ACADEMIC WRITING A forty-minute crash course in academic · A forty-minute . crash course in . academic writing... What can I teach you in 40 minutes? Structure of a standard article

ACADEMIC WRITING Janet Holmén Freelance editor, linguistic editor and translator [email protected]

A forty-minute crash course in

academic writing...

What can I teach you in 40 minutes?

Structure of a standard article Writing the article Tips on the English language

PhD student at UNIS

What kinds of articles are there?

The original article This is the basic currency of science • Presents previously unpublished information

• Presents data the authors have generated themselves

Most original articles look pretty much alike Why?

An original article doesn’t merely state facts, give answers, provide solutions

it PERSUADES the reader of the validity of its conclusions

by the process of FORMAL ARGUMENT

“a series of reasons, statements or facts intended to support or

establish a point of view”

Formal argument:

Sequence of a formal argument: • State problem

• Present evidence

• Validate evidence

• Show implications

• Evaluate supporting and conflicting evidence

• Draw conclusions

Structure used in scientific writing:

I ntroduction M aterials and methods R esults A nd D iscussion

• State problem

• Present evidence

• Validate evidence

• Show implications

• Evaluate supporting and conflicting evidence

• Draw conclusions

Sequence of a formal argument: I ntroduction

M ethods

R esults

D iscussion

Introduction – function • Focus reader's attention

• Give necessary background

• Present research approach

• Spark interest

Introduction – problems • Too much background

• Too much peripheral information

• Too long

• B-o-o-o-o-o-ring

Methods – function • Enable others to repeat experiments

• Establish your scientific credibility

Methods – structure The structure will depend on the study!

• Where did you do it? • How did you gather data? • If experiments were involved, how did you do them? • If you use computer models, how are they constructed? • etc, etc, etc...

Use headings to orient the reader

Methods – problems • Not enough detail

• Too much detail

• Sometimes too easy to write

Results – function To show what you found but not EVERYTHING you found and not more than once

This is the heart of your paper!

Results – problems • Inclusion of irrelevant detail

• Excess detail

What's irrelevant? What's too much?

Results – problems • Inclusion of irrelevant detail

• Excess detail

• Repetition

Don’t present the same data both as a figure . . .

. . . and in the text! When cells were

treated with various doses of TCE (0, 0.125, 0.25, 1.0 and 2.0 mmol/L) for 24

h, the relative iNOS mRNA was 105.2±4.8%, 110.3±6.4%, 138.3±7.1%,

153.7±8.5%, 191.3±9.2%, and 228.1±12.4%, respectively (Fig. 6).

Discussion – end of formal argument You have already: • Stated the problem • Presented the evidence • Validated the evidence Now you must: • Discuss the implications • Evaluate supporting and conflicting evidence • Draw conclusions

Most difficult section to write!

Discussion – function • Show what your results mean – or at least what you think they mean

• Set them in the context of previous knowledge

• Suggest what the next step should be

Discussion – structure • Summarize your main findings first! • Describe what others have found • Compare these findings • Explain discrepancies • Mention limitations • Draw conclusions

... and convince the reader you're right!

Why? How?

Discussion – problems • Lack of a clear line of thought

• Unbalanced treatment of other's results

• Too much speculation . . . or too little

• Boring

Now you know how the article should be organized.

But how do you actually write it?

The ideal paper

CLEAR AND CONCISE

? !

A typical scientific study

field note

field note

field note field note

field note

field note

theory

theory

theory

measurement

measurement observation

observation

observation

observation

observation

data

data

data

data

data

data data

data data

field note

? !

First find out what you have to say:

And then:

What is the best question my results give an answer to? ...but isn't that cheating?

Ask yourself:

What do my results mean?

Go ahead! Rewrite history!

In a scientific paper AIMS ≠ AIMS

They focus the reader's attention on what you are actually going to say

A scientific paper is not a field logbook

A scientific paper is the most efficient way of presenting new information and fitting it into an intellectual context where it makes sense To do this, you need a structure

The IMRAD structure helps

• Introduction • Methods • Results • Discussion

but not very much

...sometimes

Introduction – suggested structure Brief general overview of your research topic

Specific aspect addressed in this study

Hypothesis/research question

Research approach

Key findings

Introduction – example Broad overview: Zooplankton play an important role in marine arctic food webs by recycling nutrients and transferring energy from the photic zone to greater depths. Narrower view: Copepods are central species in arctic food webs, but their ecological role is not fully understood. Specific aim: This study examined the vertical distribution of key arctic zooplankton species and assessed copepod feeding rates on auto- and heterotrophic prey, in order to clarify energy and nutrient transfer in the upper water column.

Sometimes there is no hypothesis... • exploratory research

• method development

• baseline or long-term monitoring

Then at least formulate clear aims

To organize the Results section • Prepare figures and tables

• Arrange them in a logical order

To organize the Methods section Chronological order usually works well • When and where study was done • Data gathering methods • Data analysis • Statistical analysis

Structuring the Discussion • Formulate your conclusions and construct suitable "aims"

• Think about what information is needed to support your

conclusions

• Select relevant findings from your own study

• Arrange background, your own findings, and others' findings to make your line of reasoning clear and logical

Now you know how to write the article

Time for a few tips about language

7.9

103.6

(7.9 + 6.3 – 0.2) × 29.6 4

103.6

You must do the work not your reader

Lack of coherence Problem: isolated facts are presented

Stainless steel contains iron, chromium, and other elements.

Most metals corrode when exposed to air.

The rust that forms on stainless steel is very stable.

This film is thinner than the wavelength of light.

This is why we call it “stainless” steel.

Creating coherence Cure: find words that show how the facts are related

Stainless steel contains iron, chromium, and other metals.

Most metals corrode when exposed to air, and a film of rust is formed.

In many cases, the film is instable and corrosion continues.

However, the film that forms on stainless steel is very stable, and it protects the metal from further corrosion.

This film is thinner than the wavelength of light and is therefore not visible to the unaided eye.

Thus, although stainless steel does in fact rust, the process is self-limiting and we cannot see the result.

This is why we call it “stainless” steel.

BE POLITE TO YOUR READER

Abstract nouns – "nominalizations" Noun: A person, place, or thing that you can perceive with your senses

(lamppost, moonlight, polar bear) Abstract noun: A "thing" you cannot percieve with your senses

(creativity, intelligence, confusion) Nominalization: A verb turned a noun, usually by adding a suffix (-tion, -ence) create → creation prefer → preference

But all sentences need verbs... Nominalizations force you to use "helper verbs": • occurred • was brought about by • is achieved • can be accomplished through Nominalizations lead to creation of wordiness so

you should give preference to the verb forms. Nominalizations create wordiness so you should

prefer the verb forms.

Nominalizations are verbs in chains!

Identification of the ciliates was done under a microscope. The ciliates were identified under a microscope. In ringed seals, deterioration of immune responses was seen. In ringed seals, immune responses deteriorated. Deeper penetration of solar radiation led to enhancement of primary production. Deeper penetration of solar radiation enhanced primary production.

Interrupted thoughts

You know what you’re going to write, but readers don’t know until they have read it.

Interrupted thoughts

One American (New York) and two Swedish (Lund and Umeå) cities are involved in the project.

One American city (New York) and two Swedish cities

(Lund and Umeå) are involved in the project. The project involves three cities, one in the US (New

York) and two in Sweden (Lund and Umeå).

Interrupted thoughts

PCB burden in harp, ringed, bearded and hooded seal and walrus blubber samples was measured.

PCB burden was measured in blubber samples from walrus

and four seal species (harp, ringed, bearded and hooded seals).

Sesquipedalian circumlocutions (big words)

Slumbering mammals of the genus Canis should preferentially be allowed to remain in a recumbent position.

When the feline is remote from a locale, the murine biota engage in multifarious diversions of a recreational nature.

A single denizen of the air at one’s ready disposal is superior in value to two-fold as many such denizens if the latter are situated in a diminutive arboreal unit.