In the first post in this series I discussed trimming words. The reasons I outlined were mainly aesthetic, detailing how to cut the length of a manuscript that is analytically sound, with strong substance. That type of trimming is still painful, but doesn’t really change the substance of your ideas or argument.
Adding length can be a different story. Generally, documents that are too short have an underlying problem that is substantive rather than aesthetic. In these cases, a more elaborate intervention is needed. Your word count is not your real problem, but rather an indication of something bigger. In most cases, your paper is underdeveloped.
How do you go about addressing the problems in your paper? The first step is identifying what those problems are. Here, I identify three issues that might be plaguing your manuscript.
You don’t elaborate when explaining your argument.
It is never enough to simply explain your argument and move on. Be sure that you are explaining your argument in detail. This means that you place your argument in a broader context, explain why your argument matters, and anticipate counterarguments.
Your literature review is insufficient.
I’ve talked about literature reviews on this blog before, because they seem to be a source of frustration for many authors. In this section of your manuscript, you shouldn’t merely summarize what you’ve read, but also analyze the texts. Explain how the texts relate to one another, and how they relate to the argument you are presenting. Also, be sure that you are reading and citing enough. While there is no magic number of citations that will make a literature review sufficient, you should make sure that in addition to having the seminal texts in your field, you also include the most recent literature and the most widely cited literature. This article from Writing for Research clearly details how to identify and collect the appropriate sources.
You aren’t using your evidence effectively.
Adding more data in the way of quotes, tables and charts, ethnographic field notes, and so forth isn’t just about adding words – it’s about building trust. Your reader is more likely to trust you, and believe you, when you show multiple examples of the phenomenon you are describing. Also, more data creates a clearer, more robust illustration. Just as a painter uses more than one color, you should draw on multiple pieces of data.
Remember that writing is a form of thinking, so it is understandable that your first drafts will be underdeveloped – that’s why they are drafts. As you progress in your writing, however, you should be mindful of the obstacles you might face in fully articulating your argument.
To be clear: longer manuscripts are not necessarily superior manuscripts. In some cases, both long and short manuscripts have the same underlying problem – you aren’t doing a good job of explaining your argument.
Adding length can be a different story. Generally, documents that are too short have an underlying problem that is substantive rather than aesthetic. In these cases, a more elaborate intervention is needed. Your word count is not your real problem, but rather an indication of something bigger. In most cases, your paper is underdeveloped.
How do you go about addressing the problems in your paper? The first step is identifying what those problems are. Here, I identify three issues that might be plaguing your manuscript.
You don’t elaborate when explaining your argument.
It is never enough to simply explain your argument and move on. Be sure that you are explaining your argument in detail. This means that you place your argument in a broader context, explain why your argument matters, and anticipate counterarguments.
Your literature review is insufficient.
I’ve talked about literature reviews on this blog before, because they seem to be a source of frustration for many authors. In this section of your manuscript, you shouldn’t merely summarize what you’ve read, but also analyze the texts. Explain how the texts relate to one another, and how they relate to the argument you are presenting. Also, be sure that you are reading and citing enough. While there is no magic number of citations that will make a literature review sufficient, you should make sure that in addition to having the seminal texts in your field, you also include the most recent literature and the most widely cited literature. This article from Writing for Research clearly details how to identify and collect the appropriate sources.
You aren’t using your evidence effectively.
Adding more data in the way of quotes, tables and charts, ethnographic field notes, and so forth isn’t just about adding words – it’s about building trust. Your reader is more likely to trust you, and believe you, when you show multiple examples of the phenomenon you are describing. Also, more data creates a clearer, more robust illustration. Just as a painter uses more than one color, you should draw on multiple pieces of data.
Remember that writing is a form of thinking, so it is understandable that your first drafts will be underdeveloped – that’s why they are drafts. As you progress in your writing, however, you should be mindful of the obstacles you might face in fully articulating your argument.
To be clear: longer manuscripts are not necessarily superior manuscripts. In some cases, both long and short manuscripts have the same underlying problem – you aren’t doing a good job of explaining your argument.
Want more tips on writing? Subscribe to the Up In Consulting newsletter – the sign up is in the left column!