For full text search please use the '?' prefix. e.g. ? Onboarding

How to Write and Use an Argument Plan

The purpose of this note is to describe a structured approach to developing a research or creative idea and preparing it for production.

What is an Argument Plan?

An argument plan (often called an outline) is a structured summary of a persuasive narrative. Different disciplines might deploy different structures in academic writing. This plan focuses on a standard way to report research in sciences and other evidence-driven fields.

It is compatible with the official advice in many journal and we find it productive in developing broad-ranging project ideas.

Key Instructions

Begin each piece of writing, paper, article, report, abstract or blog entry with an argument plan.

The argument plan is a logical narrative that aims to persuade the reader.

Use one short sentence per substantive point. Use short sentences. One-line sentence is enough. Do not use the passive voice (write: the bird ate a worm, not: the worm was eaten by a bird). Connect the sentences with logical links using words therefore and because.

Append (an example or an item of evidence) you intend to use in square brackets to each point. Ensure that each point has at least one example.

Append key references to substantive points as footnotes, ensure that each example or an item of evidence has at least one reference. Ensure that these references provide reputable evidence. For large-scale statements, seek recent and large studies or review articles that summarise the available research. Make sure you user peer-reviewed research.

It is important to add evidence and references early. This will help you to make the argument concrete and will guide your reading and thinking. Argument points without concrete examples tend to be trivial, commonplace or glib. This is especially common in the case of novice researchers who attempt to tackle an unfamiliar field of study.

Ensure that the substantive points never repeat each other.

The Structure of the Plan

Organize your argument into sections following the structure shown in the image above and detailed below. Ensure the correspondence between components as shown. The main principle here is the mirror symmetry between the top and bottom parts.

The sections will include:

Main achievement

The main achievement of the research described in this piece of writing. State this in one sentence so that the reader will know what you have accomplished from the start. (e.g., This research uses novel evidence to explain the use of oxygen.).

Significance

The significance of this research to specified stakeholders (often the first part of an Introduction): use evidence from research literature (key studies or review articles in peer-reviewed academic journals, books, conference papers that provide numbers and data. The point of this section is to show that existing literature confirms the importance of your research. Do not use videos, websites or designer statements) to demonstrate the importance of the issues (e.g., the aspects of environmental crisis) to a broad but defined range of stakeholders. Name this audience and state why the issues are important to them. Seek to illustrate each important point with an example and use the examples from your research and case-studies whenever possible. Use simple declarative sentences in this section: subject, verb, object (e.g.: This research can help humans to survive by teaching them about oxygen.).

Local significance

You might want to begin with the introduction into the concrete case if you use one. Indicate how the proposed research is significant in this situation.

Global significance

The second part of the Significance section can relate to larger scales or to global consequences of the research you discuss.

Gap

A gap in the existing knowledge (often within an Introduction) that this research successfully fills: use evidence from research literature to demonstrate that current practices or current knowledge do not match the needs as defined in the statement on significance. Examples might include the lack of knowledge on nonhuman behaviour, suitable structure types, human cultural reactions, unstudied implications for recycling/reuse, etc. Make the comparison between best available knowledge and the required knowledge clear. Use simple declarative sentences (e.g.: This research adds to the evidenced gap in knowledge on who makes oxygen.).

Opportunity

The opportunity for a novel contribution to knowledge (often within an Introduction): explain how an innovative combination of existing and emerging approaches gives you a novel option to fill the gap in knowledge as defined above (combine the knowledge of science with design experiments or social studies as appropriate: mapping, generative modelling, visualisation, diagramming, prototyping, material explorations can provide opportunities that are not available to other fields without contributions from design and its engineering techniques). Explain with evidence how this approach extends the best available methods. Use simple declarative sentences (e.g.: Humans know the plans emit gases. Humans can study these gases).

Question/Hypothesis

Research question (often within an Introduction): formulate a question the answer to which can partially fill the gap in knowledge as defined above. Use one special (or wh-/how) question. Do not ask general yes or no questions. (e.g.: How do gases enable life?)

Hypothesis (often within an Introduction): provide one possible and testable answer to the question above. Use one compound sentence: subject, verb, object + because + subject, verb, object (e.g.: Gases enable life because their smell pleases the gods). Reuse the words of the research question but provide an answer.

Methods

Your methods to test the hypothesis: specify materials, apparatuses, data and methods that will allow you to test the hypothesis as defined above. Include the description of the data you will collect, the ways you will collect data, special tools, machines, or software you will need to construct for this, etc. Seek to use numerical methods, measurement and numerical analysis; these are almost always possible. Use imperative sentences (or commands): verb, object (with the subject – this is always you – implied) with a subordinate clause using subordinating conjunctions such as ‘in order to’ or ‘to’ (e.g.: Collect the plant emissions to have something to smell. Make the gods smell the gases to see their reactions). Combine this with sentences that use ‘whether’ to offer alternatives (e.g.: Observe whether the gods say ‘yum’ or ‘yuck’).

For each method step, explain:

  • The focus of testing: which part of the hypothesis you address.
  • The actions of testing: what techniques and materials you use.
  • The outcomes of testing: what outcomes these techniques generate.
  • The benefit of testing: how these outcomes enable the next method step.

Findings

The finding (often called Results or Outcomes): present what you find by testing your hypothesis with your methods as defined above. Was the possible answer (hypothesis) correct? You should have at least one finding per each method. Ensure these findings are not trivial or predictable from before the study. Express your findings numerically, in tables, diagrams, etc. Add a numbered caption to each image or table you insert at the moment you add it to your text first. Refer to all images from the text. Explain every element in the images. Ensure you check and show that your findings are novel. Present your materials so that external experts could analyse and re-assess your findings. Use simple declarative sentences or sentences with conjunctions such as ‘when/while’ (e.g.: Gods say ‘yum’ when they smell plants).

Analysis

The analysis of findings (often called Discussion): use evidence to assess your findings in relationship to the gap and the opportunity as defined above. Emphasize their limitations, weaknesses, alternative interpretations of their meaning, promises and strong points. Use numerical comparisons that demonstrate concrete benefits of your approach that can add to the best existing research. Specify possible criticisms and pre-empt them. Use simple declarative sentences (e.g.: Gods do like gases. However, they might have little control over life and death).

Contribution

The contribution to knowledge (often called Conclusion): use evidence to specify how your research contributes to knowledge in relationship to the significance as defined above and what future work becomes possible because of your investigation. Use simple declarative sentences (e.g.: God’s love towards gases is new knowledge).

Put target word counts next to each section title (e.g., Significance (300)). Know what the total target word count is for the piece you are writing.

Order of writing

Often, the best order of writing the Argument Plan is as follows:

  1. Figures and tables
  2. Methods
  3. Findings
  4. Analysis of findings
  5. Conclusion
  6. Introduction

Clarification of the plan is an iterative process and you should focus on the formulation of the increasingly precise research question and the hypothesis.

Using the Plan

  • Keep you plan as a bullet-point list at the beginning of your draft. Make sure it is always up to date.

  • Adjust and clarify it as you develop your draft.

  • Make each substantive point in the argument plan into a paragraph. One idea per paragraph. The first sentence states the paragraph’s idea.

  • Incorporate concrete examples and evidence into the body of the paragraph.

  • Conclude each paragraph with a link to the next substantive point.

  • Group paragraphs into sections.

  • End each section with a mini-conclusion that states the purpose of the section in the argument and links to the next section.

Useful Reading

Kallestinova, Elena D. 2011. “How to Write Your First Research Paper.” The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 84 (3): 181–90.

Perneger, Thomas V., and Patricia M. Hudelson. 2004. “Writing a Research Article: Advice to Beginners.” International Journal for Quality in Health Care 16 (3): 191–92. https://doi.org/10/cnk3cb.

Turbek, Sheela P., Taylor M. Chock, Kyle Donahue, Caroline A. Havrilla, Angela M. Oliverio, Stephanie K. Polutchko, Lauren G. Shoemaker, and Lara Vimercati. 2016. “Scientific Writing Made Easy: A Step-by-Step Guide to Undergraduate Writing in the Biological Sciences.” The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 97 (4): 417–26. https://doi.org/10/ggbp7v.

Pinker, Steven. The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. New York: Penguin, 2015.

Other notes:

Backlinks