# Aphorisms on Structure for Theoretical Papers in the Social Sciences ## expand\_more The system of organization for theoretical papers in the social sciences that is outlined below includes four major sections: an *introduction* that identifies the topic of your paper and offers an argument about it, a *body* section that offers evidence and analysis to support your argument, a *discussion* section that considers the importance and implications of your argument, and a *conclusion* that summarizes the ideas presented in the paper. Note that, because empirical and theoretical papers are significantly different in purpose and execution, they are also different in organization. That is, the organization that appears in empirical papers – *Introduction*, *Method*, *Results*, *Discussion* – does not apply to theoretical papers because empirical papers are about the presentation of new information, whereas theoretical papers are (usually) about the reinterpretation of already known information. For this reason, theoretical social science papers are somewhat similar to the kind of writing done in the humanities, but instead of, say, a literary text, the writer is interpreting a social event, trend, structure, or institution. There is no industry-standard organization for theoretical papers in the way that there is for empirical papers, but the sequence of *Introduction*, *Body*, *Discussion, Conclusion* covers most of the major conventions. The organization outlined below can work for both short (e.g. five-page) and long (e.g. thirty-page) papers. In a short paper, you may have to move very quickly through the kinds of information I’ve outlined here, and you may not be able to include in your paper all of the points included in this outline. No one will (I hope) ever hold up your paper next to this document and grade your organization against mine. Ultimately, you know your paper best, and you know how best to organize the material you need to present. At the same time, there are certain conventions that have emerged for theoretical papers in the social sciences that you would be wise to follow, and it is to those conventions that we now turn. *Title*: Don’t try to be cute or funny in titles. Don’t ask questions in titles. Instead, your titles should identify your *text* (the idea, topic, situation, event, phenomenon, etc. under consideration), any key pieces of *textual evidence* (particular documents, aspects, cases, examples, data, or the like that you emphasize), and your *argument* (your central claim about your text). *Abstract*: In about 150 words, give an overview of your paper, focusing on your *text* (what you’re interpreting), your *occasion* (why it needs interpretation), and your *argument* (the interpretation itself). Your abstract is not a part of your actual paper, so it is fine to copy language from the paper into the abstract. *Introduction*: In advanced academic writing, it is not enough simply to have a good argument. In academic papers, that argument must be framed as it relates to the published scholarship on an issue, and this framing ought to occur in your introduction. At the very least, your introduction must articulate what you’re interpreting (your *text*), why it needs interpretation (your *occasion*), how you’re going to be interpreting it (your *method*), and what your interpretation is (your *thesis*). In the outline I’m offering here, there are three main components to an introduction: an *opening*, a *literature review*, and an *argument*. *Opening*: Don’t start with any version of the statement, “Humankind has always ... ,” or, “Since ancient times … ”. Don’t begin with some random quote from a Socrates or a Machiavelli. And don’t start with a definition from *Webster’s Dictionary*. Instead, your *opening* should get straight into the problem at hand, either by identifying in your first sentence exactly what your *text* is or by leading into this statement with a quick analysis, what I call an *exemplar*. As such, there are potentially three elements to the opening of a theoretical paper in the social sciences: an *exemplar*, the statement of your *text*, and your problem statement (what I call *occasion1*). (Alternately, sometimes it is best – especially in shorter papers – to have your *opening* simply consist of quick statements of your *text* and *thesis*, and then to work through the framing material required for an introduction.) *Exemplar*: Instead of some banal generalization, some random quote, or some dictionary definition, consider opening your papers with an *exemplar*, which is a quick and clean analysis of a small yet representative bit of evidence (maybe a shocking statistic or an evocative example) that, if your analysis is extrapolated, can quickly communicate the core of the argument you’re advancing in your paper. Not every introduction needs an exemplar, and sometimes it just doesn’t work, but it is often a good idea to provide your reader with some concrete information and analysis before hitting him or her with your argument. *Text*: After your *exemplar*, or just at the very start of your paper, clearly state your *text*, which is the thing you’re interpreting in your paper, whether that “thing” is a book, idea, situation, action, event, trend, or some other social phenomenon. Your *text* is a promise to your reader that must be fulfilled by your *argument*. Your text must be what your argument is about, and your argument must be an interpretation of your text. *Occasion1*: Every paper must state its *occasion*, the reason it needs to exist, or the reason the text in question needs to be interpreted. It is important to justify the reason your text needs interpretation early in your paper, and you will probably include multiple statements of your occasion peppered throughout your paper. Your first statement of your occasion, what I call *occasion1*, should be a problem statement about the text you’ve just identified. What is the problem with that text, and why is that problem a problem? *Literature Review*: After identifying your *text* and *occasion*, review the scholarship devoted to that text (that is, the previous attempts to interpret the text, especially as the scholarship pertains to the specific problem in the text that you’ve identified in your *occasion1*). *Critical Community*: Your *critical community* is the scholars who have interpreted the same *text* that you’re interpreting. Through citation, quotation, paraphrase, and summary, review and analyze these previous interpretations, narrating the various camps or perspectives that exist in this academic conversation, identifying any classic or landmark scholars or works, and explaining which interpretations are the least satisfactory and which are the most illuminating. *Occasion2*: If your *occasion1* is a statement about a problem that exists in your *text*, your *occasion2* is a statement about a problem that exists in the critical response to that text (that is, in the *critical community* you’ve just mapped out). Justify the need for your paper to exist for a second time by identifying any gaps in the scholarship, any unresolved issues regarding your text, and/or any issues that are wrongfully thought to be resolved. *Argument*: After you’ve introduced your *text* in your *opening* and discussed the *critical community* surrounding that text in your *literature review*, clearly and concisely state your *argument* about that text (that is, your central claim and original contribution to the scholarship). Remember that your *argument* must be responsive to your *text*; you must actually be interpreting what you said you were going to interpret. Your *argument* should also be responsive to your statements of *occasion*; how does your argument resolve or explain the problems that you’ve identified in your *text* and your *critical community*? Usually your argument should come at the end of your introduction, though it is important to remember that, given the rather sophisticated introduction outlined here, the end of your introduction will not necessarily be the end of your first paragraph. In theoretical papers, there are two important elements to your argument: your *method* and your *thesis*. *Method*: If your *text* is the thing you’re interpreting, your *method* is the way in which you’re going about your interpretation. Your statement of your method should discuss your *theoretical community* and define any *terms* that may play a major role in your argument. *Theoretical Community*: If your *critical community* is the scholars who have already addressed the issue you’re addressing, your *theoretical community* is the theorists and philosophers who have provided you with abstract ideas and conceptual schemes that have aided you in your interpretation of your text (or, alternately, ideas and schemes that are contributing to your articulation of your argument, even if they did not play a major role in your actual interpretive process). *Terms*: Your statement of your method is also the place to identify and define any key *terms* that may play a role in your argument. Don't assume your reader knows your analytical vocabulary, or shares your understanding of key concepts. The idea behind defining terms is that you can explain in detail what you mean by a given term, then you can use that term whenever you need to (especially in your *thesis*) without having to explain yourself every time. Often these terms will be the abstract ideas and conceptual schemes that you’ve drawn out from your *theoretical community*, and you can use the writings of those theorists and philosophers to help you define your terms. *Thesis*: Having introduced your *text* in your *opening*, discussed your *critical community* in your *literature review*, and paused to explain your *method* of interpretation, now clearly and concisely state your *thesis*, or your central claim about your text. You may want to consider including two parts to your thesis statement: a single sentence that offers a *truth-claim*, and a short paragraph that offers a *logic-claim*. *Truth-Claim*: In your thesis statement, your *truth-claim* is a clear and concise statement of what you want your reader to understand about your text. *Logic-Claim*: Your *logic-claim* is a brief summary of the reasoning that underwrites your truth-claim, reasoning that will be addressed in deeper detail and supported with evidence in the body of your paper. *Body*: Having introduced your *text*, outlined your *occasion*, reflected on your *method*, and stated your *thesis*, you’re ready to move into the *body* of your paper, which gives evidence and analysis to support your *argument*. Whether you are writing a section or paragraph, and whether it is one of situation, demonstration, or explanation, the basic organization is the same. You make an assertion; you provide the evidence that supports your assertion; you offer some analysis that describes how that evidence supports your assertion; and you offer some analysis that describes how that assertion supports your main argument. As such, you can think of every body section/paragraph as a miniature essay, and every paper as a gigantic section/paragraph: they follow the same structure, only on a different scale. In a paper you make an argument in your introduction, then you give the evidence for that argument in your body paragraphs, and you explain why your argument matters in your discussion. In a section/paragraph you make an assertion, then you give the evidence for that assertion, and you analyze how that evidence supports your assertion and how that assertion supports your argument. *Assertion*: Most body sections/paragraphs should begin with an *assertion*, or a claim about a particular piece or set of evidence. Don’t write topic sentences; write assertions. Topic sentences tell your reader the topic to be addressed in a section/paragraph; assertions make interpretive claims about the material being addressed. It might be helpful to think of an assertion as the thesis statement of a section/paragraph. Like a thesis statement, an assertion is a claim that hasn’t yet been supported with evidence, and just as your thesis is followed by body paragraphs that support it, your assertions should always be followed by evidence. *Evidence*: In the system for writing papers that I’m presenting here, there are three kinds of evidence: *textual evidence*, *historical evidence*, and *citational evidence*. *Textual Evidence*: As the most important kind of evidence, *textual evidence* consists of the specific aspects of your *text* (e.g. data, examples, cases, etc.) that you focus on for detailed analysis. In terms of the kinds of sections/paragraphs outlined above, textual evidence is what you bring in for passages of demonstration. *Historical Evidence*: *Historical evidence* is information that, strictly speaking, does not fall within the narrowly defined realm of your text, but information that is nonetheless relevant to your interpretation of that text (e.g. cultural histories, biographies, laws, legislations, circumstances, analogies, precedents, etc.). In terms of the above kinds of sections/paragraphs, historical evidence is what you bring in for moments of situation. *Citational Evidence*: *Citational evidence* is the scholarship that you draw upon to help you present and interpret your other kinds of evidence (e.g. a critic who has addressed one of your examples or a historian who has surveyed a cultural history that is relevant to your topic). In terms of the kinds of sections/paragraphs, citational evidence can be brought in at any point, but it is especially helpful for moments of explanation. *Analysis*: Don’t assume your reader will connect the dots for you if you provide the evidence that supports your argument. You’re the analyst here, so do your job. After each piece of evidence you present – or, sometimes, after presenting chunks of evidence – you must analyze the meaning of that evidence. *Analysis1*: After presenting *evidence* – whether textual, historical, or citational – you should offer some *analysis* that describes how the evidence you’ve offered supports the *assertion* it is supposed to support. *Analysis2*: After you analyze how your *evidence* supports your *assertion*, you should offer some further *analysis* that connects that *assertion* back to the overall *argument* you’re making in the paper. *Counters and Responses*: Be sure to account for the *counter-arguments* to your claims, either by citing them as they exist in your *critical community*, or by imagining what those alternate opinions might be. You should include counters and responses at both the paragraph-level and the paper-level; that is, address the counter-claims to your *argument* as well as the counter-claims to your *assertions* and *analyses*. *Counters*: Don’t think about *counters* by asking, “What are the opinions I know to be wrong that I can easily knock down,” which is called a straw-man argument (i.e., one easily knocked down). Think about counters by asking, “How could someone who is just as intelligent as me, or more intelligent, come to a different conclusion when looking at the same evidence?” Sometimes it’s not a matter of being right or wrong; it’s just a matter of difference. *Responses*: In your *response* to a counter, you must explain not only why your position is a more satisfying position but also where the thinking of your interlocutors went off-course. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that you must bat down violently and absolutely any position that is different from your own, of thinking that it is a weakness to qualify your argument. It is actually a sign of intellectual strength to be aware of the limits of your claims, and to acknowledge honestly any loose ends that remain. Use your discussion of counters to qualify your argument. *Discussion*: Having stated your *argument* in your *introduction*, and offered *evidence* and *analysis* to support it in the *body* of your paper, you should use your *discussion* section to return to the *critical community* you mapped out in your *literature review* and address how your *argument* fits into that conversation. As such, your *discussion* is the place to deal with any major *counter-arguments* and to discuss the *utility* of your ideas. *Counters and Responses*: Consider beginning your discussion section by identifying any major *counters* to your central *thesis*, whether those counters are actual or hypothetical, and responding to them. *Utility*: One of the last things to do in a paper is to explain why any of this matters: this is the inevitable, “So what?” Your *utility* is the usefulness of your *argument*, its implications and importance, but be aware of certain traps when articulating your utility. Don’t try to save the world. Don’t try to make your reader a better person. Instead, provide specific thoughts on how the academic field in which you’re working might be required to change its ways in response to your argument; provide specific questions that still remain; provide specific directions for future research; and/or provide specific policy implications. *Conclusion*: Your *conclusion* should summarize your argument in a statement that, were you to detach it from the rest of your paper, could stand on its own as a snapshot of your main ideas. In other words, restate in one short and cohesive paragraph your *text*, *occasion*, *method*, *thesis*, *evidence*, and *utility* (consider spending just one sentence on each of these bits of academic information). Don’t introduce any new information or claims in your conclusion: it should be pure summary.