orgtheory.net

Teppo

Here’s five generic writing and paper-related problems I have run into the last month or so (while reviewing for journals):

1. Introduction – keep things simple.  I still like the focused Booth et al (three-four paragraphs max) approach to introductions: 1) context, 2) problems, 3) solutions.  You first need to orient the editor and reviewer and reader by providing context for what scholarly conversation you are hoping to add to.  Then, highlight, gently, some of the theoretical gaps and problems that the literature is facing.  Its of course tempting to go in too strong in this second paragraph - “these guys are idiots” or “no one has considered” – try to remember your place, and remember who your reviewers will be (yes, those very idiots).  Finally explicate your proposed solutions and contributions. (Though, remember, your paper will probably be remembered for one issue [if that], and thus, focus on that one issue and contribution rather than rambling.) So, a short and focused three-four paragraph introduction ought to do it.
2. To whom? – write your paper ’at’ to two-three related, key papers – folks who are having a conversation.  These obviously ought to be central papers that scholars in your sub-domain are familiar with (a recent paper I reviewed anchored its arguments on a ‘heated debate’ in a very peripheral journal, and the debate seemed tangential).  Post these key papers on your wall; sleep with them.  Think about: What have these scholars/key papers said, where are potential holes and opportunities for contribution? What can you persuasively add to the conversation?  Why would these scholars care, at all? (That, in essence, comes from Anne Huff’s Writing for Scholarly Publication; Dave Whetten also makes similar suggestions in his theory-building seminars).
3. Theories? – don’t attempt to integrate or somehow combine more than two theories (I have reviewed several papers recently that bring in three-four theories and attempt to somehow meaningfully integrate and discuss them - the papers were written to everyone, and consequently, to no one).  Just keep things simple; again, find that one theoretical conversation you want to contribute to and target your work toward it (and, max, bring in one other theory if you’re working on one of these integration papers).
4. Writing – hmm, this one’s hard.  Write good and clearly, and, circulate your drafts with colleagues.
5. Steinbeck – if you’re good, really good, break any or all of the above suggestions.

Well, I can easily think of exceptions and contingencies for all of the above, but, those seemed to be some generic problems and points that emerged from several recent reviews.