Liberate the Article! Proposals for Simplified Scientific Writing Conventions

Hervé Laroche

doi:10.37725/mgmt.2024.9758

Hervé Laroche Department of Management, ESCP Business School, Paris, France

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.2024.9758

Keywords: Scientific Articles, Writing Conventions, Text Structure

Abstract

A huge amount of advice and guidance has been provided on how to craft articles for top-tier journals. Simultaneously, research publications themselves have been criticized as formulaic or even nonsensical by some scholars. Despite this heated debate, the structural aspects of scientific texts have received little attention. The typical structure that articles are expected to follow and the typical story they are supposed to recount are presented as mere conventions that bear no consequences. In this essay, I discuss these taken-for-granted assumptions and analyze the significant costs and burdens generated by these conventions. I then propose to simplify writing conventions by focusing on the basic ingredients of research rather than the imposition of a rigid structure and a standard story. I argue that more freedom should be given to authors in the way they organize their papers. Such a reform would be easy to implement and would have mostly positive implications for all stakeholders.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Hervé Laroche, Department of Management, ESCP Business School, Paris, France

Hervé Laroche is emeritus professor at ESCP Business School. He developed an interest in scientific writing after his own experiences as an author (M@n@gement, Organization Science, Organization Studies, Journal of Business Ethics, etc.), a reviewer (for numerous journals), an editor (European Management Journal), and after teaching the subtleties of academic publishing to PhD candidates (ESCP BS and CEFAG).

References

Aguinis, H., Cummings, C., Ramani, R. S. & Cummings, T. G. (2020). “An A is an A”: The new bottom line for valuing academic research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 135–154. doi: 10.5465/amp.2017.0193

Alvesson, M. & Gabriel, Y. (2013). Beyond formulaic research: In praise of greater diversity in organizational research and publications. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(2), 245–263. doi: 10.5465/amle.2012.0327

Alvesson, M., Gabriel, Y. & Paulsen, R. (2017). Return to meaning: A social science with something to say. Oxford University Press.

Barney, J. (2018). Editor’s comments: Positioning a theory paper for publication. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 345–348. doi: 10.5465/amr.2018.0112

Baylon, D. & Barros, M. (2023). Mutual constitution of genre and knowledge: The case of genre resistance in the French diplomatic occupational community. Organization Studies, 44(9), 1491–1517. doi: 10.1177/01708406221128373

Bazin, Y., Islam, G., Parker, M. & Gabriel, Y. (2018). The (academic) society of the spectacle (of publication). Unplugged. M@n@gement, 21(3), 1118–1134. doi: 10.3917/mana.213.1118

Billig, M. (2013). Learn to write badly: How to succeed in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press.

Bliese, P. (2020). Taking the AE’s perspective: Insights into seemingly irrational decisions. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(4), 374–377. doi: 10.1177/1056492619886034

Brown, S. & Schau, H. J. (2007). Writing consumer research: The world according to Belk. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6(6), 349–368. doi: 10.1002/cb.227

Butler, N., Delaney, H. & Spoelstra, S. (2017). The gray zone: Questionable research practices in the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(1), 94–109. doi: 10.5465/amle.2015.0201

Caicedo, M.H. (2011). The story of us: On the nexus between metaphor and story in writing scientific articles. Culture and Organization, 17(5), 403–416. doi: 10.1080/14759551.2011.622902

Carton, G. & Mouricou, P. (2017). Is management research relevant? A systematic analysis of the rigor-relevance debate in top-tier journals (1994–2013). M@n@gement, 20(2), 166–203. doi: 10.3917/mana.202.0166

Corley, K., Bansal, P. & Yu, H. (2021). An editorial perspective on judging the quality of inductive research when the methodological straightjacket is loosened. Strategic Organization, 19(1), 161–175. doi: 10.1177/1476127020968180

Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Andersson, U., Brannen, M. Y., Nielsen, B. B. & Reuber, A. R. (2016). From the editors: Can I trust your findings? Ruling out alternative explanations in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 881–897. doi: 10.1057/s41267-016-0005-4

Cummings, L. L. & Frost, P. J. (Eds.) (1995). Publishing in the organizational sciences. SAGE.

Czarniawska, B. (2005). Karl Weick: Concepts, style and reflection. The Sociological Review, 53(1 suppl.), 267–278. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00554.x

Daft, R. L. (1995). “Why I recommended that your manuscript be rejected and what you can do about it”. In L. L. Cummings & P. J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences (pp. 164–183). SAGE. doi: 10.4135/9781452240466.n14

Damadzic, A., Winchester, C., Medeiros, K. E. & Griffith, J. A. (2022). [Re]thinking outside the box: A meta- analysis of constraints and creative performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(8), 1330–1357. doi: 10.1002/job.2655

Dane, E. (2011). Changing the tune of academic writing: Muting cognitive entrenchment. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(3), 332–336. doi: 10.1177/1056492611408267

Dane, E. & Rockmann, K. W. (2021). Listen up! Revitalizing our writing to stir our readers and supercharge our thinking. Academy of Management Discoveries, 7(2), 159–165. doi: 10.5465/amd.2021.0065

Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 309–344. doi: 10.1177/004839317100100211

Delacour, H. & Leca, B. (2011). The decline and fall of the Paris Salon: A study of the deinstitutionalization process of a field configuring event in the cultural activities. M@n@gement, 14(1), 436–466. doi: 10.3917/mana.141.0436

Douglas, Y. (2015). The Reader’s Brain. How neuroscience can make you a better writer. Cambridge University Press.

Gilmore, S., Harding, N., Helin, J. & Pullen, A. (2019). Writing differently. Management Learning, 50(1), 3–10. doi: 10.1177/1350507618811027

Gioia, D., Corley, K., Eisenhardt, K., Feldman, M., et al. (2022). A curated debate: On using “templates” in qualitative research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 31(3), 231–252. doi: 10.1177/10564926221098955

Goodson, P. (2017). Becoming an academic writer. 50 exercises for paced, productive, and powerful writing (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Grey, C. & Sinclair, A. (2006). Writing differently. Organization, 13(3), 443–453. doi: 10.1177/1350508406063492

Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E. & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating Science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford University Press.

Healey, M. P., Leroy, H., Post, C. & Potočnik, K. (2023). Changing the scholarly conversation: What it means, why it matters, and how to approach it in micro research. Journal of Management Studies, 60(6), 1633–1656. doi: 10.1111/joms.12924

Heinich, N. (2014). Le paradigme de l’art contemporain. Structures d’une révolution artistique. Gallimard. doi: 10.14375/np.9782072971280

Huff, A. S. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication. SAGE.

Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543–562. doi: 10.1017/s0261444808005235

Köhler, T., Smith, A. & Bhakoo, V. (2022). Templates in qualitative research methods: Origins, limitations, and new directions. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 183–210. doi: 10.1177/10944281211060710

Kostera, M. (Ed.). (2022). How to write differently: A quest for meaningful academic writing. Edward Elgar. doi: 10.4337/9781800887732

Laguecir, A., Leca, B. & Berlinski, É. (2022). Souveraineté et évaluation académique: une histoire de virgule en sciences de gestion. Revue française de gestion, 305, 103–117. doi: 10.3166/rfg.305.103-118

Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (2013). Laboratory Life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Lester, G. V. (2020). Congratulations, you got a revise and resubmit! Now what? The impetus behind and lessons learned from a successful years-long PDW focused on the peer review revision process. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(4), 367–373. doi: 10.1177/1056492619882508

Liarte, S. (2020). We all became wombats! From pillar to post with the analogy between publishing scientific prose and producing cubic-shaped poop. M@n@gement, 23(2), 81–82. doi: 10.37725/mgmt.v23i2.4873

Moriceau, J. L. (2018). Écrire le qualitatif: écriture réflexive, écriture plurielle, écriture performance. Revue internationale de psychosociologie et de gestion des comportements organisationnels, 24(1), 45–67. doi: 10.3917/rips1.057.0045

Medawar, P. (1963). Is the scientific paper a fraud?, Listener, 70, 377–378.

Nair, L. B. (2021). From “whodunit” to “how”: Detective stories and auditability in qualitative business ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 172, 195–209. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04479-4

Patriotta, G. (2017). Crafting papers for publication: Novelty and convention in academic writing. Journal of Management Studies, 54(5), 747–759. doi: 10.1111/joms.12280

Pinker, S. (2014, October 01). Why academics stink at writing–and how to fix it. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(5), 2–9.

Pinker, S. (2015). The sense of style: The thinking person’s guide to writing in the 21st century. Penguin Books.

Pollock, T. G. (2021). How to use storytelling in your academic writing. Techniques for engaging readers and successfully navigating the writing and publishing process. Edward Elgar.

Pollock, T. G. (2022). Walking the talk: Applauding AMD’s efforts to make academic writing more engaging. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8(4), 491–493. doi: 10.5465/amd.2022.0201

Pollock, T. G. & Bono, J. E. (2013). Being Scheherazade: The importance of storytelling in academic writing. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 629–634. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.4003

Pontille, D. (2007). Matérialité des écrits scientifiques et travail de frontières: le cas du format IMRAD. In P. Hert & M. Paul-Cavallier (Eds.), Sciences et frontières. Délimitations du savoir, objets et passages (pp. 229–253). E.M.E.

Pratt, M. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.44632557

Pullen, A. & Rhodes, C. (2008). Dirty writing. Culture and Organization, 14(3), 241–259. doi: 10.1080/14759550802270684

Ragins, B. R. (2012). Editor’s comments: Reflections on the craft of clear writing. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 493–501. doi: 10.5465/amr.2012.0165

Rhodes, C. & Brown, A. D. (2005). Writing responsibly: Narrative fiction and organization studies. Organization, 12(4), 467–491. doi: 10.1177/1350508405052757

Rockmann, K. W. (2023). Editor’s anonymous: A safe place to think about journal provocations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 32(1), 98–101. doi: 10.1177/10564926221134444

Rouquet, A. (2017). Face à la tyrannie des étoiles: révoltons-nous ! Revue française de gestion, 267, 133–147. https://www.jle.com/10.3166/rfg.2017.00182

Sgourev, S. V. (2013). How Paris gave rise to Cubism (and Picasso): Ambiguity and fragmentation in radical innovation. Organization Science, 24(6), 1601–1617. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0819

Shepherd, D. A. & Wiklund, J. (2020). Simple rules, templates, and heuristics! An attempt to deconstruct the craft of writing an entrepreneurship paper. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(3), 371–390. doi: 10.1177/1042258719845888

Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160882

Silvia, P. J. (2015). Write it up: Practical strategies for writing and publishing journal articles. American Psychological Association.

Simsek, Z. & Li, S. (2022). Designing scholarly introductions as jobs to be done. Journal of Management, 48(4), 807–820. doi: 10.1177/0149206321997905

Strang, D. & Dokshin, F. (2019). Peer review and the production of scholarly knowledge: Automated textual analysis of manuscripts revised for publication in Administrative Science Quarterly. In T. B. Zilber, J. M. Amis & J. Mair (Eds.), The production of managerial knowledge and organizational theory: New approaches to writing, producing and consuming theory (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 59, pp. 103–121). Emerald.

Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press.

Sword, H. (2012). Stylish academic writing. Harvard University Press.

Tardy, C. M. (2016). Beyond convention: Genre innovation in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.

Thomson, P. & Kamler, B. (2012). Writing for peer reviewed journals: Strategies for getting published. Routledge.

Tourish, D. (2019). Management studies in crisis. Fraud, deception and meaningless research. Cambridge University Press.

Tourish, D. (2020). The triumph of nonsense in management studies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19(1), 99–109. doi: 10.5465/amle.2019.0255

Tourish, D. & Craig, R. (2020). Research misconduct in business and management studies: Causes, consequences, and possible remedies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(2), 174–187. doi: 10.1177/1056492618792621

Tsang, E. W. (2022). That’s interesting! A flawed article has influenced generations of management researchers. Journal of Management Inquiry, 31(2), 150–164. doi: 10.1177/10564926211048708

Van Maanen, J. (1995). Crossroads style as theory. Organization Science, 6(1), 133–143. doi: 10.1287/orsc.6.1.133

Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652. doi: 10.2307/2393339