HOW TO WRITE AN ACADEMIC PAPER

From conception to publication

Workshop 1
I.
How

II.

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

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. Its 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 wont 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?
argument?

The data, the interpretation, the method, or the

If its the data: What is your body of material? Why is it a good

selection to use to answer the question proposed? Demonstrate
that you havent cherry-picked.
If its the interpretation: What are the problems with previous
interpretations? Why is yours better?
If its 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 its 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 dont seem to fit your hypothesis? Dont
sweep them under the carpet (someone else will sweep them out
again). Show either (i) that they dont 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 youre building on, and the bits around the outside
that arent 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.
Dont 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,
dont 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.

Preparing the script or notes

Handouts and other AV aids
Style and delivery. If possible, talk dont read.
Timing

Division into short, easily recognisable sections is useful here.

V.

Writing for publication

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

Top and tail.

Minimise footnotes. Use them for references, or occasionally to

deal with passing objections, but dont 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.

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

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.

Getting published

Sending it to the right place

Dealing with readers comments
Coping with rejection
Copy editing and proofreading

J.Powell@rhul.ac.uk