Arrangements
In what order should things be explained?
I’ve previously discussed the use of outlines to help organize (and re-organize) a given research product and ensure that its structure facilitates the intended message we’re trying to get across to our audience. I’ve also spoken about the importance that researchers should place on narrative in the presentation of their conclusions, and how to take advantage of typical storytelling structures to make research products resonate with decision-makers. However, it can be difficult to choose the right organizing principle for our content, which determines the sequence in which we present things to the reader.
Let us start with a short example of a well-formed presentation of research findings, courtesy of Eric Hutchins - the first paragraph of this executive summary is written in a style I shall refer to herein as logical foundation (which I shall promptly explain):
Generally speaking, I can think of three primary orders of presentation in research products, ranked from most to least intuitive, each appropriate for different audiences and achieving different modes of understanding:
Chronology of discovery
Chronology of occurrence
Logical foundation
Chronology of Discovery
This order is relatively easy to put into practice, as it’s highly aligned with the flow of our day-to-day experience - we simply lay out the evidence, facts, breakthroughs and conclusions in the same order we arrived at them in the course of our work. This style of writing highlights how we made our discoveries, the tools we utilized and the tricks we implemented (we might also choose to detail our various blunders, setbacks and dead-ends).
For example, we could begin our presentation with explaining the rationale behind our research project and how the idea came about, then move on to describe how we went about it (databases we queried, experiments we conducted, people we consulted, etc.), and then talk about our theorizing process and how it led us to our final conclusions.
We can see this style of writing in action in this next (hypothetical) example from Eric’s Twitter thread:
While this is probably the most straightforward method of presentation, it does not lend itself very well to explaining our hypotheses or recommendations to outside audiences, who might feel alienated by the technical aspects or justifiably perceive much of this to be “inside baseball”, preferring that we get to the point as quickly as possible. Moreover, we would be wasting their time and attention on many details that are most likely irrelevant to the decision-making process, no matter how essential we might personally consider them to be.
Making ourselves the heroes of our narrative also steals the spotlight away from our bottom line, and therefore risks lessening the impact of our work. This particular style does, however, lend us credibility among our professional peers, and is therefore appropriate for methodological settings such as training and meta discussions on how we do what we do, in order to share the lessons we learned along the way.
Chronology of Occurrence
This order is also quite simple to execute - we essentially tell a story about the subject of our research, starting at the beginning and finishing at the end (not to be confused with the order in which our research itself took place, as that would be chronology of discovery). This style of presentation mainly applies to describing processes or outlining a historical analysis of events.
To this end, we lay out all our gathered facts and conjecture on a timeline, choose which events need to be told in more detail than others, and decide which parts of the narrative are irrelevant to our hypotheses and can be put aside altogether. These last two bits are challenging. While it can be tempting to simply dump every piece of data on the reader unfiltered and hope for the best, it’s worthwhile to invest time and effort in editing to trim and focus the narrative.
Logical Foundation
This is undoubtedly the most difficult style of presentation to apply, and if used incorrectly we run the risk of confusing our audience. Moreover, this style’s implementation must vary greatly depending on subject matter, making it even more challenging to utilize. Essentially, what I mean by logical foundation is to organize facts and conclusions in the order that makes them easiest to understand, regardless of chronology. This might include “slicing” content thematically or topically (i.e., dividing it into themes or topics), and ordering the slices from simplest to most complex.
The basic mindset behind this method of arrangement entails recognizing that there could very well be little correlation between the order in which we discovered things, or the sequence in which they occurred in reality, and the best order in which to explain them to outside audiences.
For instance, a piece of evidence we happened to discover first might best be presented dead last in the telling, depending on how exactly it fits into our puzzle. Similarly, in some cases the reader must first understand someone’s motive for taking action before they can understand why and how they acted as they did, which requires us to explain effect prior to analyzing cause.
One of my favorite examples of the use of logical foundation is the way that Newton’s second law of motion is usually taught in modern classrooms: by presenting the formula F = m·a (“force equals mass times acceleration”). Compare this to how Newton originally formulated the second law: without the use of a formula, and in terms of momentum rather than velocity or acceleration.
However, since momentum is a less intuitive concept for those on the first steps of their academic journey through physics, and the second law is usually proven mathematically and then immediately utilized as such in various equations, the modern form is rightfully favored over the historical one, thereby eschewing Newton’s chronology of discovery.
Choosing the Right Order
The main question you should be asking yourself in the planning and editing phases of your research products is: what piece of information do I need to present before others, so that the rest can be better understood? For example, for this blogpost I chose to explain chronology of discovery first because this style seemed to be the easiest to grasp.
It usually makes sense to mix and match between each of the three styles throughout your presentation, but remember to maintain internal consistency and clearly differentiate sections using different styles (e.g., avoid suddenly shifting between them within the same paragraph).
Perhaps you could start with chronology of discovery (to explain why your research is important) and then shif to chronology of occurrence or logical foundation. This can be a good way to pull the reader in, by giving them an interesting hook to latch onto. It is also beneficial to give some background on your research effort, especially if the subject matter is somewhat esoteric, and if you assume that your readers will wonder how on earth you found yourself investigating it in the first place.
My advice is to play with different variations on sequencing to determine what has the best “flow”, and to use the peer review process to request feedback about the order in which things are presented. You should also take note of comments containing questions which are answered later in the text - these usually indicate that the reader expected to receive the answer sooner than you provided it, and unlike in prose (where such mysteries are often intentional), you should consider shifting the structure of your product to accommodate this.