Audience Considerations: Ten Tips,Crafting a Hook,and the Writing Process

Abstract

This editorial focuses on writing academic articles that appeal to researcher audiences. I offer 10 tips for audience considerations in writing research articles. One tip is to develop a hook. What is a hook and how does one craft it? I help to answer these questions by encouraging authors to move beyond the over-utilized claim that “very little research exists on this topic.” That is a challenging claim to substantiate after decades and centuries of existing studies on most topics, and it is unnecessary. More than likely in this contemporary year, there are many studies relevant to the topics of any article. Their lack is probably more a reflection of the author not thoroughly looking than whether they exist. But why make such a challenging claim? There are many other interesting reasons to pay attention to a topic than lack of attention. Be more creative than only “filling a gap.” The editorial concludes with attention to the writing process and an affirmation of the inverted triangle for organizing the structure of each section in an article.

Audience Tips

The following are 10 general tips gathered from scholars in the field of religious research. These were garnered from dialogs with colleagues at academic conferences, and among the publication committee and editorial board members. This is a non-exhaustive set of inputs, and there are surely more insights available among a broader and more representative sample. Nonetheless, in this editorial I attempt to state “out loud” the mentoring musings that are often shared verbally and not typically stated in print. Recognizing that not all scholars have access to more personable venues that facilitate verbal sharing, this editorial aims to share access to these insights in print. In this context, these tips should be viewed as a starting point for ongoing discussion rather than a conclusion, a beginning but not an end. Whenever possible, scholars should consult with their mentors regarding additional tips, and it is my hope that this invites those discussions more than it forecloses what is admittedly a complex topic. Caveats aside, here are 10 relatively readily reliable tips for writing with research audience considerations:

1. Read examples from relevant publication sources, especially intended publication outlets. Match formatting and writing style of manuscript to examples in targeted publications.

2. Begin with an outline, then fill in specific details, afterward write to a full draft.

3. Structure the paper within traditional academic research writing sections: introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, references. Conventions aid clarity.

4. Pose a research question and ensure the analysis provides answers to that question.

5. Write the submitted abstract and introduction section last so that it tells readers what is about to be shared with after having clarified the subsequent sections first. First, it is beneficial to draft an initial abstract before beginning the paper, as a way to identify the hook and briefly describe why it matters. Later, after describing in the paper what was done and found, return to rewrite and clarify the abstract and introduction.

6. Include specific study design elements in the abstract: data collection method (surveys, interviews, experiments, participant observations, ethnography), sample size or number of research participants, location of data collection (country and if applicable sub-country geographies such as states, provinces, cities), type of analysis (quantitative, qualitative), and a brief summary of the results and their implications. Mind the word limit.

7. Ensure the article has “a hook”—a captivating problem, issue, or puzzle that your manuscript addresses—and clarify your contributions in relation to this hook within the introduction. Read the subsequent section for more information on how to craft a hook.

8. Match all the concepts introduced in the literature review to measures employed in the methods section, and vice versa. There is no reason to summarize every concept read if it is not connected to a feature in the research design. Alternatively, it is necessary to provide background for why primary measures are utilized within your research design. How well the measures match the concepts is key to address in the limitations section.

9. Move from a discovery process of writing in which authors figure out what they are going to say into a presentational style in which authors rewrite a new draft for the intended audience that presents information the way they need it rather than the authors’ chronological process.

10. Revise, revise, revise by never making the mistake that the first draft gets submitted. Share the draft with trusted people and ask them to honestly critique it. Be humble and assume that the work needs to benefit from the insights of others.

Crafting Hooks

After decades and centuries of studies, recognize that evidencing the claim that there is “very little research” on a topic is incredibly challenging and likely untrue. It is important to be aware that in the year of this writing, research exists on almost every topic imaginable. Today, we as scientific, social science, and humanities communities are rarely charting new frontiers. Stating that there is little extant research on a topic is likely false, and it is important to know that for many reviewers this serves as an immediate red flag that an author has not done their homework. Keep in mind that many reviewers, and especially editorial board members, are likely to be an expert on any of the primary topics, which is why they were asked to serve. They may know the topic better than you do, and beginning an article by declaring a lack of awareness of studies that saturates their work life is not great footing.

To be clear, the statement “little research exists on this topic” is often translated to “I did little advanced research on this topic.” Generally speaking, it declares ignorance more than it describes reality.

Beyond beginning an article by announcing what limited time was spent finding relevant research, there are many other valid reasons why a topic should be studied. It is unnecessary to rest the relevance of an article on the slim chance that little research already attends to it. Even if that was true, it raises questions such as: Are there good reasons why no one has studied this? Maybe that is because it does not make any sense to study it. If someone were truly to have identified a topic that no one had ever invested any attention or resources into investigating, it would certainly be questionable whether anyone should. At best, it is a flimsy claim, and at worse it is an inaccurate claim. Plus, it is abundantly easy claim to disprove. It takes an n of one—one singular existing study—to disprove the claim that nothing exists on the topic. Do not make it that simple for someone to ignore this work. Busy researchers need to be convinced this topic is worthy of attention, and beginning with essentially stating no one cares is not effective.

If it is somehow true that little research exists on this topic, the burden rests on the author’s shoulders to show that this is the case and explain why. Rather than simply telling readers little research exists, authors need to show readers just how wide of a scope they utilized to determine this. Describe which sources were scoped, and review a few examples to illuminate how far-removed available studies are from the topic of the current project. From a sociology of knowledge perspective, it may be possible that there are some topics that have not received a great deal of attention, perhaps due to geographic limitations or other attention deficits. In that case, authors need to explain why the topic deserves attention and justify their approach by drawing upon what existing studies can be applied, adapted, or in other ways modified to inform the design of this novel study. In sum, there could be good reasons for utilizing this hook, but it is among the most challenging for an emerging scholar to adequately justify. There are other types of hooks that are typically more accessible for people relatively new to studying the topic.

McGregor (2017) describes eight possible research goals that a study can target, only one of which is to describe a previously understudied setting, context, or situation. A second valuable goal is to explore relationships that are not well understood, often because existing theories have not yet been connected to this particular topic or not through the way the study operationalizes a concept in a new way. The key here is not that the topic itself is understudied but rather that this research is creatively adapting a prior theory to a new model, or vice versa. Relatedly, a third goal is to bring together information not previously connected. Often existing scholarship on topics has developed independently, and the author is now bringing disparate sets of literature together to interpret within the context of a new study. Fourth, another research goal is to predict results by investigating a novel way of measuring an explanatory factor or controlling for important factors. A great deal of interesting research offers an enhanced design that features many recurring factors. Indeed, it is more convincing that a study deserves attention when the majority of the design is replicated rather than never studied. In this case, explain how the research mostly builds upon existing work and offers one or two tweaks or improvements with data or approaches that were not present in prior studies.

Fifth, another hook is to compare important processes or factors in order to gain a new understanding of the relationship (McGregor 2017). The grounding for each of the factors or processes involved in the study can be cemented within a long history of attention to each. Yet, it is compelling to attend to the way each of these previously studied factors comes together anew. Sixth, another valuable hook is to offer to replace, update, or adjudicate between theories or models. New understanding comes from posing two sets of plausible explanations, based on a well-steeped set of literatures on each, and investigating which better applies to new data. Seventh, another valuable goal for research is to understand change within a complex setting. Crafting the hook in this context requires describing how the setting has shifted and as a result raised new questions regarding whether existing explanations continue their relevance. Similarly, it may be that a well-evidenced theory is explored within a new setting, group, or community. The hook is that while much is known generally on the topic, little is known about whether conventional knowledge remains true in changing contexts. An eighth viable hook is research that provides a reflection on the impact of the research process on people and phenomena.

In summary, there are at least seven other ways to garner readers’ attention without resorting to the over-utilized and under-substantiated claim that little research exists. I encourage authors to be more creative in explaining why their study deserves attention, and I invite reviewers to help explain to authors ways to describe their research in interesting ways. While the peer review process is not perfect, at its best we are all improved by constructive feedback. As an editor and author, I am incredibly grateful for reviewers who help to state the hook better than the original submission did. People who truly understand the value of the research can offer a gift of a more clarified and succinct hook. Yet, it helps if the author first spends some thoughtful time considering why this research is of interest to its intended audience.

Writing Process

The writing process needs to serve the goals of the research. Research projects seek to explain a phenomenon, test a theory, evidence a claim, or disprove a conventional idea (Walliman 2018). Clarity in explaining the goal of this research will aid others in understanding what the research aimed to do and why. A good introduction section will immediately answer what the research is about, why research on this topic is interesting, how it was conducted, and what insights are contributed. Introductions are prime “real estate” that sell to a reader why they should continue to invest time in proceeding onward. There should be no equivocating, mystery, or suspense. Tell the reader what they are going to gain from this article.

The article should be organized logically. Ensure that the method used to collect data is appropriate for the questions of interest in the study (Khan and Fisher 2013). Delineate the scope of the study in a way that is broad enough to be interesting and limited enough to be feasible (Walliman 2018). Describe the research by drawing the reader into the six steps of the research spiral: identify the problem, collect and analyze initial data, design a plan of action, implement the plan of action, collect and analyze data on outcomes, evaluate the results, and then advance through the steps again (Beaudry and Miller 2016). In a research article, the discussion should end with a spiraling back toward the beginning: How do these results help to answer the research question? What new questions are raised? What future studies need to happen to investigate the next steps? The more specific and realistic a future study is, the better.

The inverted triangle is an excellent tool for organizing each section of the article (McGregor 2017). Begin broadly and move ever closer to a directed end point. Another way to visualize the inverted triangle is as a sharpened pencil on paper. Move the reader from the larger context of an issue toward a specific point. Sharpen the pencil with each rotation by structuring the middle sentences from abstract generalizations toward particular details. For example, an introduction section can begin with a broad statement about the research topic. Then it can move into a description of the research problem that contextualizes this particular study. Next, the introduction can state the research question that frames the answers this study seeks. Lastly, the purpose and objectives of the research can be described more specifically.