1
Writing an Empirical Journal Article
By Laura VanderDrift
Stages of Writing
You will find a writing process that works for you. In the meantime, consider dividing up the task
into three stages:
1. Stage 1: Plan
a. Get the ideas down
i. Figure out exactly how you will frame the paper
1. Summarize the main ideas of the research in plain English (i.e.,
the “story” of your research).
a. Hypothesis
b. Supporting rationale
b. Prepare a document that outlines the paper.
i. What sections will the introduction have?
1. What are the main points of each section?
2. How will you divide the points into paragraphs
a. What type of paragraph will each be (i.e., detail,
comparison, process - see general guidelines on
paragraph writing below)
c. Allow the ideas to percolate and settle for a few days or more, and then revisit
what you have written to make it better and more extensive.
2. Stage 2: Start writing
a. Make sure you have primed good models in your mind
i. Reread examples of clean, well-structured, clearly written manuscripts
1. Ignore what they say, but focus on how it is said
b. The order of writing should allow you to start simple
i. Write the methods section
ii. Prepare the tables/summaries of the findings
iii. Write the results section
iv. Write the introduction
1. Do not try to edit or rewrite what you wrote in Stage 1, but the
framing of ideas that you prepared in Stage 1 should be in the
forefront of your mind
v. Once you have the final versions of the above sections, write the
discussion and abstract
3. Stage 3: Edit
a. Set aside your draft for a few days before beginning to edit
b. Fastidiously edit
i. If there are word choices you make that are frequently corrected by
others, keep a list of those and edit them out
ii. Be conscious about your emphasis
1. Through word choice
a. Hedging
i. Adverbs: usually, often, sometimes
ii. Adjectives: most, many, some
iii. Verbs: may, indicate, seem, suggest
b. Intensifying
i. Adverbs: very, quite, clearly, always, certainly
ii. Adjectives: crucial, basic, major, key, essential
2
iii. Verbs: show, establish, it is clear
iv. Don’t use intensifiers too often, the absence of
hedges is the most common intensifier
2. Through sentence structure
a. To stress an idea, put it at the end of the sentence
b. End sentences strongly, with important ideas, arguments,
etc.
iii. Look for ways to be more concise in each sentence
1. Delete meaningless words (e.g., actually, certainly, basically,
virtually, particularly)
2. Delete doubled words (e.g., each and every, first and foremost)
3. Delete what readers can infer
a. Drop redundant modifiers (e.g., past research, final
outcomes, extant data)
b. Drop redundant categories (e.g., period of time, X in color)
4. Replace phrases with words (e.g., “in the event that” becomes “if,”
“in the situation where” becomes “when,” “in order to” becomes
“to”)
5. Change negatives to affirmatives (i.e., any phrase written “not + X”
can usually be rewritten in the affirmative)
6. Delete adjectives and adverbs
7. Avoid unnecessary metadiscourse (i.e., language that mentions
your intentions (e.g., “to sum up,” “I believe,” “note that”)
8. Turn nominalizations back into verbs or adjectives. This may not
help with concision, but avoids one of the hallmarks of
“academese” and is less dense for readers when done.
a. Verb: “the expectation was that participants” becomes “we
expected participants”
b. Adjective: “results reached significance” becomes “results
were significant”)
3
General tips on writing paragraphs
1. Structure:
a. Topic sentence: contains the topic and a controlling idea about the topic
i. e.g., “Relationship maintenance mechanisms, like accommodation and
willingness to sacrifice, are important for both relationship state and fate.”
Topic: “Relationship maintenance mechanisms, like accommodation and
willingness to sacrifice.” Controlling idea: “Are important for both
relationship state and fate.”
b. Supporting statements
i. 3 types of paragraph development
1. Expand by detail
2. Expand by comparison
a. By point (“X emphasizes speed, Y emphasizes accuracy; X
is associated with top-down processing, Y with bottom-up
processing”)
b. By subject (“X emphasizes speed and is associated with
top-down processing; Y emphasizes accuracy and is
associated with bottom-up processing”)
3. Expand by process
c. Concluding sentence: wraps up the paragraph and is often signaled with words
(e.g., thus, therefore, finally, accordingly, but don’t go overboard with these)
2. Cohesion: Writing is cohesive when information from one sentence appears in the first
few words of the next sentence.
a. Begin sentences with familiar information and end with unfamiliar, unexpected
information
b. Use a common viewpoint (or reference point) throughout the paragraph
i. Not identical subjects
ii. Use pronouns, synonyms, or repetition of key word
c. Linking words
i. To signal reinforcement of ideas (e.g., “in other words,” “moreover,”
“also”)
ii. To signal a change in ideas (e.g., “but,” “in contrast,” “however”)
4
Typical Structure of an Empirical Article
1. Opening (2-3 paragraphs)
a. Begin by creating a shared context with the reader
i. State something that’s known or familiar to your readership (an event, a
common belief, etc).
b. Using plain language, describe the phenomenon you are studying.
i. In most cases, this involves describing the dependent variable, unless the
independent variable is the main phenomenon in the published literature.
c. Provide a “hook” for this research.
i. Briefly describe what is known, then briefly point out the gap that your
research fills.
1. This is a brief literature review (one or two sentences), in which
you make broad yet precise and accurate statements about the
inadequate state of affairs.
2. The “hook” is stated in big picture and simple terms – it’s where
you briefly state why this research is meaningful (e.g., unless we
find effective interventions of partner violence, more victims will be
injured) or in light of the shared context you established in the
opening sentences.
a. Do this indirectly (i.e., do not state “this is important
because…”)
ii. End the opening paragraphs by stating what this paper will do. If you can
do this in one sentence, tack it onto paragraph 2, otherwise make it
paragraph 3.
2. Introduction (4+ paragraphs)
a. Answer three general questions, in service of working through the logic
underlying each hypothesis (3+ paragraphs):
i. What’s known about the topic, issue, or effect?
1. Is there a theory that explains the DV/IV of interest?
a. If so, what independent/dependent variables does it
suggest should be examined (or vice versa)? Is there
research that has tested this theory?
b. If there is not a formal theory, then review the literature on
the dependent variable (or independent variable).
2. Put issues, ideas, and findings in the foreground but studies and
scientists in the background.
a. Cluster articles in ways that fit well for your purposes –
don’t go into to much detail for background issues and give
more attention to foreground issues.
b. Avoid reviewing study after study; instead, making
sweeping (but precise) statements summarizing many
studies, and cite those studies. Of course, if there are
studies that are central to the current research, do describe
these in some detail.
ii. What’s unknown and why are these gaps in knowledge critical?
1. Be fair in your description of the literature; reviewers respond
negatively to bias.
iii. How does your work fill these gaps?
5
1. Work through the rationale for the independent variable or for the
predictions made later; cite relevant literature. This section should
answer the question, Why should the proposed effects occur?
2. State the hypotheses and, if it helps, summarize the current
design.
b. End with an overview (1 paragraph) of your research, making it clear that the
method is the most appropriate for testing the hypotheses at hand, and
potentially summarize your hypotheses if they have not been stated explicitly yet.
3. Method (3+ paragraphs)
a. Design, participants, and procedure typically go in this order, but not always. If
possible, combine the design section with one of the other two.
i. Design. State the design (experiment? correlational study?), stating (1)
levels of the independent variables and (2) all dependent variables.
ii. Participants. How many participants were there, who were they, how
were they recruited, what benefits did they receive for participation (e.g.,
partial fulfillment of requirements for introductory psychology course, cash
payment), how were they assigned to experimental conditions, and what
were their demographic characteristics? If this is a survey study, what
was your response rate? If any subjects were later deleted from analyses,
why? If this is a longitudinal study, did were any subjects lost and did they
differ at the start of the study from those retained?
iii. Procedure. For simple questionnaire studies, this section is
straightforward. For complex studies with elaborate procedures, this
section will require a lot of rewriting. Make sure that each step is clear;
give a broad idea of what happened and then more detailed statements.
Be sure the key parts of the procedure are especially clear.
b. Measures and Manipulation. The sections comprising the remainder of the
method should be developed as appropriate for your work. Do not necessarily
employ the standard APA prescribed sections (e.g., you will almost never include
an Apparatus section in describing a social psychology experiment). You might
have sections such as Manipulation and/or Independent Variables and/or
Dependent Variables and/or Questionnaire, etc.
i. A description of the manipulation should include verbatim quotes from
manipulations when appropriate to give readers a good sense of what
subjects experienced.
ii. A measures section should include one or two verbatim examples of
items that tap each construct you have measured, giving readers a sense
of what each variable taps (even when you’ve employed established
scales). Measures sections also tend to include standard information –
name of scale (if appropriate), number of items, sample items, response
scale, whether items were summed or averaged, and alpha – all in a
standard order throughout this section. That is, use the same structure in
describing all measures.
4. Results (6+ paragraphs)
a. Overview of your analysis strategy (1 paragraph if necessary)
i. Only necessary if there are unusual or new analyses, or many different
types of analysis to work through.
ii. Provide a very brief overview of your analysis strategy. What analyses did
you perform, and what issue(s) does each analysis address? Keep it
brief.
6
b. Deal with preliminary issues (1 paragraph if necessary - this content is always
necessary, but sometimes you’ll want to present it in the Method section. That is
okay).
i. Reliability and/or validity of your measures
ii. Indicate how items were combined or manipulated to form single
measures of relevant constructs
c. Present information needed to demonstrate your experimental manipulations
created the intended conditions and exerted no undesirable effects (1 paragraph
if necessary).
d. Analyses directly addressing hypotheses (3+ paragraphs - usually organized so
that each hypothesis gets its own paragraph)
i. Get to this quickly!
ii. Work through analyses that directly address each hypothesis (perhaps
including sub-headings to help readers process what you’re presenting).
1. Remind readers of the hypothesis (i.e., summarize the prediction
rather than only referring to “hypothesis 2”)
2. Explicitly describe each analysis (e.g., what was/were the
dependent variable[s], what was/were the independent variable[s],
what type of analysis did you perform, etc.).
3. Present the results (statistics).
4. State in plain English whether these results findings are consistent
with or inconsistent with predictions.
e. Mop up (1+ paragraph)
i. Work through additional, less central analyses.
1. Consider alternative explanations of your findings and perform any
analyses that might shed light on these alternative accounts.
2. Present information relevant to the generalizability of your findings
(e.g., were there any sex differences in the findings you’ve just
presented, either in mean levels of variables or in the strength of
various effects for women versus men?)
5. Discussion (5+ paragraphs)
a. The aim is to address the questions or issues raised in the Introduction, in light of
the results. (“Where do we stand now that the data are in hand?”)
b. Introductory paragraph
i. Brief (1-3 sentence) summary of findings
1. Readers will have just worked through the results, so don’t
reiterate each finding; elucidate the “forest” that emerges through
the “trees.”
ii. Brief (1-3 sentence) overview of the rest of the discussion
c. After that, what content is necessary is specific to your study. Options:
i. Work through each hypothesis that was supported, explaining how your
findings were consistent with each. Then, don’t limit yourself to
summarizing what you just described in the results; highlight the broader
theoretical meaning of your findings.
ii. Work through each hypothesis that was not supported, speculate about
why this might have occurred, and indicate what this means more
generally. Also work through unexpected findings, speculating about the
meaning and appropriate interpretation of each.
iii. Deal with plausible alternative explanations of your findings, suggesting
just how plausible each is. Don’t be defensive; show a commitment to
objectivity.
7
iv. What are the implications of these findings for the broader literature and
for related literatures? You may even wish to address the practical
implications of your findings (e.g., the policy implications of findings
regarding why abused women remain with their partners).
v. What are the strengths and limitations of your work? No piece of research
is perfect. If you yourself identify both the strengths and limitations of
what you have done, you will sound intelligent and objective; if readers
identify flaws that you have not noted, you will seem unintelligent or will
appear to lack objectivity. Feel free to suggest fruitful directions for future
work, but keep this brief.
d. Other guidelines
i. Tone is important: strike a balance between claims that are too strong (no
one believes) versus too weak (no one cares)
ii. With complex findings, it is often useful to have a “Results and
Discussion” section to consider individual results, then a “General
Discussion” to hit the high points
iii. Be mindful of not having a discussion section that is too long
6. Conclusion
a. Do not peter out with a whimper (i.e., don’t simply stop when you run out of
things to say; don’t end with “more research is needed….”)
b. Give readers your explicit “take home” message. What do we know now that we
didn’t know previously, and why is this fascinating?