As for any IFERA Conference, the day before the conference, PhD Students gather in the Doctoral Consortium. This year, students were engaged in a very interactive session on “Tips, tricks, and training for academic writing” by Peter Jaskievicz. We know writing is one of the most arduous (yet rewarding!) parts of the academic journey, and it might be very challenging, especially at the beginning of a PhD. Therefore, this session was designed to help participants spot potential room for improvement when writing and give them the tools to implement it. In particular, suggestions were mainly focused on how to write a good introduction, as Peter asked students to share the introduction of one of the papers they were working on. However, Peter also delivered some general advice.
A different three-circle model than the one you are thinking about
Family business scholars are familiar with the three-circle model. Well, Peter described one of his own! The three-circle model, which represents the family business system as the interconnection of three circles, is drawn at the intersection of family, business, and ownership systems. To open the session, Peter showed students a three-circle model representing what a PhD student should master during the PhD and before starting to write a paper. In his model, the first circle represents the topic or the phenomenon on which the Doctoral journey focuses. The second circle represents the theory through which the phenomenon can be understood and scrutinized. The third circle contains the method used in the research. The strength of each PhD student at the end of the journey should lie at the intersection of these three circles, and this knowledge is essential for writing a good paper. Peter also added that later in their career, it could happen to collaborate on projects in which not all three circles are mastered. Still, he suggested being knowledgeable in at least two of the three circles.
A three-circle model representing a PhD student’s strength
Academic Writing: Pro Tips and Common Mistakes
To provide participants with practical tips, Peter used the introduction of one student to stimulate and guide the discussion. Several suggestions sparked the audience's interest; some could be more relevant for PhD students and young scholars, yet others might also be useful for more experienced writers.
The structure of a good introduction. Peter highlighted the questions that a good introduction should answer. What is the topic or the phenomenon under investigation, and why do we care? What do we know about the topic? What do we not know, and why does it matter? How are you addressing the gap? What are you adding?
Put the topic in the first sentence. As the first sentence tremendously influences every reader, Peter encouraged participants to be clear about the focus of a paper from the start and possibly to hook the reader from the first sentence.
Use data to show the relevance of the phenomenon. Frequently, the easier and more impactful way to convey the phenomenon's importance is to provide some numbers about it.
Define key terms. Peter stressed the importance of defining key terms as soon as possible in the paper, as even the same term could be differently interpreted by different readers. This not only helps the reader but may also avoid confusion with the reviewers during the review process and ensures you are having the same conversation.
Acknowledge and build on prior work. Although Peter recognized this is a more common mistake among junior scholars, it is always better to remember it. Don’t forget you are joining a conversation, and it is essential to highlight the good things that already emerged in the discussion. Be positive in your tone and see anything others have not done as an opportunity to build upon it, not as a reason to reject prior work.
"Don't tell me what you did. But tell me what it means". This is how Peter suggests writing effective contributions – one of the most complex parts of writing an introduction. The key is to be able to highlight not only what is different from what others have done before but also explain how it changes or extends prior beliefs, ultimately making it clear why we should care about this new knowledge. Regarding contributions, Peter also suggested focusing only on the paper's main contributions in the introduction, usually one or two. Leave the rest for the discussion; otherwise, you risk distracting the reader from your core message.
Keep it short. We all love to share all our knowledge when we write, which may be especially true for PhD students. While this might be liberating for us, the reader might not be interested in taking it all. Peter suggested letting the thoughts flow at the beginning of writing but then cutting it down when we refine the draft. A well-written introduction should be about 2-pages long.
Keep it focused. Do you remember the questions a good introduction should answer? Peter gave a tip on how to keep the introduction short and focused. Try to answer each of them in one sentence and then build your paragraph around this one sentence. This will help you stick to the key message you want to convey in that paragraph.
Keep a neutral tone. Peter provided a very useful piece of advice after reading "a very strong effect" in one of the students' introductions, suggesting that "strong effect" is as clear and better. Although we are all passionate about our research, we should keep a neutral approach and provide a balanced picture in our writing by avoiding subjective judgments in our language.
Moving forward to the next IFERA Doctoral Consortium
According to the participants' feedback, the session was a great success. They appreciated this hands-on learning approach and the insights they got, especially because Peter showed them writing tips that often remain undetected when simply reading a published paper.
We thank Peter Jaskievicz for his time, effort, and continuous support to the IFERA Community. We thank our participants for sharing their work and engaging with Peter in this interactive session.
When collecting feedback and suggestions from our participants for next year's Doctoral Consortium, we were asked for more sessions on academic writing. Well... stay tuned!
