Writing the «Classic»

The «Classical» (Thesis-Argumentative) Article

Focusing on History and Methodology

Structure:

[α] Abstract and Keywords / Thesis Summary (Abstract & Keywords)

I. Topic Justification;

II. Literature Analysis (Review of Existing Research);

III. Methodology (Materials and Methods);

IV. Main Body (Theses and Argumentation);

V. Conclusion (Conclusions);

VI. Notes and Appendices ([Ref] References/Appendices).

---

[α] Abstract and Keywords / Thesis Summary (Abstract & Keywords)

This is a common superstructure for any scientific text, regardless of its internal structure. The abstract is the entry point and the guide. Its purpose is to answer, within 150-300 words, the questions: ABOUT WHAT? HOW? WHAT WAS THE CONCLUSION? – regardless of whether the content is a theoretical treatise or an experimental report. In any peer-reviewed journal, collection, or dissertation, the abstract will be the first thing the reader sees after the title and authors. A good abstract is a micro-model of the entire article.

---

I. Topic Justification.

«Relevance of the Topic,» «State of the Question,» «Goals and Tasks of the Research.» In this section, you need to show that the chosen topic deserves attention and that its development is justified. Reasons for working on the topic can be as follows:

1. Insufficient study of the issue, outdated assessments requiring revision, existence of controversial viewpoints prompting debate;

2. Social or practical significance of the topic;

3. The need to illuminate it for educational or methodological purposes. Avoid overly personal, «memoir-like» formulations, but expressing your own interest in the problem is quite appropriate. The justification should be concise and precise, as it sets the tone for the entire work. You need to prove not the result, but the necessity of the work itself.

a. THESIS (Statement): «There exists a significant gap/contradiction in the understanding of [your topic].»

b. JUSTIFICATION: Reference to context (importance of the topic for science/practice, as in your points 1-3).

c. PROOF: Not data, but a demonstration of the gap itself. A brief, targeted analysis of key works from the future review that shows: «Here’s what has been done (A and B), and here’s what is missing (C).»

d. INTERPRETATION: «Thus, the lack of research in area C limits the development of theory X and practice Y.»

e. LIMITATION/FOCUS: «This work does not claim to comprehensively solve the entire problem, but aims to fill the specific gap C.»

---

II. Literature Analysis (Review of Existing Research).

The task of this section is to demonstrate how the chosen problem has been considered from its emergence in scientific discourse to the present. One of the most convincing ways to organize this section is writing a «History of the Question» — i.e., a review that shows how understanding of the problem has evolved since its formation as a separate research direction. Therefore, while logically starting with the most recent works, the review should proceed chronologically, from earlier to later. Do not limit yourself to simply listing sources. Do not recount articles one by one. Describe the development of an approach/idea, not the «biography» of texts. When analyzing predecessors’ works, group them so that your own research position is evident. A basic grouping can be by publication types: monographs, then sections in general works, then journal and newspaper articles. If different scientific schools or approaches exist, sources can be grouped by similarity of views. If assessment of a phenomenon changed over time, key stages of this evolution should be highlighted. There is no single template for this section. It is important to remember that it is not a formality: a quality literature review becomes part of the justification for the novelty of your work, shows what new things were discovered, clarified, or reinterpreted. Goal — to prove your research position.

a. THESIS: «The development of views on the problem went through N key stages (or: N main approaches have formed in the literature).»

b. JUSTIFICATION: The logic of your grouping (chronology, schools, methodologies — as you indicated).

c. PROOF: Presenting this grouping through analysis of specific works. «The first group (the ‘alpha’ approach) includes works [X], [Y], characterized by… The second (the ‘beta’ approach)…»

d. INTERPRETATION: «This analysis shows that the evolution/confrontation of approaches is determined by factor Z» or «Despite disagreements, aspect C remains a common omission.»

e. LIMITATION: «The review is not exhaustive and focuses on works directly concerning aspect C, which is central to our research.»

---

III. Methodology (or «Materials and Methods»).

«Methodology of the Work,» «Description of the Experimental Setup,» «Research Materials.» The goal of this section is to show the reader the path of your research. Your task is to make the course of work so clear that its logic can be understood, and if desired, verified. This is not a list of methods, but their justified story. If your research is theoretical, this section describes the logic of your analysis and principles for selecting texts for study. Before writing, answer four key questions:

1) What? What specific material (data, texts, objects) did I analyze? THESIS (What?): «The empirical basis of the research consisted of [specific material: 25 interviews, a corpus of texts from 1900-1910, sensor data from device A].»

2) Wherefrom? How and from where was this material obtained (sources, sample, field)? PROOF (Wherefrom?): «The material was obtained from [source: Archive such-and-such, collection such-and-such; open database X; field research in location Y during period Z].»

3) How? By what specific actions and techniques did I study it? PROOF (How?): «The procedure included sequential steps,» «For this, I first…, then…»

4) Why? Why was this particular approach and these methods chosen (their advantages for my task)? JUSTIFICATION (Why?): «This approach is optimal as it allows not only to systematize themes (strength of content analysis) but also to reveal underlying narrative structures (strength of discourse analysis), which directly corresponds to the research goal — to understand not only what, but also how the problem C was discussed.» Recommended structure: For the research [your topic], the following steps were sequentially undertaken in the work:

1. Defining and collecting material. (What was studied and where was it taken from?)

2. Forming a research approach. (From what angle was the material studied?)

3 . Describing the analysis procedure. (What specific actions were performed with the material?)

4. Indicating tools. (What aided in the analysis — equipment, software, methods?)

5. (Important) Limitations of the chosen path. (What does your method not allow to see?) LIMITATION (Importance of the sample): «Such a sample allows for a representative reflection of [the object], but does not include [certain types of cases], which will be considered in the interpretation.» Main principle: avoid impersonal formulations («method… was applied») in favor of a clear narrative about your actions. The phrase «For this, I…» is your best helper.

---

IV. Main Body.

«Results of the Work,» «Experimental Data,» «Analysis of Obtained Observations,» «Discussion,» «Comparison with Analogues,» «Theoretical Substantiation.» There cannot be universal recipes for this section, as it is the core of the work, for which the research is conducted. There are as many ways of exposition as there are topics, as many compositional solutions as there are problems. Regardless of internal structure (chapters, paragraphs), the exposition must be logical, sequential, clear, and competent. The text of a scientific article is built around a clear research position, which the author sequentially reveals and substantiates. The first step — a clear formulation of the researched problem — has already been done in the Topic Justification. It will help structure the exposition and express the author’s hypothesis, which constitutes the novelty of the work, more clearly. Define the key aspects of revealing the topic; they will become your supports that prevent deviation from the posed problem. Sometimes valuable material disrupts the logic or proportions of exposition. Checking each block, ask yourself: «Does this paragraph work to prove the main thesis stated in the introduction?» If not — it is extra material; send it to a note. The optimal solution in such a case is to move it to notes or appendices, giving only a brief reference in the main text [in the text: «Although aspect Z is also interesting (see Note 3), the main vector of argument development lies in the area of…»]. Each semantic block of the work must possess internal unity and end with interim conclusions. If a conclusion cannot be made — then the exposition did not fulfill its task. Structure of a chapter/paragraph:

a. CHAPTER THESIS: «The analysis revealed three key narratives in covering event X.»

b. BLOCK 1: Thesis about the first narrative → Justification (why it is singled out) → Proof (quotations, table of topic frequency) → Interpretation (what it means) → Limitation (where it «breaks») / focus.

c. INTERIM CONCLUSION (sum of interpretations of the block): «Thus, the first narrative performed a legitimizing function, which is especially noticeable in texts of group Y.»

d. BLOCK 2, BLOCK 3… — similarly.

---

V. Conclusion.

«Conclusion/Conclusions.» This section contains concisely stated conclusions of the entire research. The main requirements for the conclusion are precision and clarity. It must be formulated extremely clearly what exactly was revealed, discovered, or substantiated during the work. Reading only the conclusion, the reader should understand the value and essence of the article. In the conclusion, you can also briefly characterize the goals and tasks of the conducted research and, if applicable, indicate its practical testing. This is the final protocol, where each assertion-conclusion is the apex of the previous chain of proofs.

a. THESIS-CONCLUSIONS: Must be formulated as direct answers to the questions posed in the introduction.

b. MAIN PROOF: The logical connection itself: «Since we showed A (Section 2), using method B (Section 3), and found C (Section 4.1) under condition D (Section 4.2), the main conclusion is E.»

c. FINAL INTERPRETATION AND LIMITATION: «The obtained results not only fill the indicated gap but also pose a new question about F. The main limitation of the work remains G, which sets the direction for future research in area H.»

---

VI. Notes and Appendices ([Ref] References/Appendices).

1. Notes

Notes can be placed at the bottom of the page (footnotes) or at the end of the text. They are divided into two types.

The first type is explanatory notes: extended comments or additional material whose inclusion in the main text would disrupt its integrity.

The second type is bibliographic citations for sources of quotations or paraphrased ideas. Any borrowing, whether a direct quote, paraphrase, or idea, must be accompanied by a citation; otherwise, it is considered plagiarism.

An example of a footnote structure: Author’s Last Name, First Name Initials. «Title of the Article» // Title of the Book, Collection, Journal / ed. by Editor’s First Name Initials, Last Name. Place of Publication: Publisher, Year. Page.

Citations can also be formatted in the text within square brackets according to a numerical code [number of the source in the bibliography list, page].

Since footnotes are intended to document the research base, it is useful to distinguish the types of sources indicated in them.

(1) Types of sources for the List at the end of the article. References to articles in peer-reviewed online journals are included in the main bibliography list, not formatted solely as footnotes. They belong to the second type of notes – bibliographic citations.

(2) Types of sources for footnotes. Footnotes can indicate various types of sources that form the informational and evidentiary base of the research but are not included in the main list of used literature.

1) Published documents and materials:

a. Reprints of works by classic authors (e.g., from the mid-20th century).

b. Legislative and regulatory acts (laws, decrees, building codes and regulations [SНиПы], state standards [ГОСТы]).

c. Reference publications (encyclopedias, almanacs).

d. Methodological manuals and recommendations (methodological guides).

e. Artistic and scientific-publicistic literature (when quoting or analyzing).

2) Unpublished and archival materials:

f. Documents from state and private archives.

g. Field research materials (survey results, observations, expedition reports).

3) Electronic resources:

h. Official online resources of state bodies.

i. Open internet resources (online newspapers, organizational websites, blogs, webinars). Important: for such links, it is essential to specify the author of the material (if available) and its title.

2. Appendices

Supplementary or voluminous material mastered during the research is placed in appendices. Appendices give an idea of the depth of topic development. Textual appendices include:

a. A biographical note (e.g., about an artist or scientist).

b. A glossary of terms related to the topic.

c. A catalog or annotated selection of analysis objects.

d. Excerpts from archival documents, books, and articles. If the material is published for the first time, this must be indicated.