Outlines
The Backbone of Solid Research Write-ups
(Note: this post isn’t strictly about research, but rather about the writing process)
The following is an outline I wrote (and rewrote several times) to best prescribe (and later describe) the structure of this post:
What is an outline?
How best to describe an outline?
Somewhat like a table of contents
A multi-level list, where each section poses a different question to be answered
Sub-sections compose sequences (such as lists, logical arguments, or chronologies)
What is an outline meant to accomplish?
How do we make an outline?
Where to begin?
Use research questions
Just start writing
What are some signs of a good outline?
Linearity (prerequisites first)
Contains most important messages
Minimalist
Simple and straightforward
Good “flow”, or a compelling narrative
One of the most useful tools for research-oriented writing is the outline, a sort of table of contents that maps out the research product, meant to be used by the writer as a blueprint or “recipe” during the writing process.
When considering the purpose of the outline, we can point to three main points:
We can use it as a “compass” to keep us focused and help us separate the wheat from the chaff, as well as stick to the planned scope of the product and thus avoid feature-creep.
The act of preparing the outline in and of itself encourages us to contemplate how best to organize the content, and there is implicit value in putting our initial thoughts on paper and workshopping until we can express them with high specificity.
When working as part of a team, the outline should be discussed by everyone who is expected to later be involved in the writing and editing process. This discussion should promote a consensus on the product’s structure, as well as its goals, audience, subject matter and main messages. This is meant to ensure proper coordination of expectations between all participants.
An outline is made up of a multi-level list, into which the writer is tasked with “infusing” content. Each section contains a question that the writer must answer in the corresponding place within the product, or a headline that accurately prescribes (and eventually describes) the intended content. We can use sub-sections to compose sequences, such as the various components of a logical argument, a list of subjects to be expanded upon, or a chronological series of events.
Given the above-mentioned purpose of the outline, unlike an actual table of contents, we should prepare it at an early stage of the writing process, more or less once we have reached a point in our research at which we feel primed to begin writing (better sooner than later).
However, an outline can and should be iterated upon during the lifetime of the product, and we should expect to refine it as we discover new findings and reach new conclusions in our research. Furthermore, regardless of new findings or conclusions, sometimes our original outline may simply prove irrelevant as the product materializes - when the words cease to be just a theoretical idea in our heads and begin to take shape on paper, they may “behave” differently than we initially imagined, and in this case we should “play” with the outline (reorganize or substitute sections as needed) until we arrive at a flow that feels more coherent and less arbitrary. Generally speaking, our final outline may look drastically different than our initial one.
A good starting point for an outline is to take our research questions and lay them out as a list of sections, then shift them around - the order of sections should be determined by which question should or must be answered before others (prerequisites go first). Then, we can convert some of our questions to sub-sections where appropriate - for example, if we can answer a more specific question as a means to answer a broader one, then the first should be a sub-section of the second.
To determine if our outline is up to standard, we should check for the following characteristics (note that these are quite similar to the characteristics of a good research product, but should be adhered to in a stricter fashion):
Linearity (the reader should be able to understand each section of the product based on their understanding of the previous sections).
Contains the most important messages (as agreed upon during the planning process).
Minimalist (no “fluff”).
Simple and straightforward language (meant to eliminate ambiguity and thus ensure that our intent remains clear both to ourselves and to our team members during the entire writing process).
Good “flow”, or a compelling narrative (this is more difficult to assess objectively, but trust your instincts).