Methods
Method sections vary in journal articles, but rather less so than introductions.
This is because the ‘moves’ in the method sections generally involve working
through a series of subsections. Most method sections are usually subdivided
(with subheadings) into three sections, as follows:
1 participants
2 measures
3 procedure(s).
If no participants are involved, then the method simply describes the measures
and procedure(s). In the Slatcher and Pennebaker (2006) example, there are
three subheadings in the method section: Participants, Procedure and
Linguistic Analysis (or measures).
Method sections may be brief and succinct – when the methods used are
well known and standardised – or quite lengthy, when the methods used
are new or different and thus require careful elaboration.
Students and authors are typically instructed to write their method sections
in such a way that readers can repeat the method from the descriptions
given. Day and Gastel (2006, p. 64) recommend that colleagues unfamiliar
with what was done should be asked to read the account to see if they can
follow it. Authors are sometimes too close to what they did and thus tend
to forget to mention tiny but – sometimes – key details.
A useful device for clarifying the procedure or the method for the reader
– especially if it is complicated – is to summarise it in a table or figure
(e.g. see Gotzsche, 2006). Figure 2.6.1 gives a schematic version of Slatcher
and Pennebaker’s prose description of their method. Such procedures, though,
are rarely used. None of the authors of fifty-six articles in the 2005 volume
of the Journal of Educational Psychology used this strategy, and only two
provided illustrations of the equipment used. However, eleven (i.e. twenty
per cent) of these articles did include figures to illustrate either the theoretical
models underlying the reasoning for their experiments or the analyses that
they were going to use.
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
31
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
Chapter 2.6
REFERENCES
Day, R. A. & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th edn).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gotzsche, P. C. (2006). Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: A
cross sectional study. British Medical Journal, 333, 231–4.
Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the
words. Psychological Science, 17(8), 660–4.
FURTHER READING
Reis, H. T. (2000). Writing effectively about design. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to
publishing in psychology journals (pp. 81–97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
31
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
46 The academic article
ProcedureParticipants Measures
86 couples
Relationship
Assessment
Scale
Experimental group (N = 44 couples)
Write text messages for 20 mins
on days 4, 5 and 6 about their
deepest thoughts and feelings
about their current romantic
relationship
Control group (N = 42 couples)
Write text messages for 20 mins
on days 4, 5 and 6 about their
daily activities
Figure 2.6.1 A schematic illustration of the prose version of the Method used in the study
by Slatcher and Pennebaker (2006).