In contemporary research, academic writing often adheres to rigid, highly standardized structures: clearly delineated sections, strict formatting, and citation styles like APA. While such conventions ensure precision and comparability, they can also stifle creativity, disrupt the natural flow of thought, and leave even seasoned researchers feeling constrained or disengaged. This post examines the benefits and limitations of traditional scientific writing formats, highlighting how structure can both guide and restrict the communication of complex ideas.
We explore alternative approaches, including non-linear research writing, where the structure evolves organically from the research process itself. Drawing on qualitative research methods, Grounded Theory, and ethnographic studies, we discuss strategies for maintaining depth, clarity, and rigor while allowing for greater intellectual freedom.
📁 Table of Contents
- Introduction – APA Everywhere?
- What Structure Is Good For: The Merits of the Standard
- The Downside: When Structure Becomes a Mold
- Another Way of Writing – Without Chaos
- What Could a Middle Path Look Like?
- Questions to the Reader
- References (APA Style)
1. Introduction – APA Everywhere?
It’s becoming increasingly noticeable: across disciplines, academic texts are beginning to look and sound more and more alike. One key reason is the growing influence of the APA model — the format and structure style created by the American Psychological Association.
And no, it's no longer just about citations. What’s at stake here is the architecture of academic writing itself: Introduction, Theory, Methods, Results, Discussion. That’s how you do it. Isn’t it?
But do we really have to follow this structure all the time? And who does it actually serve?
2. What Structure Is Good For: The Merits of the Standard
Let’s be fair: the APA structure has clear benefits.
- It helps readers find their way quickly.
- It makes texts comparable, which is useful in journals or edited volumes.
- It forces authors to be transparent and organized in their thinking and methodology.
For students and early-career researchers, it’s often a useful starting point — a scaffold that brings order to uncertainty.
In many empirically oriented fields (e.g., psychology, medicine, social sciences), this clarity is not just helpful — it’s essential. Readers expect consistency. Editors expect uniformity. Structure creates orientation.
3. The Downside: When Structure Becomes a Mold
But here’s the catch: structure can tip into rigidity.
When the APA template becomes a mold instead of a framework, we lose something vital. We risk flattening research processes that are rarely linear. The messiness of discovery is ironed out. Every article begins to sound the same. And worse: the writing process is often cut off from the thinking process.
Authors then write what "belongs" in a section, rather than what needs to be said.
4. Another Way of Writing – Without Chaos
In a previous post on this blog, I noted how APA-style referencing can sometimes sever the red thread of an argument. This time, we’re looking at the structural level: how the very shape of the article can interrupt the thought process.
Some research traditions — like Grounded Theory, ethnography, or hermeneutic analysis — do not fit neatly into the APA frame. Their logic is often emergent, not predefined.
In such contexts, the structure often arises during writing. It's not a lack of organization. It’s a different kind of organization — one that unfolds from within the material, not imposed from the outside.
The writing becomes part of the thinking. The structure follows the process — not the other way around. And this isn’t about being poetic or artistic. It’s about making the research visible in a truthful way.
5. What Could a Middle Path Look Like?
So what if we could have both? Order and openness. Clarity and emergence.
We might imagine formats that keep a loose outer structure, but allow for interior flexibility. Maybe we start with a familiar rhythm — but include theoretical twists, reflexive moments, or non-linear argumentation when the content calls for it.
This isn’t about making things obscure or artistic for art’s sake. Rather, it's about making texts more truthful, more reflective of how research really happens.
And it’s not just for authors. Readers, too, can benefit from depth, from subtlety, from a structure that breathes.
Not every paper needs to be an experiment report. And not every reader wants to be treated like a machine.
6. Questions to the Reader
So perhaps it’s time to ask ourselves:
- Do we always need the same structure? Or might the form of our writing also be a form of knowledge?
- Could we design scientific texts that better reflect the process they describe?
- How might we balance clarity and depth, without falling into chaos?
- Do we trust our readers enough to let them follow us into more open formats?
- And finally: which articles have inspired you most in your own research journey? Were they strictly APA?
7. References
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. University of California Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing.
Authored by Rebekka Brandt