research-writing

Research Writing for Anthropology

Write research articles, thesis chapters, and dissertation chapters for anthropology that make a clear argument grounded in evidence, follow disciplinary conventions, and meet journal or committee expectations. Anthropological research writing is simultaneously an analytical act and a craft practice: the structure of the article is itself an argument about how evidence, theory, and interpretation relate.

The central challenge of anthropological writing is balancing descriptive richness with analytical clarity. Ethnographic articles must provide enough contextual detail for the reader to see the world the researcher encountered, while making explicit what that world reveals about broader patterns, processes, or problems. Too much description without analysis produces travelogue; too much theory without evidence produces abstraction. The best anthropological writing integrates both at the sentence level, not just the section level.

This skill handles the full range of research writing tasks: from outlining a complete article to drafting individual sections to revising existing drafts. It adapts to subfield conventions — cultural anthropology's vignette-led narratives differ from archaeology's hypothesis-driven reports — while maintaining shared standards of argumentative clarity and evidentiary rigor.

Cross-references: For responding to peer review and writing rebuttal letters, use the academic-review skill. For conference abstracts and presentations, use the conference-materials skill.

Quick Reference

Task	Reference
Section-by-section article guide, structural templates, word counts, thesis adaptations, checklists	Read references/article-architecture-guide.md
Subfield-specific conventions, journal requirements, comparative guidance	Read references/subfield-conventions-guide.md
Style, voice, ethnographic craft, participant quotes, literature integration, citations, ethics statements	Read references/writing-craft-guide.md

Workflow

Step 1: Identify What the User Needs

Determine the entry point:

• Writing a full article from scratch. The user has data and needs to produce a complete manuscript. Load the article-architecture-guide for structure and the subfield-conventions-guide for disciplinary norms. Work through sections sequentially or in the user's preferred order.
• Writing a specific section. The user needs help with one section (introduction, methods, findings, etc.). Load the article-architecture-guide for that section's guidance and the writing-craft-guide for style.
• Writing a thesis or dissertation chapter. Similar to an article but longer, with different audience (committee) and scope. Load the article-architecture-guide and use the thesis adaptation sections.
• Revising an existing draft. The user has a draft and needs to improve it. Identify which sections need work, load relevant references, and focus on specific weaknesses.
• Writing a literature review section. In anthropology, literature review is typically integrated into the introduction and discussion rather than standalone. Load the writing-craft-guide for literature integration guidance.
• Adapting for a specific journal. The user is targeting a particular journal and needs format and convention guidance. Load the subfield-conventions-guide for journal-specific requirements.

Step 2: Gather Context

Before generating any content, collect these inputs:

Required:

1. Research topic and argument. What is the paper about, and what does it argue? Push for specificity: "This paper argues that X reveals Y" rather than "This paper is about X."
2. Methods and evidence. What data does the user have? Ethnographic fieldwork, interviews, archival material, archaeological data, biological measurements? The type of evidence shapes the article structure.
3. Subfield. Cultural, linguistic, medical, biological, archaeological, or applied anthropology? Each has distinct conventions for structure, voice, evidence presentation, and theory use.

Important but can be inferred: 4. Target journal or venue. AAA flagship, regional, interdisciplinary, or specialty journal? Thesis/dissertation for a specific committee? This determines word limits, format, and audience expectations. 5. Article type. Empirical/ethnographic (most common), theoretical, methods-focused, or review article. Each has a different structural logic. 6. Document stage. Outline, first draft, revision, or final polish. Earlier stages need more structural guidance; later stages need more craft and precision. 7. Career stage. Graduate student, early career, or senior scholar. Affects the scope of claims and rhetorical positioning.

Helpful but not required:

• Specific theoretical framework or key interlocutors
• Word count target or page limit
• Whether visuals (maps, photos, figures, tables) will be included
• Prior feedback from advisors, reviewers, or writing groups
• Timeline and deadline pressures

Step 3: Load Appropriate References

• Always load references/article-architecture-guide.md for structural guidance. This is the primary reference for any writing task.
• Load references/subfield-conventions-guide.md when the user is working in a specific subfield or targeting a specific journal, or when the writing task involves adapting between subfield conventions.
• Load references/writing-craft-guide.md when the user needs help with style, voice, ethnographic description, literature integration, citation formatting, or ethics statements.
• Load all three for full article drafts, thesis chapters, or when the user is uncertain about conventions.

Step 4: Generate Content

Follow the article architecture from the guide reference. The standard anthropological research article contains these sections (adapt order and emphasis to subfield):

1. Title and keywords — concise, keyword-rich, signaling the argument
2. Abstract — 100-150 words summarizing purpose, methods, findings, contribution; no citations
3. Introduction — hook (often ethnographic vignette), research question, literature positioning, thesis statement, article roadmap
4. Literature and theory — integrated into introduction and/or standalone section; positions the study within ongoing scholarly conversations
5. Methods — field site, duration, participants, data collection, analytical approach, reflexivity, ethics
6. Findings/results — thematic sections with evidence (quotes, fieldnotes, data); organized by analytical themes, not chronology
7. Discussion — interpretation, connection to theory and literature, limitations, broader significance
8. Conclusion — core contribution restated, implications, future directions

For thesis/dissertation chapters: adapt section proportions (longer literature engagement, more methodological detail, committee-oriented framing), and consider how the chapter fits the larger document arc.

Step 5: Generate Output

Produce one or more deliverables depending on user needs:

• Full article outline. Section-by-section plan with argument thread, evidence allocation, and word count targets per section.
• Complete article draft. Full manuscript following disciplinary conventions, calibrated to journal and subfield.
• Individual section draft. Any single section (abstract, introduction, methods, findings, discussion, conclusion) as a standalone deliverable.
• Thesis/dissertation chapter. Adapted for committee audience, longer format, and integration with the larger document.
• Section revision. Targeted improvements to an existing section, with specific suggestions for strengthening argument, evidence, or prose.
• Literature review integration. Guidance on weaving literature into the article rather than producing a standalone review.
• Structural outline. Article architecture showing how argument, evidence, and theory connect across sections.

Step 6: Quality Check

Before presenting output, verify:

• The article has a clear, stated argument — not just a topic
• Each section serves its specific function (introduction hooks and frames; methods establishes credibility; findings present evidence; discussion interprets)
• Evidence and analysis are integrated, not separated into description- then-interpretation blocks
• Participant voice is used with context (who said it, when, why it matters) not as decoration
• Literature is engaged analytically (positioned, synthesized, challenged) not just cited
• The introduction and conclusion align — the contribution promised in the introduction is delivered in the conclusion
• Subfield conventions are followed (vignette opening for cultural; hypothesis for bioanthro; material description for archaeology)
• Word count is appropriate for the target venue
• Ethics statement is included (IRB, consent, confidentiality)
• Citations follow author-date format consistently
• No section is doing another section's work (findings don't contain discussion; discussion doesn't introduce new evidence)
• Transitions between sections are explicit — the reader always knows where the argument is going

Parameters

• Output type: Full article draft, individual section, thesis chapter, article outline, section revision, literature integration. Determines scope and depth of output.
• Subfield: Cultural, linguistic, medical, biological, archaeological, applied. Each subfield has distinct conventions for structure, voice, evidence, and theory. See subfield-conventions-guide for details.
• Journal target: AAA flagship (American Ethnologist, American Anthropologist, Cultural Anthropology), regional journal, interdisciplinary outlet, specialty journal (Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Journal of Archaeological Science). Determines word limits, format, and audience expectations.
• Document stage: Outline, first draft, revision, final polish. Earlier stages need structural guidance; later stages need craft refinement.
• Article type: Empirical/ethnographic (field data + analysis), theoretical (argument-driven with illustrative evidence), methods-focused (methodological contribution), review article (synthetic overview of a field). Each has different structural logic and section proportions.

Guardrails

• Every article must have an argument, not just a topic. "This paper examines X" is insufficient. Push for "This paper argues that X reveals Y" or "This paper demonstrates that X challenges Y." If the user cannot articulate an argument, help them develop one before drafting.
• Do not separate description from analysis. Ethnographic writing integrates evidence and interpretation at the paragraph level. A findings section that presents quotes without analysis, or a discussion that theorizes without evidence, is a structural failure.
• Adapt to subfield conventions. A cultural anthropology article that reads like an archaeology lab report, or vice versa, will be rejected. Load the subfield-conventions-guide and follow disciplinary norms for structure, voice, evidence presentation, and theory engagement.
• Literature review is analytical, not encyclopedic. The goal is to position your study within ongoing conversations, not to demonstrate exhaustive reading. Every cited work should serve the argument: establishing a gap, providing a framework, or identifying a debate your evidence addresses.
• Participant voice requires context. Quotes from interviews or fieldnotes must be introduced (who, when, where) and followed by analysis (what this reveals). A quote dropped into text without framing is evidence without argument.
• Do not fabricate data, quotes, or citations. Use clear placeholders (e.g., "[Participant, interview, date]", "[Author Year]") when the user has not provided specific content.
• Ethics statements are required, not optional. Every article should include IRB/ethics approval, consent process, and confidentiality measures. If the user has not mentioned these, prompt for them.
• Thesis chapters are not just longer articles. They require more extensive literature engagement, methodological justification, and integration with the larger dissertation argument. Adapt accordingly.
• Route peer review tasks to the correct skill. If the user asks about responding to reviewer feedback or writing a rebuttal letter, direct them to the academic-review skill.

Common Failure Modes

Failure mode	Prevention
Topic description without argument ("this paper examines...")	Require an explicit contribution statement before drafting; push for "argues that," "demonstrates," or "reveals"
Description-analysis separation (all quotes in findings, all theory in discussion)	Integrate evidence and interpretation within each section; every ethnographic passage should be followed by analytical commentary
Literature review as annotated bibliography (X said A, Y said B, Z said C)	Synthesize: group sources by argument or debate, not by author; show how your study enters the conversation
Introduction that buries the argument on page 5	State the thesis or research question within the first 1-2 pages; the vignette hooks but the argument grounds
Methods section that reads as autobiography	Focus on what the reader needs to evaluate the evidence: site, duration, methods, sample, analytical approach, reflexivity; not a personal narrative of fieldwork challenges
Findings organized chronologically instead of analytically	Organize by themes or analytical categories, not by "first I did X, then Y"; chronology serves description, themes serve argument
Conclusion that introduces new evidence or arguments	Conclusions restate and extend; new data or claims belong in findings or discussion
Ignoring subfield conventions	Load subfield-conventions-guide; a cultural anthro paper without ethnographic voice or an archaeology paper without material description will be rejected

Examples

Example 1: Full ethnographic article for American Ethnologist

Input: "I need to write a full article for American Ethnologist based on my fieldwork on water governance in coastal Tamil Nadu. I spent 14 months doing participant observation with fishing communities and state water bureaucrats. My argument is that fishers' water knowledge constitutes a form of hydro- political expertise that state planners systematically devalue."

Output approach:

• Load all three reference files
• Set subfield to cultural anthropology, journal to AAA flagship, article type to empirical/ethnographic
• Word target: 8,000-10,000 words (AE standard)
• Structure: opening vignette (a specific encounter between a fisher and a bureaucrat that crystallizes the tension), introduction with argument and literature positioning (political ecology, knowledge politics, South Asian water studies), brief methods paragraph (14 months, two sites, participant observation + interviews), 3 thematic findings sections (fisher knowledge practices, bureaucratic knowledge hierarchies, moments of encounter/ dismissal), discussion connecting to theory, conclusion with implications
• Voice: first-person ethnographic, reflexive, vignette-rich
• Draft section by section, beginning with findings (where the evidence is strongest) then framing introduction and discussion around the findings

Example 2: Methods section for a medical anthropology article

Input: "I'm revising my methods section for Medical Anthropology Quarterly. Reviewers said it's too vague. I did 10 months of fieldwork in a maternal health clinic in Nairobi, interviewed 45 women and 12 health workers, and observed daily clinic operations. I used grounded theory for analysis."

Output approach:

• Load article-architecture-guide (methods section) and writing-craft-guide (ethics statements)
• Set subfield to medical anthropology, journal to specialty
• Methods section should specify: field site and access (how entry was negotiated), timeframe (10 months, dates), participant recruitment and sampling strategy, data collection methods (participant observation hours/ frequency, interview format/duration/language, any recording), analytical approach (grounded theory — specify which variant, coding process, how themes emerged), reflexivity (researcher positionality relative to participants), ethics (IRB approval, consent process, confidentiality measures including pseudonyms)
• Address reviewer concern directly: replace vague language ("I conducted interviews") with specific detail ("I conducted 45 semi-structured interviews averaging 60 minutes with women attending antenatal and postnatal clinics, recruited through...")

Example 3: Thesis chapter outline for archaeology dissertation

Input: "I need to outline my third dissertation chapter — it's about the faunal analysis from my excavation at a Late Bronze Age site in Cyprus. I have animal bone data from 6 contexts and I'm arguing that feasting practices varied by social status based on bone assemblage composition."

Output approach:

• Load article-architecture-guide (thesis adaptation) and subfield-conventions-guide (archaeology)
• Set subfield to archaeology, document type to thesis chapter, article type to empirical
• Chapter structure (longer than article, ~12,000-15,000 words): introduction restating dissertation argument and this chapter's contribution, archaeological context (site, chronology, excavation history), methods (faunal analysis protocols, identification criteria, quantification methods, taphonomic considerations), results organized by context (6 assemblages with tables and figures for each: NISP, MNI, body part representation, species composition), comparative analysis across contexts (the analytical core: how assemblages differ by status-associated contexts), discussion connecting to feasting literature and Bronze Age social organization, chapter conclusion linking back to the dissertation's larger argument
• Voice: third-person, technical, data-rich with tables and figures
• Emphasize: every table and figure must be referenced in text; interpretation follows data presentation within each section