Module 4: Strategies to Promote Scientific Writing – A Personal View

Module 4: Strategies to Promote Scientific Writing – A Personal View

Compiler: Prof Laetus O. K. Lategan

1. Why scientific writing?  

There are many reasons for scientific writing. The most frequent reasons for writing a publication are:

· It helps to meet requirements for qualification

· It is required for promotion

· It is fostered as part of scholarship

· It is part of putting one’s research in the public domain

· It is a way of sustaining and enlarging the knowledge basis

· It is regarded as part of scientific discourse

· It is a means to promote a scientific debate 

I personally engage with scientific writing for three reasons:

· Firstly, I want to address scientific problems in my field of study. 

· Secondly, I would like to extend and grow the knowledge basis of my subject. 

· Thirdly, I want to develop “my voice” as an informed opinion in my research area. 

These reasons are not without meaning. Consider the following key words:

· Problem – scientific writing is targeted at identifying research problems, unpacking the research problem and addressing the problem. One writes therefore with a purpose.

· Grow knowledge basis: The purpose of research is to add something new to the existing knowledge basis. Research is not to repeat what we already know or simply to add more arguments to already existing arguments. The key is therefore on what is new in one’s publication. 

· “Own voice”: I often note that in a draft publication there is more concern with reproducing other people’s opinions instead of showing how the author reflects on, and engages with, other authors’ ideas. The example I always use is that writing for publication is similar to a court case hearing. In court – generally speaking – a case is presented for and against the charges. (Let us refer to it as the “other voices”). On the basis of evidence, the judge will weigh the arguments and arrive at a conclusion. (Here the “own voice” is at work.) The researcher should do the same. 

Unfortunately, the above are often not applicable to a paper one is assessing. After reading a scientific paper / book I will announce: So what? I am no wiser on a topic than before. This could be explained with the following example. Some scholars/researchers summarise the existing 99 books on a topic and then write book 100. Book 100 tells us what the other 99 books already informed us about. There is nothing new. The only advantage is that you don’t have to read the other 99 books! For a scholar/researcher the challenge is to start a new series of books. Therefore the challenge is to write book one on a topic.

Scientific writing is also something that doesn’t just happen. It should be planned (there is a strategy to approaching the problem statement), organized (there is a structure to scientific writing), and aims to be impact-driven (new knowledge should be created and noticed).

A central question that should be considered when writing for publication is to consider the question: What is research?? It appears that not everyone has a shared understanding of what research is. This question is important since the paper is of a scholarly/scientific nature and needs to reflect the values associated with a scholarly scientific paper. Some pointers that can be considered when writing for publication are: 

· Research is closing the gap on something the scholarly/scientific community doesn’t know.

· Research engages with critical (empirical) enquiry.

· Research is about analysis and synthesis.

· Research is about the discovery and creation of new knowledge.

· Research should result in new theories, models and applications. 

2. Structure of a scholarly/scientific paper  

Any scholarly/scientific paper should essentially be based on three broad questions:

· What is the problem? (Reason for writing the paper.)

· How is the problem solved? (Evidence that will be presented in addressing the research problem.)

· What conclusions can be drawn from the evidence presented in dealing with the research problem? (What new knowledge is presented?)

(see Mouton, 1996) 

These components can graphically be presented in the following way (Graph 1)

These components need to be accommodated in a specific structure. The following items are presented as a structure for scholarly/scientific papers and not as content:

· Title

· Abstract

· Introduction

· Problem statement

· Identification of method(s)

· Research design

· Body or content (Literature review, qualitative/quantitative study, results and discussion)

· Conclusion

· References 

(see Lues and Lategan, 2006).

This structure suggests that five major activities should take place when writing for publication. A research problem that requires sufficient understanding of what the current state of affairs in the research topics are (literature), appropriate research tools, instruments and methods to address the problem (design), the scholarly interaction with all the information (reflection/discussion) and the solving of the problem (conclusion).

These five structure-related activities can be graphically presented in Graph 2:

The reader will note that the research problem is core to any scholarly scientific paper.  

The problem is supported by a literature review. The literature review has a dual role. On the one hand informs the literature review on the complexity of the research problem. On the other hand the literature review can assist to solve the problem by offering some suggestions on how other researchers engaged with the research problem.

No article can go without a well-defined research design. The research design is based on (a) method(s) that is used in approaching the research problem.

The success of an article depends on the rigour the author employs to reflect on the research results and to offer an own view.

The own view – based on new findings, results or insights – is necessary to produce new knowledge. In the absence of new knowledge the paper is nothing more than a compilation of information of what is already known.

The “classical” snakes and leaders can be a meaningful tool to conceptualise the approach to writing scientifically. Comprehend the following explanation:

· Do you have a research problem? Yes – move to the next step. No, start again.

· Are you up to date with the debate in this area of research? Yes – move to the next step. No, go back to the literature.

· Do you have sufficient research tools and instruments that can help you to do the research? Yes – move to the next step. No, go back to the literature.

· Do you have new results? Yes – finalise the paper. No, go back to all the different stages of publication writing. 

3. Common errors  

It may sound very easy to write a scholarly/scientific paper. Research has shown, however, that some errors prevent the completion of the paper. These errors differ in nature. Diezmann (2005) identified four common problems which may be of:

· a mechanical nature (spelling)

· a scholarly nature (unsubstantiated claims)

· microstructural nature (flow of arguments and inconsistencies)

· macrostructural nature (quality and clarity of purpose) 

After many years of own research and experience as editor, I have identified the following 20 challenges / difficulties when researchers are writing for publication1:

1 These observations are an extension of observations made in Lategan (2011).

1. Title: many paper’s titles are not truly representative of the contents of the paper. The purpose of a title is to give the potential reader a synopsis of what the paper is about. Some titles are also too long whilst others are so short that the few words do not make sense at all. Ideally speaking a title should immediately inform the reader what the researcher(s) intended to do. 

2. Design: not all papers are well-planned, with (an) appropriate method(s) and sufficient evidence in support of the proposed answer to the research question. It is often obvious that the method chosen for writing a paper is either not suitable for the kind of research or that the author did not comprehend what the method(s) was all about. Authors should not only opt for particular methods, they should also understand what the methodology (knowledge of the method) is all about. A guiding question would be if the research design is supportive of the kind of research that the researcher is doing. Another supportive question is whether a method is known to deliver results in a particular area of research. A third question is simply if this design was successfully used before. 

3. Research question: many papers lack a proper research question. One can refer to the research question as the reason why the paper is written. The research question will also give evidence that the research in this paper is connected to a broader research project. It could be that the research problem has already been addressed – perhaps differently phrased or more sophisticatedly formulated. It should also be remembered that some problems are out-dated or over-researched.

4. Argument: scholarly or scientific writing is about furthering a perspective or claim which is supported by both the literature and the new research findings. Many papers have endless lists of references and opinions but no argument. Some papers have many arguments, but these arguments never lead to a logical conclusion. Any argument should be like a golden line running through a paper. 

5. Hypothesis: some papers have no hypothesis at all. Although there is difference of opinion if all papers must have a hypothesis (and qualitative research in the social sciences is one area where hupotheses are notably absent), an hypothesis is an indication of what the expected outcome(s) of a paper could be. The challenge is to use different research techniques to construct a new understanding of a problem and / or to integrate a menu of techniques to present a particular case. The hypothesis should be linked to the research problem. It is also an indication of how the researcher is already in command of the research topic. 

6. Methods and methodology: very often the method is not supportive of the research. Essentially it may be a good method, but not an appropriate method. Numerous examples exist where authors don’t know the difference between ‘research method’ and ‘research methodology’ or how a particular method should be applied. Knowledge of using a particular method (methodology) is as important as identifying an appropriate method. The research method can be compared to a “tool” that will be used to solve the research problem. Research methodology is the knowledge how to use the particular tool. The wrong tool or a lack of knowledge on how to use a tool will not deliver on the expected output. 

7. Literature review: too many authors simply repeat what is already stated in other papers instead of reflecting on and engaging with existing texts. A major challenge is not to rewrite what has already been stated by others but rather to reflect on the current positioning of the research. This means that the literature review must engage with a debate in a particular field of study. Engagement means that various opinions – for or against a case – should be considered in order to construct an informed viewpoint. The purpose of the literature review is to lead on an informed basis an argument. The challenge therefore is not only to summarise for the potential reader what the debate is about, but to take the debate from where it is to a next level of understanding.

8. Literature consulted: the most appropriate texts are often the ones which are not consulted. Identifying the appropriate literature is based on two considerations. Firstly, to have a sense of how the arguments developed (historical overview), and, secondly, what the currently dominant view on a topic is (relevance). 

9. Findings and Conclusions: papers often have no new knowledge to add to an existing debate. Papers very often merely recycle what is already known in research. A good paper will always have novelty in its contents. In the absence of novelty, the horizontal basis of a research topic is simply broadened (we know more about what we already know!). The approach is rather to focus on a vertical growth of the knowledge basis – that is to extend the knowledge basis. 

10. Referencing: authors do not always follow the appropriate referencing guidelines. It is important to follow the instructions of a particular journal on referencing. In addition, journals, universities and research councils referencing requirements may differ. Authors are therefore also advised to update themselves on the required format. 

11. Contents: a paper has different parts (introduction, reason for paper, results, discussion, etc) and each part has a specific purpose and must not be repeated. The structural approach to a paper is often ignored.. The different parts of a paper can be compared to a puzzle. In the absence of one part of a paper there could be no completed paper. In this sense each part is unique. But a paper with missing papers is no paper at all! The completed paper is only possible once all the information is available.

12. Footnotes: very few authors understand what the purposes of footnotes are. The purpose of a footnote is to add relevant information to the paper that can give a more extended view of the topic. 

13. Language: papers do not always meet grammar, style and discourse requirements. Especially second language users may experience some challenges in this regard. It is therefore recommendable that a paper be ‘language edited’ before submission. There is nothing more frustrating than to correct language as one reads through a paper or to seek for the arguments between all the errors. 

14. Scientific writing: many papers have not enough convincing arguments, arguments, arguments!! Science writing is never about statements – but always about arguing a point supported by facts. 

15. Ethics and integrity: very often no evidence exists that basic ethical requirements are met. Here I reference to sound ethical practices such as the recognition of the funding agency, feedback to sample group, proper referencing, data security, etc. Research integrity is something that cannot be waived. Research integrity also includes aspects such as the quality of the work, the way in which research associates are recognised and accommodated in the research projects, the way in which data is collected and interpreted and what the motive of the research is. Here I do not even refer to the unbeatable own work that must be presented. Plagiarism is a no go! 

16. Relevance: some papers are just an add-on to what is already known. A good research paper is engaging with a contemporary problem (on-time) but it also provides useful information which is time-less (valued for more periods than the presence only). A paper must also provide useful information. Often a paper is of such limited value that the scientific community cannot really benefit from it. It should also be recorded that papers should be ‘trendy’ in the sense that they engage with the topical issues in a field of study.

17. Technical requirements: papers do not always meet the technical requirements set by a journal; it is as if the “guidelines for authors” are totally ignored. Typical examples are the length of the paper, the required referencing technique, they lay-out of the paper, etc. It is expected from authors to honour these requirements because they are unique to the journal. 

18. Delivering on promises: every paper creates an expectation on what it promises to deliver (solving the research problem). But, very often the paper provides no evidence on this. It is also notable that after reading a paper there is often more confusion than answers. Also, many papers lack coherence, logic or unity. My example that I use to illustrate this aspect of publication writing may be appropriate. When one is traveling from one point (A) to the next (B) – there is no logical explanation to go from A to C, then back to A, then to D and then only to B. This implies that you have deviated from your original plan. If the argument was that difficulties prevented you to travel from A – B it could mean that you did not plan the route well. A valuable lesson to remember in research. 

19. ‘Writing up’: I am always confused when researchers tell me that they have finished the research and that they have now started to “write up the research.” Although I understand the intension of this explanation, one should be careful not to separate the “writing up” of results from the research. This is part of one activity. It is often obvious that a well-written paper was planned when the research commenced. 

20. Be in command of the research topic: after reading a paper I very often have the impression that the research is still in command of the researcher instead of the other way around. 

Literature references

Diezmann, C. M. 2005. Supervision and scholarly writing: writing to learn – learning to write. Reflective Practice 6 (4): 443-457.  

Lategan, L.O.K. 2008. From the research question to the research article. In Lategan, L.O.K. (ed.) An introduction to postgraduate supervision. Stellenbosch: African Sun Media. 81-88.

Lategan, L.O.K. 2011. Publication as means of research education. In Holzbaur, U. & Marx, I. (Hrsg.) Handlungs- und Erlebnisorientierung in der tertiären Bildung. Aalener Schriften zur Betriebswirtschaft. Band 6. Aachen: Shaker Verlag. 198-205.

Lues, L. and Lategan, L.O.K. 2006. Re: Search ABC. Stellenbosch: Sun Press

Mouton, J. 1996. Understanding social research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.