Chapter 2.3
Abstracts
The abstract, although it heads the article, is often written last, together with the title. This is partly because writers know what they have achieved, and parrly because it is not easy to write an abstract. Abstracts have ro summarise whar has been done, sometimes in as few as 150 words.
It is easier to write an abstract if you remember that all abstracts have a basic structure. Indeed, the phrase 'structured abstracts' says it all. This kind of abstract, common in medical research journals and now appearing in many social science articles, can be adapted for most normal purposes.
STRUCTURED ABSTRACTS
Structured abstracts are typically written using five sub-headings — 'background', 'aim', 'method', 'results' and 'conclusions'. Sometimes the wording of these sub-headings varies a little - 'objectives' for 'aim', for example, but the meaning is much the same.
Structured abstracts were introduced into medical research journals in the 1980s. Since then they have been widely used in medicine and other areas of research (Nakayama a al,, 2005). In 2004, I published a narrative review of their effectiveness based upon thirty-one research papers available at that time (Hartley, 2004). I concluded that, compared with traditional abstracts, structured abstracts:
• contained more information
• were easier to read
• were easier to search
• facilitated peer review for conferences
• were generally welcomed by readers and by authors.
Figure 2.3.1a below shows a typical structured abstract. Figure 2.3.1b shows the same abstract written with the sub-headings removed. It can be seen that both abstracts are clear, and so it is useful to write an abstract in
32   The academic article
Abstracts 33
Background. In 1997 four journals published by the British Psychological Society began publishing structured abstracts.
Aims. The aim of the studies reported here was to assess the effects of these structured abstracts by comparing them with original versions written in a traditional, unstructured format.
Method. The authors of the articles accepted for publication in the four journals were asked to supply copies of their traditional abstracts (written when the paper was submitted for publication) together with copies of their structured abstracts requested by the editor when their paper was accepted. Forty-eight such requests were made, and thirty pairs of abstracts were obtained. The abstracts were then compared on a number of measures. Results. Analysis showed that the structured abstracts were significantly more readable, significantly longer and significantly more informative than the traditional ones. Judges assessed the contents of the structured abstracts more quickly and with significantly less difficulty than they did the traditional ones. Almost every respondent expressed positive attitudes to structured abstracts.
Conclusions. The structured abstracts fared significantly better than the traditional ones on every measure used in this enquiry. We recommend, therefore, that editors of other journals in the social sciences consider adopting structured abstracts.
figure 2.3. la An original abstract in structured form.
Adapted from Hartley and Benjamin (1998), and reproduced with permission of the British Journal of Educational Psychology. © the British Psychological Society.
a structured form first, and then to adjust it for the journal you are writing for if this journal does not use them.
Figures 2.3.1a and b illustrate some of the virtues of structured abstracts. Using the sub-headings and the appropriately spaced typographical layout makes the content clearer (Hartley and Betrs, 2007). Furthermore, structured abstracts are easier for readers to scan, as every absrract follows the same format. The sub-headings thus allow the readers to go to the same place each time in an abstract to find out what it says. Furthermore, as the information required has to be provided by the author under each sub-heading, nothing gets missed out. With traditional abstracts, it is all too common to find that some elements are missing — the background, the method or the results, for example. Often one is left saying, 'So, what happened?' or So what?'.
In 1997 four journals published by the British Psychological Society began publishing structured abstracts. The aim of the studies reported here was to assess the effects of these structured abstracts by comparing them with original versions written in a traditional, unstructured format. The authors of the articles accepted for publication in the four journals were asked to supply copies of their traditional abstracts (written when the paper was submitted for publication) together with copies of their structured abstracts requested by the editor when their paper was accepted. Forty-eight such requests were made and thirty pairs of abstracts were obtained. The abstracts were then compared on a number of measures. Analysis showed that the structured abstracts were significantly more readable, significantly longer and significantly more informative than the traditional ones. Judges assessed the contents of the structured abstracts more quickly and with significantly less difficulty than they did the traditional ones. Almost every respondent expressed positive attitudes to structured abstracts. In short, the structured abstracts fared significantly better than the traditional ones on every measure used in this enquiry. We recommend, therefore, that editors of other journals in the social sciences consider adopting structured abstracts.
figure 2.3, / b The same abstract in unstructured form.
Many people think that structured abstracts are only suitable for empirical papers - those with 'methods' and results'. As one of my correspondents put it:
It seems to me that the format you have chosen imposes a unitary conception of research, at a time when educational research in particular, and social science more widely, has at last broken away from narrow strictures of method and procedure.
However, I believe that the underlying characteristics of a structured abstract can apply to many other forms of enquiry. Figure 2.3.2a, for example, shows an original abstract written to accompany a review paper. Figure 2.3.2b shows a revision of it that, in my view, makes the background, aims and conclusions of the study more explicit.
Bayley and Eldredge (2003) provide references to a variety of papers in the health sciences that have structured abstracts. These include qualitative studies, narrative reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials. Table 2.3.1 similarly lists some more recent papers in the
34   The academic article
Abstracts 35
There is something of a controversy taking place over how best to theorise human learning. In this article we join the debate over the relationships between sociocultural and constructive perspectives on learning. These two perspectives differ in not just their conceptions of knowledge (epistemological assumptions) but also in their assumptions about the known world and the knowing human (ontological assumptions). We articulate in this article six themes of a nondualist ontology seen at work in the sociocultural perspective, and suggest a reconciliation of the two. We propose that learning involves becoming a member of a community, constructing knowledge of various levels of expertise as a participant, but also taking a stand on the culture of one's community in an effort to take up and overcome the estrangement and division that are consequences of participation. Learning entails transformation of both the person and the social world. We explore the implications of this view for thinking about schooling and for the conduct of educational research.
Figure 2.3.2a An original abstract for a review paper.
Reproduced with permission from Packer and Goicoechea (2000) and Taylor & Francis, www. informaworld.com.
health and social sciences chat have used structured abstracts with a variety of research methods.
After the title, the abstract is the most frequently read part of any paper. Writing it in a structured format (with or without the headings) ensures that it is informative and complete-
Table 2.3.1 Examples of studies with structured abstracts published in the health and social sciences
Method	Example
Literature review	Mayhew and Simpson (2002)
Observational study	Lauth et at. (2006)
Survey	Wilding and Andrews (2006)
Longitudinal study	Flouri (2006)
Statistical paper	Prosser and Trigwell (2006)
Simulation	Wright (2006)
Experimental study	Clariana and Koul (2006)
Epidemiological study	Evans (2000)
Meta-analysis	Bunn et al. (2006)
Systematic review	Duperrex et al. (2006)
Qualitative study	Maliski et al. (2002)
Background. An interesting debate is currently taking place among proponents of different ways of thinking about human learning. In this article we focus on that portion of the debate that addresses sociological and constructive perspectives on learning. These two perspectives differ in not just their conceptions of knowledge (epistemological assumptions) but also in their assumptions about the known world and the knowing human (ontological assumptions).
Aims and approach. We wish to try and reconcile these two different approaches first by examining the ontological assumptions of them both. We then consider six key themes of a nondualist ontology seen at work in the sociocultural perspective. Finally we propose that the constructive perspective attends to epistemological structures and processes which the sociological perspective must place in a broader historical and cultural context. Conclusions. We conclude that learning involves becoming a member of a community, constructing knowledge of various levels of expertise as a participant, and taking a stand on the culture of one's community in an effort to take up and overcome the estrangement and division that are consequences of participation. Learning entails transformation of both the personal and the social world. We explore the implications of this view for thinking about schooling and the conduct of educational research.
Figure 2.3.2b The same abstract in structured form.
REFERENCES
Bayley, L. & Eldred^e, J. E. (2003). The structured abstract: An essential tool for
researchers. Hypothesis, 17(1), 1 and 11-15. Or: http://research.mhlnet.org/structurcd_
abstract.html. (Retrieved 1 August 2006.) Bunn, F„ Collier, T., Frost, C„ Ker, K., Roberts, I. & Wentz, R. (2003). Traffic calming
for the prevention of road traffic injuries: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury
Prevention, 9(3), 200-4. Clariana, R. B. & Koul, R. (2006). The effects of different forms of feedback on ftuzy
and verbatim memory of science ptinciples. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
76(2), 259-70.
Duperrex, O., Bunn, F. & Roberts, I. (2002). Safety education of pedestrians for injury prevention: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 324(7348), 1129-34.
Evans, L. (2000). Risks older drivers face themselves and threats they pose to other toad users. International Journal oj Epidemiology, 29(2), 315—22.
36   The academic article
Flouri, E. (2006). Parental interest in children's education, children's self-esteem and locus of control, and larer educational attainment: Twenty-six year follow-up of the 1970 British Birth Cohort. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 41-56.
Hartley, J. (2004). Current findings from research on structured abstracts. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(3), 368-71.
Hartley, J. & Benjamin, M. (1998). An evaluation of structured abstracts in journals published by the British Psychological Society. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 443-56.
Hartley, J. & Belts, L. (2007). The effects of spacing and titles on judgments of the
effectiveness of structured abstracts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
& Technology, 38(14), 2335—40. Lauth, G. W., Hcubeck, B. G. & Mackowiak, K. (2006). Observation of children with
attention-deficit hyperactivity (ADHD) problems in three natural classroom contexts.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 385-404. Maliski, S. L., Heilemann, M. V. Sc. McCorkle, R. (2002). From 'death sentence' to
'good cancer': Couples' transformation of a prostate cancer diagnosis. Nursing Research,
5(6), 391-7.
Mayhcw, D. R. & Simpson, H. M. (2002). The safety value of driver education and
training. Injury Prevention, 8 (Suppl. II): ii3-ii8. Nakayama, T., Hirai, N., Yamazaki, S. & Naito, M. (2005). Adoption of structured
absttacts by general medical journals and format for a structured abstract. Journal of
the Medical Library Association, 95(2), 237-42. Packer, M. J. & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning:
Ontological, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227-41. Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Approaches to
Teaching Inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 405-19. Wilding, J. & Andrews, B. (2006). Life goals, approaches to study and performance in
an undergraduate cohort. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 171-82. Wtight, D. B. (2006). Comparing groups in a before-after design: When t test and
ANCOVA produce different results. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3),
663-75.
FURTHER READING
Hartley, J., Rock, J. & Fox, C. (2005). Teaching psychology students to write structured
abstracts: An evaluation study. Psychology Teaching Review, 1(1), 2-11. Kamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2004). Driven to abstraction: Doctoral supervision and
writing pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(2), 195-209. Kelly, A. E. & Yin, R. K. (2007). Strengthening structured abstracts for education
research: The need for claim-based structured abstracts. Educational Researcher, 36(3),
133-8.
Chapter 2.4
Key words
Key words typically:
1 allow readers to judge whether or not an article contains marerial relevant to their interests;
2 provide readers with suitable terms to use in web-based searches to locate other materials on the same or similar topics;
3 help indexers/editors group together related materials in, say, the end-of-year issues of a particular journal or a set of conference proceedings;
4 allow editors/researchers to document changes in a subject discipline (over time); and
5 link the specific issues of concern to issues at a higher level of abstraction.
WHO USES KEY WORDS?
There appear to be no formal requirements for key words, no rules for formulating them, little guidance on how to write them, and no instructions for reviewers on how to assess them. This is surprising in view of the fact that, presumably, a wise choice of key words increases the probability that a paper will be retrieved and read, thereby potentially improving citation counts and journal impact factors. Table 2.4.1 shows, however, that there are typical disciplinary differences in the percentage of journals using key words.
Table 2.4.1 The approximate percentages of research journals in different areas and disciplines supplying key words
Arts	Education	Psychology	Science	Medicine	Statistics
5	20	30	SO	50	75
Hartley and Kostoff (2003).
38   The academic article
Key words 39
WHO CHOOSES THE KEY WORDS?
Table 2.4.2 shows that there are several different ways of choosing key words. The most common method (used by over fifty per cent of avithors) is for them to supply as many words as they choose (within bounds), but sometimes a specified number of words is required (often about six). The next main method (used by about twenty per cent of authors) is for them to choose key words that fit into categories already prescribed by the journal's 'instructions to authors'. Thus, for example, authors generating key words for medical articles often have to select only words from the medical subject headings (MeSH) taxonomy - a structured taxonomy used by MEDLINE. In situations like this the number of words allowed and the number of categories to choose from can vary. Many psychology journals, for example, ask authors to list key words from any of the 5,000 terms that appeat in the American Psychological Society's Thesaurus of Psychological Index Term. Finally, key words are sometimes generated automatically at proof stage (as is the case for the Journal of Information Science, where the key words are derived from Library and Information Science Abstracts).
HOW TO SELECT KEY WORDS
Gbur and Trumbo (1995) published a list of ways of producing effective key words and phrases. Table 2.4.3 provides an abbreviated version.
It is possible that, with future developments, all of these problems will actually disappear. As one colleague has put it, 'Inverted-full-text-Boolean indexing and online seatching (with similarity algorithms and citation-Table 2.4.2 Different methods for supplying key words
Authors supply them with no restrictions on the numbers allowed.
Authors supply up to a fixed number (e.g. six).
Authors supply key words as appropriate from a specified list.
Editors supplement/amend authors' key words.
Editors supply key words.
Editors supply key words from a specified list.
Referees supply key words from a specified list.
Key words are allocated according to the 'house-rules' applied to all journals distributed by a specific publisher.
Key words are determined by computer program at proof stage. Hartley and Kostoff (2003).
Table 2.4.3 Ten ways to produce effective key words and phrases
1 Use simple, specific noun clauses. For example, use variance estimation, not estimate of variance.
2 Avoid terms that are too common. Otherwise the number of 'hits' will be too large to manage.
3 Do not repeat key words from the title. These will be picked up anyway.
4 Avoid unnecessary prepositions, especially in and of. For example, use data quality rather than <jua//ry of data.
5 Avoid acronyms. Acronyms can fall out of favour and be puzzling to beginners and/or overseas readers.
6 Spell out Greek letters and avoid mathematical symbols. These are impractical for computer-based searches.
7 Include only the names of people if they are part of an established terminology, for example Skinner box, Poisson distribution.
8 Include, where applicable, mathematical or computer techniques, such as generating function, used to derive results, and a statistical philosophy or approach such as maximum likelihood or Bayes' theory.
9 Include alternative or inclusive terminology. If a concept is, or has been, known by different terminologies, use a key word that might help a user conducting a search across a time-span, or from outside your speciality. For example, the statistician's characteristic function is the mathematician's Fourier transform, and in some countries educational administration is educational management
10  Note areas of applications where appropriate.
Adapted from Gbur and Trumbo (1995), pp. 29-33, and reproduced in substantially altered form with permission of the authors and The American Statistician. © the American Statistical Association, 1995. All rights reserved.
ranking) will soon make keywords and human-subject-classification a thing of the past'. Put more simply, this means that we will soon be able to input any words, pairs of words or phrases that we like from an article into a search engine and come up with related materials. Unfortunately, of course, this also means that the searcher is likely to be swamped with information - most of which will be inappropriate. If, for example, you use Google Advanced Scholar to search for 'key words', you will obtain approximately 800 citations.
Ail of this suggests that considerable thought needs to go into the selection of key words. Borrowing from Hughes (2005), it might be worth considering selecting words from a series of categories such as:
• discipline: for example economics, management, psychology, education
• method: for example experiment, case study, questionnaire, grounded theory
• data source: for example primary, secondary, tertiary students, senior citizens
• location: for example country, town, institution
• topic: for example academic writing.
■40   The academic article
REFERENCES
Gbur, E. E. & Trumbo, B. (1995). Key words and phrases — che key to scholarly visibility and efficiency in an information explosion. The American Statistician, 49(1), 29-33.
Hartley, J. & Kostnff, R. N. (2003). How useful are 'key words' in scientific journals?
Journal oj information Science, 29(5), 433—8. Hughes, W. P. (2005). Keywords: Their choice and their importance. Association of
Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) Newsletter, 20(1), 2-3 and 27(1), 4-5.
Chapter 2.5
Introductions
It is but a short step from structured abstracts to structured texts. In the following chapters we shall see how each part of the structure of a scientific article (the introduction, method, results, discussion and conclusion) can indeed be subdivided into finer structures.
Swales and Feak (2004) describe what they characterise as 'moves' in the various sections of academic articles. Basically, a 'move' is a stage in the argument that all writers go through. The 'moves' for the introduction are typically as follows (p. 244):
• Move I:    The authors establish a research territory:
(a) by showing that the general research area is important, central, interesting, problematic or relevant in some way (optional);
(b) by introducing and reviewing items of previous research in the area (obligatory).
• Move 2:    They then establish a 'niche' by indicating a weakness in the
account so far:
(a) by indicating a gap in the previous research, raising a question about it or extending previous knowledge in someway (obligatory).
• Move 3:    They then occupy the niche by saying they are going to put
this right:
(a) by outlining the purposes or stating the nature of the present research (obligatory);
(b) by listing research questions or hypotheses to be tested (optional);
(c) by announcing the principal findings (optional).
Swales and Feak argue that most introductions to academic articles follow this basic sttucture. Lewin et al. (2001) offer a similar, but more detailed, analysis that readers might also find useful.
■42   The academic article AN EXAMPLE
While writing this section of Academic Writing and Publishing, I coincidentally received a copy of a paper by Slatcher and Pennebaker (2006). This paper was about the effects of one of the partners of a dating couple writing either neutral or strongly emotional letters to the other one about their relationship. The paper concluded that the participants who wrote the emotional letters were significantly more likely to be dating their romantic partners three months later than were the writers of the neutral letters. Be that as it may, I was intrigued to observe that the introduction to this paper followed almost exactly the generic structure described by Swales and Feak.
Slatcher and Pennebaker's introduction contains five paragraphs. Here are some examples of how the moves appear:
Move I: Establishing a research territory
The paper starts (paragraphs 1 and 2) with describing the background and setting the scene. Key phrases are: 'Researchers are now . . .', 'Preliminary findings suggest . . .', 'There are a number of ways in which one could measure the effects of expressive writing
Move 2: Establishing a niche
The paper continues (in paragraphs 3 and 4) with the following key phrases: Although previous studies have addressed . . . none have . . .', 'One potential mediator is . . .', There are various ways to measure . . .', The use of emotional words may be particularly relevant . . .', 'One way is to analyse the texts used in instant messaging . . .'.
Move 3: Occupying the niche
The introduction concludes (in paragraph 5) with the following key phrases: 'In the present study we sought to investigate the social effects of expressive writing . . .', 'Three predictions were tested. First . . .'.
Slatcher and Pennebaker thus follow Swales and Feak's analysis almost line by line. It is also worth noting, in passing, that the literature review in this paper is quite short, and there are only nine references. Day and Gastel (2006) comment that, 'Introductions should supply sufficient information to allow the reader to understand and evaluate the results of the present study without (them) needing to refer to previous publications on the topic' (pp. 57-8).
Of course many papers are written with more detailed substructures. Three types of structure typical in introductions are:
r
Introductions 43
1 The one listed above - where the authors establish their niche by indicating limitations or omissions in the previous research.
2 One where two (or more) different areas of research are reviewed - and rhe authors establish their niche by bringing them together.
3 One where some previous research has provided supporr for a particular finding or theory, and some has not - and the authors establish their niche by seeking to resolve and explain this.
Further, there are disciplinary variations: Haggan (1998), for example, examined the introductions for twenty-six articles in the sciences, twenty-six in linguistics and twenty-six in the arts. She found that the introductions in the science papers were less likely to contain a plan for the paper rhan were the introductions in linguistics, and that they lay midway in their use of impersonal language between introductions in the arts (the least personal) and introductions in linguistics (the most personal). Introductions in the sciences were more personal, however, when there was more than one author.
Such disciplinary formulaic introductions enhance the clarity of a paper and ensure that the readers' expectations about the format and the purpose of an introduction are maintained. Such devices keep the reader reading.
REFERENCES
Day, R. A. & Gastel, B. (2006). How to urite and publish a scientific paper (6th cdn).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haggan, M. (1998). In search of the linguistics niche: A scudy of research article
introductions in Linguistics, Literature and Science. Arab Journal for the Humanities,
61, 345-77.
Lewin, B., Fine, J. & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social
science research texts. London: Continuum. Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the
words. Psychological Science, /7(8), 660—4. Swales, j. M. & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students (2nd edn). Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
FURTHER READING
Kendall, P. C, Silk, J. S. & Chu, B. C. (2000). Introducing your research report: Writing the introduction. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp. 41—57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter 2.6
Methods
Method sections vary in journal articles, but rather less so than introductions. This is because the 'moves' in the method sections generally involve working through a series of subsections. Most method sections are usually subdivided (with subheadings) into three sections, as follows:
1 participants
2 measures
3 procedures).
If no participants are involved, then the method simply describes rhe measures and procedure(s). In the Slatcher and Pennebaker (2006) example, there are three subheadings in the method section: Participants, Procedure and Linguistic Analysis (or measures).
Method sections may be brief and succinct - when the merhods used are well known and standardised — or quite lengthy, when the methods used are new or different and thus require careful elaboration.
Students and authors are typically instructed to write their method sections in such a way that readers can repeat the method from the descriptions given. Day and Gastel (2006, p. 64) recommend that colleagues unfamiliar with what was done should be asked to read the account to see if they can follow it. Authors are sometimes too close to what they did and thus tend to forget to mention tiny but - sometimes — key details.
A useful device for clarifying the procedure or the method for the reader - especially if it is complicated - is to summarise it in a table or figure (e.g. see Gotzsche, 2006). Figure 2.6.1 gives a schematic version of Slatcher and Pennebaker's prose description of their method. Such procedures, though, are rarely used. None of the authors of fifty-six articles in the 2005 volume of the Journal of Educational Psychology used this strategy, and only two provided illustrations of the equipment used. However, eleven (i.e. twenty per cent) of these articles did include figures to illustrate either the theoretical models underlying the reasoning for rheir experiments or the analyses that they were going ro use.
46   The academic article
Participants
Procedure
Experimental group (N = 44 couples)
Write text messages for 20 mins _
on days 4, 5 and 6 about their deepest thoughts and feelings about their current romantic relationship
86 couples
Relationship Assessment Scale
Control group (N = 42 couples)
Write text messages for 20 mins _
* on days 4, 5 and 6 about their daily activities
figure 2.6.1 A schematic illustration of the prose version of the Method used in the study by Slatcher and Pennebaker (2006).
REFERENCES
Day, R. A. & Gast el, B. (2006). How to ante and publish a scientific paper (6th edn).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gotzsche, P. C. (2006). Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: A
cross sectional study. British Medical Journal, 333, 231-4. Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love thee' Let me count the
words. Psychological Science, 17(8), 660-4.
FURTHER READING
litis, H. T. (2000). Writing effectively about design. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp. 81-97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter 2.7
Results
A 'moves' analysis of the results sections ot academic articles either looks like this:
• Move 1: State che main findings in order — relating them in turn to the hypotheses and methods used.
• Move 2: State the subsidiary findings - relating them in turn to the hypotheses and methods used.
or it is an interweaving of the two - the first set of main findings and related subsidiary ones, followed by the second set, and so on.
Again these subsections may be cued by subheadings. Slatcher and Pennebaker (2006), for example, divide their results section into two main parts (separated by the subheadings, 'Relationship stability and language use', and 'Mediation effects of changes in use of emotional words'). They provide a description of the results obtained, mainly in prose, in each part, indicating that the partners who wrote the romantic letters were significantly more likely to be dating their romantic partners three months later than were the partners who wrote the neurral ones.
It is typical in results sections to present the main data that support (or reject) the hypotheses in the form of tables and graphs. Indeed, it is quite common to find that the first sentence of a results section begins, 'Table 1 shows that . . .'. Slatcher and Pennebaker's paper is unusual here in that they provide only one such table, near the start of their second section of results, and this table is not used to illustrate their main findings. Because tables and graphs are so important in academic and scientific writing, I shall discuss them separately, in more detail, in Chapter 3-5.
Salovey (2000) argues that the art of writing a good results section is to take the readers through a story. This does not mean working step by step through the results obtained, but rather — as implied above - articulating what happened and illustrating it clearly, usually with data. In my view, this srory is clearer if the sequence of topics addressed in the resulrs section is the same as that arriculated in the introduction and the method(s) sections.
48   The academic article
Swales and Feak (2004) comment that the distinction between the results and the subsequent discussion section is not always as sharp as one might think. They cite a study by Thompson (1993) that showed that the authors of papers in biochemistry used a variety of rhetorical devices in their results section to justify their methodology, to interpret and comment on the findings, and to relate them to previous research. Indeed, the only thing that they did not do in their results sections was to call for further research - this was left fot the discussion.
Chapter 2.8
Discussions
REFERENCES
Salovey, P. (2000). Results that get results. Telling a good story. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp. 121-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slatcher, R. B. & Pcnnebaker, J. W. (2006). How do 1 love thee? Let mc count the
words. Psychological Science, 17(8), 660-4. Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students (2nd edn). Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Thompson, D, K. (1993). Arguing for experimental 'facts' in science: A study of research
article results sections in biochemistry. Written Communication, 10(1), 106-28.
Discussions, like introductions, have a typical structure. Lewin et al. (2001) and Swales and Feak (2004) describe typical 'moves' in the discussion sections of academic research papers. Putting these descriptions together suggests the following moves:
• Move I: Restate the findings and accomplishments.
• Move 2: Evaluate how the results fit in with the previous findings - do they contradict, qualify, agree or go beyond them?
• Move 3- List potential limitations to the study.
• Move 4- Offer an interpretation/explanation of these results and ward off counter-claims.
• Move 5: State the implications and recommend further research.
Discussions, then, go beyond a summary of the findings and, indeed, there may be disciplinary differences in how they are approached. Holmes (1997), for instance, found that the discussion sections of papers in sociology and political science were similar in format to those in the sciences, whereas those in history were less complex. Swales and Feak (2004) state that some scientists believe that a long discussion implies weak methods and results, whereas social scientists and people in the arts may well believe the opposite.
AN EXAMPLE
Lewin el al. (2001) provide numerous quotations from the discussion sections of several research articles to supporr the above moves' analysis. In terms of Slatcher and Pennebaker's (2006) paper referred to earlier, we may note the following sentences contained in the six paragraphs of their discussion section:
SO   The academic article
• Move 1: Restating the findings and accomplishments:
— Par, 1:  'The very simple act of writing about rheir romantic relation-
ship changed rhe way in which participants communicated
— Par. 2: 'Taken Together these findings shed light on processes
underlying inreracrions in close relationships . . .';
— Par. 3:  'An advantage of the current design is that . . .';
— Par. 6: 'Unlike previous expressive-wriring studies, this is the first
to demonstrate . . .'.
• Move 2: Evaluating how the results fit in with previous research:
— Par. 3: 'In particular, the findings relating to increases in emotion
words illuminate previous research [3 references provided]'.
• Move 3- Stating the limitations:
— Par. 5: 'There are some potential limitations in this study. First
. . . Second . . .'.
• Move 4: Warding off alternative explanations:
— Par. 5. '. . . make this an unlikely possibility'.
• Move 5: Stating implications:
— Par. 4:  ... [this finding] 'has clear implications for clinicians';
— Par. 5:  '. . . future studies should address this issue'.
These quotations illustrate that the five moves are present, but rhey are not as clearly sequenced or indicated as might be implied from the lisr above. Authors seem more flexible in how they tackle their discussions, although the moves listed are usually present.
Discussion sections are difficult to write because their aim is to discuss and comment on the findings, rather than just to report them. Day and Gastel (2006) suggest thar journal editors reject many papers because of their weak discussions. They recommend rhat discussions should end with a short summary regarding the significance of the work, which, they claim, is not always adequately considered.
Woods (1999) recommends:
1 that writers should keep notes about what it might be useful to include in the discussion as ideas occur to them when they are writing other sections; and
2 that it might be wise to set aside a day or two to tackle this section of the paper.
This, he says, will make the task less daunting.
Discussions 51
REFERENCES
Day, R. A. & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6rh edfl).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the
structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific
Purposes, 16(4), 321-37. Lewin, B., Fine, J. & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social
science research texts. London: Continuum. Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J, W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the
words. Psychological Science, 7 7(8), 660—4. Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2004), Academic writing for graduate students (2nd edn). Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Woods, P. (1999)- Successful writing for qualitative researchers. London: Routledge.
FURTHER READING
Calfee, R. (2000). What does it all mean:' The discussion. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp. 133—45), Cambridge: Cambridge University
Chapter 2.9
Acknowledgements
Most academic articles contain acknowledgements to various sources of help received during their preparation, although one editor of my acquaintance steadfasrly deletes rhem on the grounds that they add nothing to the concent. However, I believe that it is courteous to thank sources of financial support and colleagues and referees for their help in improving articles. Slatcher and Pennebaker conclude:
Portions of this research were funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (MH53291). We would like to thank Greg Hixon, Amy Kaderka and Girish Tembe for their assistance on this project and Amie Green, Timothy Loving, Mathew Newman, William Swann, and Simine Vazire for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
(Slatcher and Pennebaker, 2006, p. 663)
Suls and Fletchet (1983) counted the acknowledgements to colleagues in papers in chemistry, physics, psychology and sociology, with the number of acknowledgements adjusred for the number of authors of the papers. (The number of joint authors was highest in physics and lowest in sociology.) Suls and Fletcher found that the proporrion of acknowledgements to colleagues increased as one moved through the disciplines from chemistry to sociology.
More recently, Cronin et al. (2003) examined the acknowledgements in all of the several hundred articles published in the Psychological Review and in Mind from 1900 to 1999. In both journals, there was an upswing in the percentage of articles with acknowledgements — from rhe 1960s for Psychological Review and from the 1980s for Mind — until 1999, when almost ninety per cent of their articles contained them. Cronin et al. (2004) then repeated their analyses with samples from the Journal for the American Chemical Society. Here the upswing started earlier (in the 1940s) and over ninety per cent of the articles in this journal have contained acknowledgements since the 1960s.
Cronin et al. (2003) separated the different pares of an acknowledgement as follows:
54   The academic article
Acknowledgements 55
• financial (recognition of extramural or internal funding);
• instrumental!technical (providing access to tools, technologies, facilities, and also furnishing technical expertise, such as statistical analysis);
• conceptual (source of inspiration, idea generation, critical insight, intellectual guidance, assistance of referees etc-);
• editorial (providing advice on manuscript preparation, submission, bibliographic assistance etc.); and
• moral (recognising the support of family, friends etc.).
Table 2.9.1 shows the relative proportions of these categories in the acknowledgements in the three journals examined by Ctonin et al, (2003; 2004). These data reveal clear disciplinary differences, and they also tell us indirectly something about the intellectual debts incurred in writing a paper.
However, even within disciplines, a closer examination of the acknowledgements can reveal interesting things (see Cronin and Franks, 2006; Hartley, 2003). It appears, for example, that - in psychology - there are differences in the numbers of acknowledgements given by single authors compared with those given by pairs or trios of authors. In one study, for example, I examined the acknowledgements made in the Journal of Educational Psychology, Teaching of Psychology and Psychological Science (Hartley, 2003). Here fifty-seven per cent of single authors acknowledged the help of colleagues, referees and editors, compared with forty-nine per cent of pairs and forty per cent of trios. It appeared then that single authors benefited from discussions wirli other colleagues - who were acknowledged - more than did pairs or groups of writers who were perhaps in a better position to discuss salient issues among themselves.
In all of the studies described above, the authors worked by hand when counting the elements in the data. However, automated methods for analysing acknowledgements are now available and, with these, larger samples from many more journals can be considered. Giles and Councill (2004), for example,
Table 2.9.1 The proportions of acknowledgements (%) devoted to different aspects of acknowledgements in Mind, Psychological Review and the Journal of the American Chemical Society
	Mind	Psychological Review	Journal of the American Chemical Society
Financial	1 1	36	46
Technical	4	20	34
Conceptual	69	31	18
Editorial	11	1 1	1
Moral	1	-	-
Data derived from Cronin et of. (2003; 2004) and reproduced with permission of the authors.
carried out one such automated study of 188,052 acknowledgements in science papers. They showed that funding agencies got the highest rates of acknowledgements, commercial companies the next, educational institutions the third, and individuals the least. More interesting, perhaps, is that it will soon be relatively easy, using such computer-based techniques, to trace which people are acknowledged most in a given field, and thus to assess their currently hidden contribution, and also to see if acknowledgements ro colleagues are reciprocal in different papers.
Finally, Day and Gastel (2006) remind us that it is always appropriate to check with the people named in acknowledgements that they are happy with what is said and, if necessary, to reword it in the light of their comments. Indeed, some journals require that all the people listed in the acknowledgements, as well as all the authors, each sign separate consent forms allowing publication.
REFERENCES
Cronin, B. & Franks, S. (2006). Trading cultures: Resource mobilization and service
rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article's paratext. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science & Technology, J>7(14), 1909—18. Cronin, B., Shaw, D. & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and
subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly literature
of Psychology and Philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 54{9), 855-71. Cronin, B., Shaw, D. & La Barre, K. (2004). Visible, less visible and invisible work:
Patterns of collaboration in 20th century Chemistry. Journal of ihe American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 33(2), 160—8. Day, R. A. tk Gastel, B. (2006). How to tithe and publish a scientific paper (6th edn).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giles, C. L. & Councill, I. G. (2004). Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific
contributions through automated acknowledgement indexing. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 101(51), 1759-64. Hartley, J. (2003). Single authors are not alone: Colleagues often help. The Journal of
Scholarly Publishing, 34(2), 108-13. Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love cheer1 Let me count the
words. Psychological Science, I 7(8), 660^1. Suls, J. & Fletcher, B. (1983). Social comparison in the social and physical sciences: An
archival study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 440), 57 5-80.
FURTHER READING
Cronin, B. (1995). The scholar's courtesy: The role of acknowledgement in the primary
communication process. London: Taylor Graham. Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science: Academic uriting and its rewards. Lanham, Maryland:
Scarecrow Press.
Chapter 2.10
References
Many different styles of referencing have developed over the years. National standards have been agreed in the USA, UK, Europe and China. However, few publishers appear to follow these standards precisely, perhaps because they each allow some degree of choice. Today variation seems rife, and this is made worse by computer-based systems for preparing references, such as EndNote, Procite and Reference Manager. EndNote (2007) proudly boasts that it includes 'more than 2,300 predefined bibliographic styles for leading journals', although quite why anyone should want such a number is anybody's guess.
Currently there are four main styles of referencing for academic articles, as follows:
1 The APA style. This system is also known as the Harvard or, more colloquially, as the 'name(date)' system. This is because an author's surname in the text is followed by the date of the publication in brackets, and entries in the reference list are listed alphabetically, starting with the name and the initials of the author(s) followed by the date of publication for each entry. For example:
Sharpies, M. (Ed.). (1993). Computer supported collaborative writing. London: Springer-Verlag.
Speck, B. W., Johnson, T. R., Dice, C. P., & Heaton, L. B. (1999). Collaborative ivriting: An annotated bibliography. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Tang, C. (1998). Effects of collaborative learning on the quality of assignments. In B. Dart & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 102—23). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Zammuner, V. L. (1995)- Individual and co-operative computer writing and revising: Who gets the best results? Learning and Instruction, 3(2), 101-24.
58   The academic article
References 59
2 The Modern Languages Association (MLA) style. In this version the authors' surnames (with or without the dates) appear in the text and the first author's surname comes first in the reference list. This is followed by his or her first name, but first names then come first for any additional authors. Dates of the publications are given after journal titles, or at the end of the references for books, etc. The list is ordered alphabetically. For example:
Sharpies, Michael (Ed.). Computer Supported Collaborative Writing. London: Springer-Verlag, 1993.
Speck, Bruce W., Teresa R. Johnson, Catherine Dice, and Leon B. Heaton. Collaborative Writing: An Annotated Bibliography. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1999-
Tang, Catherine. 'Effects of collaborative learning on the quality of assignments.' Teaching and Learning in Higher 'Education. Eds. Barry Dart and Gillian Boulton-Lewis. Pp. 103-23. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research, 1998.
Zammuner, Victoria L. 'Individual and co-operative computer writing and revising: Who gets the best results?' Learning and Instruction 5 (1995) 101-24.
3 The Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers (IEEE) style. Here, the authors in the text are numbered in order of their appearance in the text, sometimes without their names, and the numbers are enclosed in square brackets. The reference list is then numbered sequentially. Names are presented with the initial(s) first, followed by surnames. Dates of the publications are given after journal titles, oi at the end of the references for book, etc. Journal titles are sometimes abbreviated. For example:
[1] M. Sharpies, Ed., Computer Supported Collaborative Writing. London: Springer-Verlag, 1993.
[2] V. L. Zammuner, 'Individual and co-operative computer writing and revising: Who gets the best results?' Learning and Instruction, vol. 5, no.2, pp. 101-24, 1995.
[3] C. Tang, 'Effects of collaborative learning on the quality of assignments,' in Teaching and learning in Higher Education, B. Dart and G. Boulton-Lewis, Eds. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research, 1998, pp. 102-23.
[4] B. W. M. Speck, T. R. Johnson, C. P. Dice and L. B. Heaton, Collaborative Writing: An Annotated Bibliography. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1999-
An alternative version is to list (and number) the authors alphabetically in the reference list, and to assign these numbers to the authors in the text as appropriate.
4 The Vancouver style, popular in medical journals, is named after its inception following agreements made during a meeting in Vancouver in 1987 by the International Steering Committee of Medical Editors. Here, as with the IEEE system, the authors are numbered in the text in order of their appearance, and the numbers are enclosed in square brackets. The reference list is numbered sequentially, but the authots are listed surnames first, followed by their initials. Again the dates of publications are given after journal titles, or at the ends of the references for books etc. The key feature of the Vancouver style is its 'spare' typography and punctuation, and the use of abbreviated journal titles. For example:
1 Sharpies M, editor. Computer supported collaborative writing. London: Springer-Verlag, 1993.
2 Zammuner VL. Individual and co-operative computer writing and revising: Who gets the best results? Learn Instruc 1995;5 (Pt 2): 101-24.
3 Tang C. Effects of collabotative learning on the quality of assignments. In: Dart B, Boulton-Lewis G, editors. Teaching and learning in higher education. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research, 1998;102-23.
4 Speck BWM, Johnson TR, Dice CP, Heaton LB. Collaborative writing: an annotated bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.
Each of these main referencing systems has advantages and disadvantages for both readers and authors. Some key points are, first, that the name(date) system clutters the text when long lists of references are given. For example, twenty names and dates might be cited in a row, whereas in the numbered system one simply puts [1-20]. Incidentally there seems to be some confusion here in the name(date) system over whether or not these lists of names and dates should be cited in alphabetical or historical order. I recommend one or the other (but not a mixture, as sometimes is the case). Second, it is difficult for readers to judge the recency of an in-text reference in a numbered reference system. Third, in writing the text, getting all of the numbers in sequence is tedious, especially when revising or rewriting the text (if this is not computer-aided). Finally, abbreviated journal titles cause difficulty for readers and authors unfamiliar with the abbreviations.
REASONS FOR CITING REFERENCES
According to Robillard (2006), students are taught that 'the primary function of citing references is to avoid plagiarism by giving credit where credit is
60   The academic article
due'. However, when it comes to publishing academic papers, the reasons for citing references increase. Robillard suggests that references:
• tell the readers where they can find the material being discussed;
• provide evidence for the writers' claims;
• draw the readers' attenrion to little-known or unknown work;
• indicate to the reader the scholarship of the writer:
(a) by displaying erudition, and
(b) through self-citation;
• show the writers' respect for particular people;
• align the author with particular schools of thought; and
• allow mutual grooming: colleagues cite colleagues and friends, and vice versa.
Indeed, there is a small research literature on the benefits or otherwise of making self-citations (e.g. see Fowler and Aksnes, 2007; Hellsten et al., 2007). Fowler and Aksnes report (in a study of more than half a million citations made by Norwegian scientists) that the more one cites onself, the more one is cited by others.
CITING PAGE NUMBERS FOR QUOTATIONS IN THE TEXT
There is some debate in the literature about the necessity for citing in the text the page numbers of a quotation, table or figure from another article when giving a reference to it. Generally speaking, this is done more frequently in papers in the arts than it is in the sciences, and studies have shown that many science journals are lax in this respect (e.g. Donovan, 2006; Henige, 2006). Clearly the level of detail required for an in-text reference is a matter of debate, but the actual page numbers can be very helpful for readers if they want to check up on what was actually said or shown.
Sometimes ir is not possible for writers to include the page numbers of a specific quotation because they are working from a prepublication electronic text and it is simpler to refer the reader to the final printed publication than to the unique resource location (URL) for the preliminary or alternative version. (This explains why there is no page number for the quotation from Robillard cited above!) Nevertheless, the moral of the rale, however tedious, is that it is best to include information rather than leave it out. Someone, somewhere, will want to check it.
References 61
USING APPROPRIATE STYLES AND REFERENCES
In most situations authors have no say in what reference system will be used, and they prepare their texts in accordance with publishers' demands. They do, however, have different aims and can use different referencing styles to match these, as shown in Table 2.10.1.
Historical analysis shows that referencing styles are not fixed and predetermined, and that incoming editors can and do make changes. The British Journal of Psychology, for example, started in 1910 with a footnote system and continued this until 1930. Between 1930 and 1950, a variety of systems were used within individual volumes: in 1930, for example, Volume 21 had mainly footnotes, but one atticle included a bibliography. In 1940, it was possible to find articles in the same volume:
(i) with footnotes;
(ii) with a numbered reference system and a sequential listing of the references; and
(iii) with an alphabetical listing of the references in a numbered sequence.
In 1953, the journal changed to the current name(date) system of referencing.
In other journals, such changes have been more abrupt. The American Journal of Psychology, for instance, used footnotes from 1887 until 1970 and then it changed to the name(date) system in 1971. The American Psychologist started life in 1946 with a numbered referencing system and an alphabetical listing of the references until it changed to the name(date) system in 1959. Connors (1999) cites similar changes in other APA and MLA journals, concluding that,' the APA style now bids fair to become the de facto standard for all fields over the next five decades' (p. 232). Connors' judgement now seems premature.
ToWe 2.10.1 Writers' aims and preferred referencing styles	
Aim	Sfy/e
To communicate to fellow colleagues/scholars	Style of own discipline
To communicate to a different (academic) audience	Style of that discipline
To communicate to a general academic audience	Style of journal chosen
To communicate to students within own discipline	Style of own discipline
To communicate to students generally	Few references needed
To communicate to the general public	No formal references
	needed
Reproduced from Hartley (2002) by permission of Sage Publications Ltd.
r
62   The academic article
REFERENCES
Connors, R. J. (1999). The rhetoric of citation systems - Part II: Competing episcemic
values in citation. Rhetoric Review, 17(2), 219-36. Donovan, S. K. (2006). Comment: Discouraging verification: Citation practices across
disciplines. Journal of Scholarly Publication, 37(4), 313-16. EndNole (2007). EndNote information. Retrieved 19 May 2007 from www.endnote.
com/eninfo.asp.
Fowler, J. H. & Aksnes, D. "W. (2007). Does self-citation pay? Scientometrks, 72(3), 427-47.
Hartley, J. (2002). On choosing typographic settings for reference lists. Social Studies of Science, 32(5-6), 917-32.
Hellsten, T., Lambiocce, R., Scharnhorst, A. & Ausloos, M. (2007). Self-citations, co-authorships and keywords: A new approach to scientists' field mobility? Sdmtometrks, 720), 469-86.
Henige, D. (2006). Discouraging verification: Citation practices across the disciplines.
Journal of Scholarly Publication, 37(2), 99-118. Robillard, A. E. (2006). Young scholars affecting composition: A challenge to disciplinary citation practice. College English, 6S(3), 253-70.
FURTHER READING
Hutson, S. R. (2006). Self-citation in Archaeology: Age, gender, prestige, and the self. Retrieved 20 January 2007 from Journal of Archaeological Methods and 'theory, 13(1) (page numbers unspecified) (www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/jarm).
Chapter 2.1 I
Footnotes
Some journals in some disciplines use footnotes as well as references. Footnotes are most commonly found in journals in the humanities and least in journals in the sciences, with social science journals somewhere in between. Footnotes serve rhe same purposes as references, as outlined by Robillard in the previous chapter (p. 60) perhaps more clearly. The differences are that they are sometimes more extensive than references, often containing more exposition, and they usually appear, as their name suggests, at the foot of the page. However, it is also common to find such notes at the end of a chapter, or even grouped chapter by chapter at the end of a book.
The use of footnotes has an ancient pedigree. Slomanson (1987) dates the first use of the term to 1822, but cites the use of footnotes occurring shortly after 1066. Grafton (1997) is more cautious. He writes, Scholars have placed the birth of the footnote in the twelfth century, the seventeenth, the eighteenth, and the nineteenth - never wirhout good reason' (p. viii). Be that as it may, what appears to happen with many academic journals is that footnotes first appear in their early history, but that these are then replaced with numbered references, before finally a name(date) system takes over (as described in the previous chapter).
The literature on writers' and readers' attitudes to footnotes is long on anecdote and assertion, but short on evidence (Hartley, 1999). Two common assertions are:
(i) that footnotes seem irresistible, and that they can thus distract the reader;1 and
(ii) that it is sometimes difficult to find your place back in the main text to continue reading when you have moved away to read the footnote.
In order to obtain some data on feelings such as these, I once gave a questionnaire on the topic to approximately fifty academics whose disciplinary
1    See what I mean
64   The academic article
journals typically used footnotes (e.g. law, history, education and English and modern languages), and to another fifty whose disciplinary journals typically did not (e.g. medicine, physics and psychology). The questionnaire asked these academics about:
1 their attitudes to footnotes generally;
2 their attitudes to footnotes being placed at the ends of individual chapters as opposed to the end of a book; and
3 their preferences for notes or references being placed at the ends of individual chapters in a book rather than at the end of the book (or vice versa) when the chapters were written:
(a) by the same author, or
(b) by different authors.
The results showed that both groups of academics responded positively to footnotes - that is, they did not find them irritating. However, as might be anticipated, the members of the 'footnotes' group were significantly more positive towards footnotes than were the members of the 'no-footnotes' group. The 'footnotes' group claimed that they had significantly less difficulty in teturning to where they were on the page after reading a footnote, and that footnotes could be less easily ignoted than did the 'no-footnotes' group. However, the respondents in both groups agreed that:
1 notes at the ends of chapters or books were more irritating than notes at the foot of the page;
2 it was difficult to find your way back to where you originally were after reading a note at the end of a chapter or a book, as opposed to a note at the foot of the page; and
3 it was better to have notes or references at the end of each chaptet (as here) rather than at the end of the book, especially when the chapters wete written by different authors.
These findings suggest that readers attach greater significance to the value of footnotes and endnotes if they are used to teading them in theit books and journals. They thus form an accepted way of conveying additional infotmation within certain disciplines. However, for a more general audience, it might be best to avoid them.2
Caught you again?
Footnotes 65
REFERENCES
Grafton, A. (1997). Tie footnote: A curious history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hartley, ). (1999). What do we know about footnotes? Opinions and data. Journal of
Information Science, 25(3), 205—12. Slomanson, W. R. (1987). The bottom line: Footnote logic in law review writing. Legal
References Services Quarterly, 7(1), 47-69.
FURTHER READING
Bensman, J. (1988). The aesthetics and politics of footnoting. Politics, Culture and Society 1(3), 443-70.
Jansen, F., van Lijf, A. & Toussaint, E. (2002). A note on the evaluation of footnotes and othet devices for background information in popular scientific texts. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44{i), 195-201.
Stiff, P. (1997). 'A footnote kicks him': How books make readers work. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 28(2), 65-75.