3 ms·

In business writing, the Pyramid principle (a method formalized at McKinsey) is often used. It's the exact inverse of academic writing where you start with foun

by wenc 6y ago

In business writing, the Pyramid principle (a method formalized at McKinsey) is often used. It's the exact inverse of academic writing where you start with foundations and build up arguments. https://medium.com/lessons-from-mckinsey/the-pyramid-principle-f0885dd3c5c7 https://medium.com/lessons-from-mckinsey/the-pyramid-princip... Quote: 1. Start with the answer first. 2. Group and summarize your supporting arguments. 3. Logically order your supporting ideas. The author also proposes combining this with the Rule of 3 -- not more than 3 items (arguments, ideas, bullets) in a group. I've used these techniques in real life and can vouch for their effectiveness.

hansvm 6y ago
Is that really the case with academic writing? Viewing a paper as a whole I tend to think that the abstract and intro more or less map to (1) and (2) from your quotation. Abstract: Briefly describe why the audience cares, what you did, and what the results were so that they know whether they should read more or move on to something else. Intro: Same as abstract but in more depth and with an emphasis on helping the reader decide if the meat of the paper is worthwhile for them. Nearly every other section: Specifics vary by field, but there will generally be an argument from foundations as you describe, and elements which don't fit naturally in the flow of that argument are given their own headers (certain experimental details, foundational algorithmic appendices, ...)
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  I almost wrote a similar comment, but academic paper abstracts can be highly variable. They don't always include the conclusion, or without sufficient detail to act on it without reading the actual conclusion section. This contrasts with the style GP talks about (also used in the US military, referred to as "Bottom Line Up Front" or "BLUF"). The first thing is the conclusion/actionable part with enough detail to start acting without needing to read the rest, and often zero justification (more a statement of fact or a directive: we will do X starting on Monday). Most of the rest contains things like analysis of alternatives or rationales, useful for some of the people to use but not essential for most to read. Some academic papers (taken as a whole) are similar to this, but it's not universal.
  - wenc 6y ago
    Yes. Thanks for the note on BLUF: I didn't know it was a thing. [1] Even if a piece of writing isn't BLUF, we can read it as if it were BLUF. In grad school we were taught that the most efficient way to skim journal papers was to read in this order: (1) abstract; (2) conclusion; (3) if still promising, skim parts in the middle. For my qualifiers I had to pound in excess of 100 somewhat dense papers in 3 weeks on a subject outside of my specialty. I would never have made it if I had read each paper in its printed order. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication)
- wenc 6y ago
  The structure of a STEM journal paper is very roughly as follows: () = optional - Abstract - intro - (lit review) - methods - results - (discussion) - conclusion - references - (appendices) I would say this ordering doesn't quite map to the pyramid principle and nor should it. Academic writing prioritizes explanation whereas business writing prioritizes decision-making. They serve different purposes. If we were to hypothetically rewrite an academic paper using the pyramid principle, it might look like this: - Combined abstract + conclusion (1-3 points) - Results (1-3 points) - Discussion (1-3 points) - Everything else goes into the appendix.

by wenc 6y ago

hansvm 6y ago

Is that really the case with academic writing? Viewing a paper as a whole I tend to think that the abstract and intro more or less map to (1) and (2) from your quotation. Abstract: Briefly describe why the audience cares, what you did, and what the results were so that they know whether they should read more or move on to something else. Intro: Same as abstract but in more depth and with an emphasis on helping the reader decide if the meat of the paper is worthwhile for them. Nearly every other section: Specifics vary by field, but there will generally be an argument from foundations as you describe, and elements which don't fit naturally in the flow of that argument are given their own headers (certain experimental details, foundational algorithmic appendices, ...)

Jtsummers 6y ago
I almost wrote a similar comment, but academic paper abstracts can be highly variable. They don't always include the conclusion, or without sufficient detail to act on it without reading the actual conclusion section. This contrasts with the style GP talks about (also used in the US military, referred to as "Bottom Line Up Front" or "BLUF"). The first thing is the conclusion/actionable part with enough detail to start acting without needing to read the rest, and often zero justification (more a statement of fact or a directive: we will do X starting on Monday). Most of the rest contains things like analysis of alternatives or rationales, useful for some of the people to use but not essential for most to read. Some academic papers (taken as a whole) are similar to this, but it's not universal.
- wenc 6y ago
  Yes. Thanks for the note on BLUF: I didn't know it was a thing. [1] Even if a piece of writing isn't BLUF, we can read it as if it were BLUF. In grad school we were taught that the most efficient way to skim journal papers was to read in this order: (1) abstract; (2) conclusion; (3) if still promising, skim parts in the middle. For my qualifiers I had to pound in excess of 100 somewhat dense papers in 3 weeks on a subject outside of my specialty. I would never have made it if I had read each paper in its printed order. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication)
wenc 6y ago
The structure of a STEM journal paper is very roughly as follows: () = optional - Abstract - intro - (lit review) - methods - results - (discussion) - conclusion - references - (appendices) I would say this ordering doesn't quite map to the pyramid principle and nor should it. Academic writing prioritizes explanation whereas business writing prioritizes decision-making. They serve different purposes. If we were to hypothetically rewrite an academic paper using the pyramid principle, it might look like this: - Combined abstract + conclusion (1-3 points) - Results (1-3 points) - Discussion (1-3 points) - Everything else goes into the appendix.