of emotion is useful in this context: interest, curiosity, the joy of discovery perhaps. Not self-congratulation, or indignation at the perversity of other scholars. Logos and ethos are both important.

Strategy, structure, style

III. Research and preparation

Defining your aim What problem are you solving? Why is it an interesting problem? Demonstrate either (i) that the question has not been raised before, or (ii) that its importance has been neglected, or (iii) that it has been raised but a wrong answer has been given.

Defining your message What is your solution? Why is it a good solution? In what ways have you gone beyond existing scholarship?

It is usually good to say clearly at the beginning where you aim to have got to by the end of the paper. It’s not a good idea to keep readers guessing. In an oral paper, if you want to pull a rabbit out of a hat at the end, at least make sure the hat is clearly defined at the beginning. In a written paper, even this won’t do, since the reader will just skip to the end, usually with some irritation, to see what you really have to say.

What is new? The data, the interpretation, the method, or the argument?

If it’s the data: What is your body of material? Why is it a good selection to use to answer the question proposed? Demonstrate that you haven’t cherry-picked.

If it’s the interpretation: What are the problems with previous interpretations? Why is yours better?

If it’s the method: What is new about the method? How does it go beyond those of previous scholars? Why is it a good method to use to answer this particular question? What new insights does it produce?

If it’s the argument: What kind of argument is it? Does it work from the general to the particular (deductive) or from the particular to the general (inductive)? What assumptions do you need to make for the argument to work? Does it have wider implications? Could it be usefully extended to other material?

What to do with the bits that don’t seem to fit your hypothesis? Don’t sweep them under the carpet (someone else will sweep them out again). Show either (i) that they don’t really harm your case, or (ii) that they can be accommodated within a refined version of your hypothesis.

When to cite authorities? Only for the location on the scholarly map, the foundation that you’re building on, and the bits around the outside that aren’t your central concern: not for the building itself.

Dealing with alternative views and objections What other possible views are there? Those already in print should be treated with respect, but make it clear what your view is, and why you think it is better. You should also try to anticipate objections not yet made.Don’t waver or oscillate or go round in circles. One often finds things like: ‘A, but on the other hand B; but also C, but on the other hand D, but nevertheless E and F, and after all, A …’. If you find yourself writing like this, reorganise so that it looks like this: ‘Arguments for A: C, E and F. Arguments against it: B and D. The arguments for A are stronger than those against.’

Structure A strong structure is essential in all kinds of presentation. The structure should grow organically out of your argument. It is good to start thinking about structure early on in the process of preparation, as it may help to clarify the argument itself. But on the other hand, don’t spend so much time planning that you never start writing…

Awareness of your audience or readership Work out what they already know and what needs explaining. Speak or write in an appropriate style for them.

IV. Oral presentation

Different kinds of oral presentation: length/audience/purpose Structuring and signposting the presentation.

Division into short, easily recognisable sections is useful here. Preparing the script or notes Handouts and other AV aids Style and delivery. If possible, talk – don’t read. Timing

V. Writing for publication

Making the transition from oral to written Language, style, formatting Structure: paragraphs, sections, headings

If you have a flat structure, and find you have more than about four headings, try a hierarchical structure.

If you have a hierarchical structure, and find you have more than about two levels of heading/sub-heading, rethink the structure.

Top and tail. Use the introduction to make sure the reader knows clearly what you are talking

about. Use the conclusion to show what is important about your argument. (N.B. in a

written paper, some people will only ever read the conclusion.) References, footnotes, bibliographies, tables, illustrations

Minimise footnotes. Use them for references, or occasionally to deal with passing objections, but don’t use them to carry on the argument. If a footnote runs to more than ten lines, some of it should probably go in the main text (if important for your argument) or should be omitted entirely (if not).

Referencing should be consistent. Make sure it is easy to convert to a different style when your publisher tells you what style is wanted.

Adjusting the length

VI. Getting published

Sending it to the right place Dealing with readers’ comments Coping with rejection Copy editing and proofreading

J.Powell@rhul.ac.uk