Writing Abstracts

Writing Abstracts English Writing Workshop Bioforsk, Ås Spring 2009 Agro LinguaKarl Kerner - Måltrostvn 1A - 3142 Vestskogen - karl@agroling.no

Warm-up Read and evaluate the abstract (handout): Well-written or poorly-written abstract? Why? How many parts can you find in the text? Indicate these parts.

Abstract – Identifying parts Are Green Lots Worth More Than Brown Lots? An Economic Incentive For Erosion Control On Residential Developments (M. Herzog et al., 2000) Abstract Construction sites are major contributors to nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. However, a lack of personnel to enforce erosion control regulations and limited voluntary compliance means that few developers apply effective erosion control.New approaches are needed to increase erosion control on construction sites if this source of NPS pollution is to be significantly reduced.This study tests whether an economic advantage exists for developers who use vegetative cover for erosion control, independent of advantages gained in addressing environmental or regulatory concerns. Improving residential lot appearance from muddy brown to green grass may increase the appeal of the lot to buyers.A market survey shows that homebuyers and realtors perceive vegetated lots to be worth more than unvegetated lots, and this increased value exceeds the cost of seeding.Thus, developers can now be encouraged to invest in vegetative cover because of the potentially high return on the investment. Agro Lingua - Karl Kerner

Abstract - Example • Introduction Construction sites are major contributors to nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. However, a lack of personnel to enforce erosion control regulations and limited voluntary compliance means that few developers apply effective erosion control.

Abstract - Example • Research problem New approaches are needed to increase erosion control on construction sites if this source of NPS pollution is to be significantly reduced.

Abstract - Example • Body This study tests whether an economic advantage exists for developers who use vegetative cover for erosion control, independent of advantages gained in addressing environmental or regulatory concerns. Improving residential lot appearance from muddy brown to green grass may increase the appeal of the lot to buyers.

Abstract - Example • Results A market survey shows that homebuyers and realtors perceive vegetated lots to be worth more than unvegetated lots, and this increased value exceeds the cost of seeding.

Abstract - Example • Conclusion Thus, developers can now be encouraged to invest in vegetative cover because of the potentially high return on the investment.

Abstract – Why & What? ”For every individual who reads or listens to your entire paper, 10-500 will read the abstract.” ”... a condensation and concentration of the essential qualities of the paper.” Ken Landes, ”Scrutiny of the Abstract” Geophysics 17(3) 1952

Abstracts – Purpose • Scientific abstracts: • introduce journal articles • inform readers about article’s content • help readers decide whether or not to read article • overview conference programs, abstract collections, and book chapters • How do YOU use them as a READER?

A well-written abstract: • Considers its readers • Is concise, but also complete • Adds no new information • Avoids vagueness – is specific • Is informative (What was done? Results?) • Uses past tense to report what was done • Is self-sufficient (can be read on its own) • Makes concrete recommendations

Abstract - Structure • Usually: 100-250 words – One paragraph • Context of the work (”Introduction”) • Why the work was done (”Research problem”) • What was done, and how? (”Body”) • What was found? (”Results”) • What do the results imply? (”Conclusion”)

Writing an abstract – How? How du YOU write abstracts? WHEN – before, during or after the paper is written? HOW – copy sentences & phrases from the paper? Write a totally new text?

Method I – Cut & paste • Read through your own paper, highlight or copy sentences which summarize the entire paper or individual sections or sub-points. • Write (or copy) a sentence that summarizes the main point. • Add sentences that summarize sections. • Look through your paper for details, (key results and conclusions). Paste these into your abstract, and edit for consistency and length--frequently in the original "cuts" you will still have more detail than is necessary in an abstract.

Method II – (Reverse) outline method • Read through each paragraph of your paper and write one phrase or sentence that answers the question "what does this paragraph do?" • Take your list of descriptions and look for connections: i.e., do these 3 or 5 paragraphs do something similar? What is it? • Reduce your outline to 4 or 5 accurate generalizations. • Fill in key details about your content.

Abstract – Reader awareness • Assume a knowledgeable reader. • = Like a good supervisor, one who understands the type of work, but is not active in that area and may not remember the more esoteric nomenclature. • This level of knowledge may not be the same as what you have assumed throughout your manuscript.

Another way of looking at abstracts - The CARS Model CARS = Creating A Research Space developed by Swales & Feak In general: Move from a general to specific focus in writing. But how? The CARS model provides specific steps for making this move.

Creating A Research Space • Move 1: Establishing a research territory • step 1: claiming centrality, and/or • step 2: placing your research within the field, and/or • step 3: reviewing items of previous research • Move 2: Establishing a niche • step 1a: Counter-claiming, or • step 1b: Indicating a gap in current research, or • step 1c: Question raising, or • step 1d: Continuing a tradition • Move 3: Occupying the niche • step 1a: Outlining purposes, or • step 1b: Announcing present research • step 2: Announcing principle findings • step 3: Indicating research article structure

Abstracts – Other important issues • Do not repeat/rephrasethetitle • Emphasis in abstract must correspondwithemphasis in paper • DO NOT refer to informationthat is not in thepaper • Avoid ”I” or ”we” – butuseactivevoice • Avoid trade names, acronyms, abbreviations, symbols • Avoidequations and mathematicalnotation • Omitcitations • Report, do not evaluate

Writing Abstracts – Online help! • OWL on abstracts: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/656/01/ • Colorado State University: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/documents/abstract/index.cfm (Lots of info!) • University of Nevada: http://writingcenter.unlv.edu/writing/abstract.html

Abstract Revision • Revise the following abstract: Palmquist, M. (1995). "Students in Networked Classrooms." Computers and Composition, 10(4), 25-57. "Students in networked classrooms" examines the question of whether students in a computer classroom are more likely to engage in peer review than students in traditional classrooms. To test this question, two classes in each environment were studied. An observer participated in all four classes for the duration of a semester, noting the nature of the interaction between students. Further, the observer interviewed both students and teachers about the nature of peer interaction and review. Based on this sample, the study finds that students in computer classrooms are more likely, by a ratio of 2:1, to engage in peer review. As a result of this finding, the paper concludes that, for this one variable, computer classrooms are a more effective environment in which to teach writing. (126 words)

Abstract Revision – In Detail Students in Networked Classrooms "Students in networked classrooms" examines the question ofwhether students in a computer classroom are more likely to engage in peer review than students in traditional classrooms. To test this question, two classes in each environment were studied. An observer participated in all four classes for the duration of a semester, noting the nature of the interaction between students. Further, the observer interviewed both students and teachers about the nature of peer interaction and review. Based on this sample, the study finds that students in computer classrooms are more likely, by a ratio of 2:1, to engage in peer review. As a result of this finding,the paper concludes that, for this one variable, computer classrooms are a more effective environment in which to teach writing.

Abstract – After Revision Students in Networked Classrooms This paper examines whether students in a computer classroom are more likely to engage in peer review than students in a traditional classroom. Two classes in each environment were observed, with the participant-observer noting interactions between students. Further, the observer interviewed both students and teachers about peer interaction and review. The study finds that students in computer classrooms are twice as likely to engage in peer review and concludes that, for this one variable, computer classrooms are a more effective environment in which to teach writing. (86 words)

Writing Abstracts