This article is part of the How-to… series brought to by Emerald Group Publishing. The other parts of the series you find here.
The Body of the Paper
The body of the paper is where you recount the interesting facts of the research, after you have set the scene and before you sum up the latter’s implications.
John A. Sharp and Keith Howard, in The Management of a Student Research Project (Gower, 2nd ed., 1996, p. 195), propose the following logical order for a research report:
- Survey of prior research
- Research design
- Results of the research
- Summary and conclusions
A similar approach could be taken in a research article.
Emerald articles containing research usually follow a similar structure:
- Literature review
- Research methodology or approach
It is important to remember that an article is not the same as a dissertation: you should not cite all possible references on the topic but only those that are relevant to your research or approach. The literature review is not exhaustive; it is part of the setting of context. Bear in mind the following:
- Quote those papers from which your own research follows.
- Make it clear what the position was prior to your own paper, and how your paper changes it.
- Make sure that the papers you cite are relatively recent.
- Cite only your own articles in so far as they are directly relevant to your research/approach.
- Cite papers of potential referees, explaining the significance of the work to your own analysis.
- Once you have decided which articles are really important, create a “package” and have the articles to hand as you write.
A common approach is to use the literature to develop a series of hypotheses, which are in turn used to develop a new framework or as a determiner of the research objective.
“Children’s visual memory of packaging” (James U. McNeal and F. Ji Mindy, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3) is an example of an article which takes such an approach.
If you have done empirical research, you need to state your methodology clearly and under a separate heading. The methodology should:
- Indicate the main methods used
- Demonstrate that the methodology was robust, and appropriate to the objectives.
Focus on telling the main story, stating the main stages of your research, the methods used, the influences that determined your approach, why you chose particular samples, etc. Additional detail can be given in Appendices.
Efthymios Constantinides, in “Influencing the online consumer’s behaviour: the Web experience” (Internet Research, Vol. 14 No. 2), presents the results of a review of the issue of online customer behaviour from 48 academic papers. He describes the majority characteristics in terms of time of publication, journal, etc. rather than giving a detailed list.
“Some moderating effects on the service quality-customer retention link” (Chatura Ranaweera and Andy Neely, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 2), describes the stages in research, the methods (including prior studies and their impact on use of the methods), the sample and how it was selected, and a brief description of the instrument (greater detail is given in the Appendix). Again, the focus is on the main details in so far as they lend weight to the credibility of the research.
Clyde A. Warden et al., in “Service failures away from home: benefits in intercultural service encounters” (International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14 No. 4), describe the pretest, including the research that influenced the approach, and the actual survey, with essential details of the instrument, measure, and participants.
James U. McNeal and F.Ji Mindy, in “Children’s visual memory of packaging” (Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3), describe the two studies they did to test the hypotheses developed through their literature survey. The first was a content analysis of cereal packets; the method of determining the packages is described, as is the coding criteria for content analysis. The second was a study of children drawing cereal boxes; the rationale for use of this technique is given, and the sample, procedure and coding approach are all described.
In the case of a theoretical paper, where you are not actually reporting on research which you did, but perhaps putting together other people’s research and developing it into a hyphothesis or framework, you will still need some sort of section on methodology which details the criteria you used in selecting your material. Alternatively, you will need to show how researches in literature lead you to derive new conclusions.
As with the methodology, focus on the essentials, the main facts and those with wider significance, rather than giving great detail on every statistic in your results. Again, tell the main story: what are the really significant facts that emerge? Your section on results may well include one on discussion of the significance of the findings.
Efthymios Constantinides, in “Influencing the online consumer’s behaviour: the Web experience” (Internet Research, Vol. 14 No. 2), summarizes the main issues of web experience for the online consumer under the main headings which they found to be important in the literature, in such a way both researcher and practitioner can get a good idea of the main themes.
In “Some moderating effects on the service quality-customer retention link” (Chatura Ranaweera and Andy Neely, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 2), the authors describe their results, and the statistical tests they ran, in sufficient detail to give several pages of discussion on their results.
Clyde A. Warden et al., in “Service failures away from home: benefits in intercultural service encounters” (International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14 No. 4), start their discussion of results by stating what they included in the analysis – only those service failures that were equally represented in both cultural settings. The statistical tests (ANOVA, Chi-square) are discussed in relation to how they impact on the study’s overall objectives. The results are linked back to the hypotheses.
James U. McNeal and F. Ji Mindy, in “Children’s visual memory of packaging” (Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3), present the results of their study summarized according to relevance to visual memory. There is also an extensive discussion section.
The purpose of an appendix is to contain material which is important to give a full understanding of the topic of the paper, but which is too cumbersome to be given in the text; to do so would disrupt the reader’s train of thought. If material is relatively short, it can be integrated into the text. If in doubt, study the examples given, and also other examples from the journal you are hoping to publish in.
Writing the Conclusion
“It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material.”
(Francis Crick and James Watson concluding their seminal 1953 Nature paper on the double helix)
The conclusion should summarize the main state of play at point of writing and look forward to the future. Here are some do’s and don’ts:
- summarize and conclude, restating the main argument, and presenting key conclusions and recommendations
- state how your findings/new framework, etc. apply to the world of practice
- state what are the implications for further research
- say to what extent your original questions have been answered
- state the limitations of your research.
- start a new topic or introduce new material
- repeat the introduction
- make obvious statements
- contradict anything you said earlier.
As Emerald’s philosophy is based on the idea of research into practice, most journal editors and reviewers are particularly keen on a statement of implications for the practitioner. This statement, along with one describing the implications for further research, should be within the conclusion somewhere, either within a section heading “Conclusion” or “Discussion”, or in a separate section. Obviously in some cases it may not be possible to make such statements, but all research papers should state implications for research, and most papers will have implications for practice.
Dean Neu et al., in “The changing internal market for ethical discourses in the Canadian CA profession” (Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1), close a review of ethics in the accountancy field with a summary of the key findings of their analysis, a discussion of how the work complements existing work, the limitations of the research, and summary remarks on the contemporary dilemmas of accountants: “We would like to close by suggesting that we have entered a period in which accountants are being forced to live a twin life, one that encompasses the globally competitive, but equally integral, moral individual.”
Allen Edward Foster and Nigel Ford, in “Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study”, (Journal of Documentation, Vol. 59 No. 3), summarize findings in bullet points, then talk about the need for further triangulated studies.
“On the use of ‘borrowed’ scales in cross-national research” (Susan P. Douglas and Edwin J. Nijssen, International Marketing Review, Vol. 20 No. 6) also has a lengthy section on the implications for further research.
Clyde A. Warden et al., “Service failures away from home: benefits in intercultural service encounters” (International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14 No. 4), conclude their research on intercultural exchanges in the area of service by summarizing their findings, and their are sections on the management implications (apologizing for poor service) and business strategy implications (need for training).
In “Transformational leadership: an examination of cross-national differences and similarities” (Karen Boehnke et al., Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1), there is a section “Discussion” on their research findings which is full of obversations for practice; the “Conclusion” starts: “One executive’s remark can summarize the content of all the reports: ‘key learnings from this experience were that a clearly focused, committed organization with strong visible leadership can accomplish what might otherwise be seen to be the impossible!'”.