The Structures of Academic Texts 

Academic and scientific texts follow certain conventions in order to make the texts more reader friendly. The way the texts are structured is conventional, because scholars have to read a lot. If the texts were all structured in unpredictable ways, reading would be slow and take a lot of effort. Conventions vary across fields, but broad guidelines can be outlined. Knowing something about these conventions will make your reading more efficient and help you draft your own texts. 

Most books and articles are made up of chapters or sections. You can check what these are by looking at the index if there is one. Zooming in on other linguistic structures, we can see that sections are made up of paragraphs, paragraphs are made up of sentences, and sentences are made up of words. Words, in turn, are made up of root words and morphemes. Morphemes, such as prefixes and suffixes, are the smallest parts of language that can carry meaning. Here, we will focus on sections and paragraphs. 

Sections 

Academic texts have an introduction, body, and conclusion. They often exhibit symmetrical structures. The introduction starts with general remarks, the body contains more focused questions and problems, and finally, the conclusion returns to a more general discussion about the implications of what was presented in the body of the text. In its simplest form, the structure could be described as moving from general to specific (Introduction) and back from specific to general statements (Conclusion). This creates a pleasant symmetry that also creates a sense of a beginning, a middle and an ending, or closure, for the reader. 

A standard or “canonical structure” (Heard, pp. 76–79) of a research paper can be described by listing its core sections: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion (IMRaD). The IMRaD structure is typically flanked by other necessary parts of the academic apparatus, such as the Abstract and a list of References. With these included, an index of the sections in a paper might look like this: 

1. Abstract 

2. Introduction 

3. Methods 

4. Results 

5. Discussion 

6. References 

Rather than following this type of structure automatically, it is useful to think about the function or “purpose” (Aliotta, pp. 141–157) of each section. 

1. The Abstract provides a brief description and overview of the research. 

2. The most important function of the Introduction is to identify the research gap or problem addressed by the authors and to tell the reader the point of the research. 

3. The Methods section lets the reader know how the research was conducted. Academic and scientific work subjected to peer review has to be replicable; the description of the methods used to gain the results in the paper enables this. 

4. The Results section reports the significance and most relevant findings of the research. 

5. The Discussion section relates the findings to previous work in the field – including any problems or contradictory results. There may be an additional Conclusion section that focuses on the key implications of the results. 

6. The References list the sources used in the text. 

These sections may have subsections if the text requires it. For example, the Results section can be divided into any number of subsections relating to the data, and data analysis. Different types of papers in different fields will vary in structure, but the basic structure will most likely be something like IMRaD or a variation of it. 

Paragraphs 

Sections are made up of paragraphs. You may have learned in school that each paragraph should contain one idea, develop that idea, and the next idea should be separated into its own paragraph, and so on. While correct, this advice is vague and may not always be helpful. That is why, instead of referring to an idea, a notoriously difficult term to define, it is better to think about paragraphs by referring to something more concrete: sentences. 

Paragraphs are made up of sentences. In a well-constructed paragraph, all the sentences have a role to play. There are many ways of organizing paragraphs, but whatever the organizing principles are, paragraphs need to be both cohesive and coherent. That is, the author needs to stay on topic for the duration of the paragraph and create a structure that develops the topic coherently. 

The conventional way of constructing paragraphs includes the use of topic sentences. Topic sentences are sentences that state the main topic of the paragraph. The topic sentence is followed by a development part where the author elaborates on the topic. A final concluding sentence may sometimes conclude the paragraph. That is, well-written paragraphs display symmetry not unlike the sections of a paper: beginning, middle and end. 

If we look at how the topic is developed using the sentences in the paragraph, i.e. how the topic progresses, three main kinds of progression patterns (Connor, pp. 83–87) can be found:  

1. parallel progressions 

2. sequential progressions and  

3. extended parallel progressions.  

The terminology may sound complicated at first, but examples will illustrate that most readers are already familiar with these patterns. 

(a) In parallel progressions, each successive sentence refers to the topic; the repetition helps the author stay on topic and creates a coherent paragraph: 

Moby-Dick is a novel by Herman Melville. It is a tale of a sailor, Ishmael, who enlists on a whaling ship called the Pequod. The novel recounts the adventures of the ship and her crew as they chase a white whale across the seas. It is considered a classic work of fiction. 

(b) In sequential progressions, the topics change with each sentence; however, they are all linked together in a chain and thus create a sense of progression: 

Moby-Dick begins with the main character, Ishmael, arriving at an inn. The inn is crowded, so he shares a room with a harpooner called Queequeg. He is a Polynesian who is, like Ishmael, on his way to Nantucket. On Nantucket, the two sign up for a voyage on the Pequod […] 

(c) Extended parallel progressions resemble a list that starts with the topic sentence, lists items related to the topic in the development part and closes the list off by referring to the main topic in the topic sentence once more. 

Moby-Dick can be interpreted in several different ways. A historical reading would emphasize the historical and social context of the novel. A postcolonial reading would focus on the depiction of characters like Queequeg in relation to the white sailors. A Marxist reading, in turn, would examine the novel as an exploration of mid-nineteenth century capitalism. All these interpretations are valid and can enrich the reading experience. 

There are other ways of structuring paragraphs, but these basic patterns are very typical of academic and scientific writing. 

Reading and Drafting 

When you know something about the conventional structures of academic and scientific texts, you can translate this knowledge into reading and writing techniques. For example, if you are familiar with the IMRaD pattern and its variants, you will be able to scan texts quickly and find what you need faster. If you know how topic sentences work, you can skim read a text by finding and reading the topic sentences of each paragraph – these are usually the first sentences of the paragraphs.  

When drafting your own text, organizing the draft following the typical sections of an academic or scientific paper is obviously helpful. It is also very useful to use paragraphs in the drafting stage of a text. Each paragraph will have a topic that relates to your argument, which means you can start a draft by assigning each paragraph in the outline a topic. With a rough outline of the paragraphs, you can plan how the argument moves from one point to the next. 

Academic and scientific writing has a reputation of being conventional to the point of being boring. The conventions, however, serve the reader’s aim to find the information they need quickly and easily. Furthermore, the conventions are useful to anyone writing a paper. There is no real need to spend too much time thinking about novel structural solutions. Conventional solutions usually work just fine. This allows you to work with a template and focus on the content of the paper. 

Sources 

Aliotta, M. (2018). Mastering Academic Writing in the Sciences: A Step-by-Step Guide. CRC Press. 

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. Cambridge University Press. 

Heard, S. B. (2016). The Scientist’s Guide to Writing: How to Write More Easily and Effectively Throughout Your Scientific Career. Princeton University Press.