Øyunn Syrstad Høydal, PhD, is a senior researcher at the Work Research Institute, Norway. She primarily researches school and higher education, as well as evaluation and the relationship between politics and knowledge. Her research interests include evaluation and the relationship between evidence, values, and policymaking.
In this interview for Open Interview with Santosh C Hulagabali, Øyunn presents her perspective, backed by her research experience and readings, on academic writing. She argues that the academic writing serves different roles in qualitative and quantitative social science research. Such studies benefit from a format that allows for storytelling, thematic exploration, and contextual analysis, which a standardized format like IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) does not support.
.
• You argue that standardized research paper formats like IMRaD i.e. Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion can constrain creativity in academic writing, especially in social science qualitative research. Please share the rationale behind this argument in the context of academic writing in social science and other domains.
While IMRaD offers clarity and consistency but its application in qualitative social science research can be limiting due to the very nature of such research. For instance, qualitative research in social sciences involves exploring intricate social, cultural, and psychological dynamics. These studies benefit from a format that allows for storytelling, thematic exploration, and contextual analysis, which a standardized format like IMRaD does not support.
Overall, I believe academic writing serves different roles in qualitative and quantitative social science research. In quantitative traditions, writing is primarily a way to report research findings. In contrast, in the qualitative traditions, writing is an integral part of the research process itself1. During the writing process, the logic and consistency of ideas and arguments are challenged and tested. As one works through the text, new perspectives, categories, and patterns may emerge. Consequently, findings can be elevated to a more insightful analytical level, potentially transforming the entire paper and its contribution to research. Therefore, strictly defined norms for academic writing can be disruptive and counterproductive2, hindering the creativity and exploration that are central to the writing and thinking processes in qualitative research fields especially in social sciences.
• Some studies argue about having standardisation as a form of democratisation in academic publishing. What is your opinion on this?
In some respects, IMRaD represents a form of democratization of academic writing but as I said before, some exceptions are there for qualitative research fields like social sciences. But to talk about the broad merits of standardisation– yes, by establishing clear standards and being transparent about expectations3, it offers researchers from all backgrounds a fair and achievable way of mastering academic writing. This helps to reduce barriers based on linguistic style or cultural familiarity with academic traditions. Standardization also means that scholars do not need to be natural essayists or elite writers to communicate their research effectively, making the publication process more inclusive. Furthermore, it can reduce the use of exclusive jargon4, particularly in fields like social science, thus making academic work more accessible and understandable to a wider scientific community. In these ways, standardization fosters a more democratic and equitable academic environment.
• While standardized formats like IMRaD make research more accessible to specialists, how can social scientists reach broader, non-specialist audiences without losing their voice or the complexity of their ideas?
I believe a broader audience may benefit from a more narrative-driven and less technical presentation of research findings. Writing in a less technical form could also strengthen the voice of the researcher. Finally, in most cases I am absolutely sure it is possible to write in a wide range of formats using accessible language without losing the complexity of ideas or perspectives.
• How much influence do academic publishers and editors have in perpetuating standardized writing structures, and how might they be encouraged to embrace more diverse approaches to presenting research?
In my opinion, editors and editorial boards have considerable opportunities to influence both the academic content and the form of the articles in the journals they are responsible for.
Research studies5 show that there is room for a broader variety in academic writing than academics tend to believe. Accordingly, while many editors are open-minded and want to reach a wider audience, the problem lies in the lack of academics with the courage to initiate this shift.
From my experience, editors are not particularly eager to break the norms. Their focus is primarily on the academic content presented in a format, and I believe they find the IMRaD format to be time-saving and convenient for themselves, reviewers and editorial boards to handle. Articles that challenge the format require a new perspective and level of engagement.One of the challenges is, of course, that the work of running a journal is a kind of charitable project – and an activity characterized by high pressure and limited resources. However, I believe we can make significant progress toward greater diversity if we just start a conversation about academic writing in academic journals and in academia.
• According to you, what should be the alternative to IMRaD format that should guide academic writing?
It is important for me to emphasize that I have nothing against IMRaD. This is a way of writing scientific articles that, in many cases, works perfectly fine. What I am concerned with is seeing the article format, research process, and content together. The IMRaD format was originally developed in the natural sciences to structure experimental reports6. It is strange that academia believes a template developed to streamline the reporting of lab experiments should represent the best way for describing a discourse analysis or present an observational study.
• For early-career scholars who are under pressure to conform to standardized writing structures, what advice would you give to help them balance personal expression and academic expectations?
I want to emphasize that avoiding IMRaD is not just about balancing personal expression with academic expectations. It is about finding a structure that works for your research.
One of our PhD students, who works quantitatively and has so far used the IMRaD structure, discovered, for example, how difficult it was to adhere to this framework when they were writing an article based on a mixed methods study. Suddenly the student had to start reflecting on how they were writing.
That said, I believe the constant pressure to publish in academia means that both established researchers and early-career researchers often choose research projects, article topics, and article formats more strategically than we might like to think. Although I believe young researchers should challenge the frameworks and discuss academic writing among themselves and with their lecturers, I think the responsibility for change should lie with the institutions, academic communities, and journal editorial boards.
• Many argue that the peer-review process in academic publishing can be both essential and stifling. How do you think the peer-review system shapes academic writing in the social sciences, and are there ways it could be improved?
From my point of view the reviewers tend to be conservative. For example, I have experienced receiving criticism because I gave the introduction of an article a different name than “Introduction”. When the subheadings you write receive more attention than the methodological approach, it’s time to pause and reflect. I believe many reviewers do this work somewhat on autopilot and don’t have the energy to deal with stylistic choices on top of everything else. Then it becomes easy to criticize someone for breaking the norm. Since becoming interested in academic writing, I have started to look more closely at the guidelines or instructions provided by journals for reviewers. I believe there is great potential for improvement here. I’m not talking about new templates, but as a minimum, journals could state that they welcome articles written in various ways, as long as the content is clear, and the academic quality is satisfactory. It’s about signalling that reviewers should bring an openness into their work. I am also sceptical of journals that base feedback solely on predefined forms that reviewers must fill out. In such cases, the template itself significantly influences the reviewers’ perspectives and the framing of their feedback.
• What is your take on ‘academic capitalism’ or ‘organised capitalism’ especially concerning the publishing business models andnumeric indicators such ascitations, impact factors, and h-index scores?
From my perspective, there is a clear connection between academic capitalism’s focus on efficiency and measurable outcomes, and academia’s use of numerical success indicators, whether it be number of publications, citations or impact factors. I have a PhD in evaluation and know that there can be both advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of numerical indicators, but in academia, I think it has gone too far. Academic quality and relevance should be understood more holistically. Even in countries where the national authorities have traditionally secured the autonomy and economy of academic institutions and their staff, the number of published academic papers7 & 8 is believed to be central in recruitment, promotion, and rewarding.The result, in my opinion, is increasingly strategic publishing, and on top of that the production requirements also seem to be reflected in the choice of research topics and methodology9.
What role does inter-disciplinarily play in social science research writing? Are there any challenges when researchers from different fields try to communicate their work to a wider audience, and how can these be overcome?
Much social science research is practically interdisciplinary. However, such research can take place within specific fields or traditions where, over the years, certain common standards have developed regarding which concepts should be used, which literature must be cited, and how things should be done in general. Contemporary scholarly knowledge is created and communicated primarily through writing papers, and journals are key sites10 for certifying knowledge and defining academic quality. In this way, established interdisciplinary fields can be as conservative as, for example, disciplinary journals. I wish there was greater openness and professional recognition across all research fields and academic communities.
In order to encourage more diverse forms of academic writing, what institutional or systemic changes do you think are necessary to support a more flexible approach to research communication?
First, I believe that those of us who work as researchers, teachers, and supervisors should start reflecting on our own writing and discussing writing with our colleagues and students. After I began to take an interest in academic writing, I have suddenly understood why some of my own articles have taken an endless amount of time and effort to write—it is because I have tried to fit them into a template where they don’t belong. I have also received feedback from colleagues who have experienced the same. Secondly, if we begin discussing academic writing, it becomes easier to implement change at an institutional level. Writing is an essential tool for researchers, yet it hasn’t been prioritized.Method seminars and theoretical workshops are organized, but there is little in academia that focuses on academic writing. Academic writing has not even been central to student training, though I believe there has been a development. Still, some of the courses are very instrumental, mainly focusing on how to get published. Generally, I would like the training in academic writing to be integrated as an essential part of the general curricula.
• With the rise of digital tools and platforms for publishing or communicating research findings, how do you think online journals, blogs, podcasts, video platforms, and open-access platforms are changing the landscape of academic writing in the social sciences?
Digital tools and platforms offer endless possibilities for research dissemination across disciplines and borders. This interview or your Open interview is a very good example of that. Different platforms and technologies are preferred by different target groups, and thus, in an ideal world, research dissemination can be tailored to reach various segments. At the same time, research communication takes time and resources, and I must admit that I see the risk of information overload in this landscape of possibilities. Finally, all research communication must be based on good research, and amidst all the technological possibilities, we must not forget that.
* * * * *
Note • All the answers/ opinions expressed in this document are of the interviewee. • This interview post has CC-BY licence. • For the 1st and 2nd question, AI tool is used for rewording a few sentences.
Courtesy • Photo of Oyunn: fontene.no; About Oyunn: oslomet.no/en/about/employee/oyhoy/ and Impact Blog
Suggested reading: Høydal, Ø.S. Could I Write Like Carol Weiss?. Minerva 62, 491–504 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-024-09534-2
Cite • Hulagabali, Santosh C. (2025 May, 2). Oyunn Syrstad Hoydal: Strictly defined academic writing norms can be disruptive hindering creativity. [Blog post] Retrieved from: https://openinterview.org/2025/05/02/oyunn-syrstad-hoydal-strictly-defined-academic-writing-norms-can-be-disruptive-hindering-creativity/
Santosh C Hulagabali, PhD, is an Editor of Open Interview. He heads Central Library of Central University of Haryana. He is passionate about anything that is creative, challenging and positively impacts self and others. Email: santosh@cuh.ac.in
