What Exactly Is An Abstract

What exactly is an abstract, and how do I write one? Overview An  abstract  is  a  short  summary  of  your  completed  research.  It  is  intended  to  describe  your  work  without   going  into  great  detail.  Abstracts  should  be  self-­‐contained  and  concise,  explaining  your  work  as  briefly  and   clearly  as  possible.  Different  disciplines  call  for  slightly  different  approaches  to  abstracts,  as  will  be   illustrated  by  the  examples  below,  so  it  would  be  wise  to  study  some  abstracts  from  your  own  field  before   you  begin  to  write  one.   General Considerations Probably  the  most  important  function  of  an  abstract  is  to  help  a  reader  decide  if  he  or  she  is  interested  in   reading  your  entire  publication.  For  instance,  imagine  that  you’re  an  undergraduate  student  sitting  in  the   library  late  on  a  Friday  night.  You’re  tired,  bored,  and  sick  of  looking  up  articles  about  the  history  of  celery.   The  last  thing  you  want  to  do  is  reading  an  entire  article  only  to  discover  it  contributes  nothing  to  your   argument.  A  good  abstract  can  solve  this  problem  by  indicating  to  the  reader  if  the  work  is  likely  to  be   meaningful  to  his  or  her  particular  research  project.  Additionally,  abstracts  are  used  to  help  libraries   catalogue  publications  based  on  the  keywords  that  appear  in  them.   An  effective  abstract  will  contain  several  key  features:   1. Motivation/problem  statement:  Why  is  your  research/argument  important?  What  practical, scientific,  theoretical  or  artistic  gap  is  your  project  filling? 2. Methods/procedure/approach:  What  did  you  actually  do  to  get  your  results?  (e.g.  analyzed  3 novels,  completed  a  series  of  5  oil  paintings,  interviewed  17  students) 3. Results/findings/product:  As  a  result  of  completing  the  above  procedure,  what  did  you learn/invent/create? 4. Conclusion/implications:  What  are  the  larger  implications  of  your  findings,  especially  for  the problem/gap  identified  previously?  Why  is  this  research  valuable? In Practice Let’s  take  a  look  at  some  sample  abstracts,  and  see  where  these  components  show  up.  To  give  you  an  idea   of  how  the  author  meets  these  “requirements”  of  abstract  writing,  the  various  features  have  been  color-­‐ coded  to  correspond  with  the  numbers  listed  above.  The  general  format  of  an  abstract  is  largely   predictable,  with  some  discipline-­‐based  differences.  One  type  of  abstract  not  discussed  here  is  the   “Descriptive  Abstract,”  which  only  summarizes  and  explains  existing  research,  rather  than  informing  the   reader  of  a  new  perspective.  As  you  can  imagine,  such  an  abstract  would  omit  certain  components  of  our   four-­‐colored  model.   SAMPLE ABSTRACTS ABSTRACT  #1:  History  /  Social  Science   "Their  War":  The  Perspective  of  the  South  Vietnamese  Military  in  Their  Own  Words   Author:  Julie  Pham   Despite  the  vast  research  by  Americans  on  the  Vietnam  War,  little  is  known  about  the  perspective  of  South  Vietnamese   military,  officially  called  the  Republic  of  Vietnam  Armed  Forces  (RVNAF).  The  overall  image  that  emerges  from  the   literature  is  negative:  lazy,  corrupt,  unpatriotic,  apathetic  soldiers  with  poor  fighting  spirits.  This  study  recovers  some   of  the  South  Vietnamese  military  perspective  for  an  American  audience  through  qualititative  interviews  with  40  RVNAF   veterans  now  living  in  San  José,  Sacramento,  and  Seattle,  home  to  three  of  the  top  five  largest  Vietnamese  American   communities  in  the  nation.  An  analysis  of  these  interviews  yields  the  veterans'  own  explanations  that  complicate  and   sometimes  even  challenge  three  widely  held  assumptions  about  the  South  Vietnamese  military:  1)  the  RVNAF  was  rife   with  corruption  at  the  top  ranks,  hurting  the  morale  of  the  lower  ranks;  2)  racial  relations  between  the  South   Vietnamese  military  and  the  Americans  were  tense  and  hostile;  and  3)  the  RVNAF  was  apathetic  in  defending  South   Vietnam  from  communism.  The  stories  add  nuance  to  our  understanding  of  who  the  South  Vietnamese  were  in  the   Vietnam  War.  This  study  is  part  of  a  growing  body  of  research  on  non-­‐American  perspectives  of  the  war.  In  using  a   largely  untapped  source  of  Vietnamese  history—oral  histories  with  Vietnamese  immigrants—this  project  will   contribute  to  future  research  on  similar  topics.   That  was  a  fairly  basic  abstract  that  allows  us  to  examine  its  individual  parts  more  thoroughly.   Motivation/problem  statement:  The  author  identifies  that  previous  research  has  been  done  about  the   Vietnam  War,  but  that  it  has  failed  to  address  the  specific  topic  of  South  Vietnam’s  military.  This  is   good  because  it  shows  how  the  author’s  research  fits  into  the  bigger  picture.  It  isn’t  a  bad  thing  to  be   critical  of  other  research,  but  be  respectful  from  an  academic  standpoint  (i.e.  “Previous  researchers  are   stupid  and  don’t  know  what  they’re  talking  about”  sounds  kind  of  unprofessional).   Methods/procedure/approach:  The  author  does  a  good  job  of  explaining  how  she  performed  her   research,  without  giving  unnecessary  detail.  Noting  that  she  conducted  qualitative  interviews  with  40   subjects  is  significant,  but  she  wisely  does  not  explicitly  state  the  kinds  of  questions  asked  during  the   interview,  which  would  be  excessive.   Results/findings/product:  The  results  make  good  use  of  numbering  to  clearly  indicate  what  was   ascertained  from  the  research—particularly  useful,  as  people  often  just  scan  abstracts  for  the  results  of   an  experiment.   Conclusion/implications:  Since  this  paper  is  historical  in  nature,  its  findings  may  be  hard  to  extrapolate   to  modern-­‐day  phenomena,  but  the  author  identifies  the  importance  of  her  work  as  part  of  a  growing   body  of  research,  which  merits  further  investigation.  This  strategy  functions  to  encourage  future   research  on  the  topic.   ABSTRACT  #2:  Natural  Science   “A  Lysimeter  Study  of  Grass  Cover  and  Water  Table  Depth  Effects  on  Pesticide  Residues  in  Drainage  Water”   Authors:  A.  Liaghat,  S.O.  Prasher   A  study  was  undertaken  to  investigate  the  effect  of  soil  and  grass  cover,  when  integrated  with  water  table   management  (subsurface  drainage  and  controlled  drainage),  in  reducing  herbicide  residues  in  agricultural  drainage   water.  Twelve  PVC  lysimeters,  1  m  long  and  450  mm  diameter,  were  packed  with  a  sandy  soil  and  used  to  study  the   following  four  treatments:  subsurface  drainage,  controlled  drainage,  grass  (sod)  cover,  and  bare  soil.  Contaminated   water  containing  atrazine,  metolachlor,  and  metribuzin  residues  was  applied  to  the  lysimeters  and  samples  of  drain   effluent  were  collected.  Significant  reductions  in  pesticide  concentrations  were  found  in  all  treatments.  In  the  first   year,  herbicide  levels  were  reduced  significantly  (1%  level),  from  an  average  of  250  mg/L  to  less  than  10  mg/L.  In  the   second  year,  polluted  water  of  50  mg/L,  which  is  considered  more  realistic  and  reasonable  in  natural  drainage  waters,   was  applied  to  the  lysimeters  and  herbicide  residues  in  the  drainage  waters  were  reduced  to  less  than  1  mg/L.  The   subsurface  drainage  lysimeters  covered  with  grass  proved  to  be  the  most  effective  treatment  system.   Motivation/problem  statement:  Once  again,  we  see  that  the  problem—more  like  subject  of  study—is   stated  first  in  the  abstract.  This  is  normal  for  abstracts,  in  that  you  want  to  include  the  most  important   information  first.  The  results  may  seem  like  the  most  important  part  of  the  abstract,  but  without   mentioning  the  subject,  the  results  won’t  make  much  sense  to  readers.  Notice  that  the  abstract  makes   no  references  to  other  research,  which  is  fine.  It  is  not  obligatory  to  cite  other  publications  in  an   abstract,  and  in  fact,  doing  so  might  distract  your  reader  from  YOUR  experiment.  Either  way,  it  is  likely   that  other  sources  will  surface  in  your  paper’s  discussion/conclusion.   Methods/procedure/approach:  Notice  that  the  authors  include  pertinent  numbers  and  figures  in   describing  their  methods.  An  extended  description  of  the  methods  would  probably  include  a  long  list  of   numerical  values  and  conditions  for  each  experimental  trial,  so  it  is  important  to  include  only  the  most   important  values  in  your  abstract—ones  that  might  make  your  study  unique.  Additionally,  we  see  that   a  methodological  description  appears  in  two  different  parts  of  the  abstract.  This  is  fine.  It  may  work   better  to  explain  your  experiment  by  more  closely  connecting  each  method  to  its  result.  One  last  point:   the  author  doesn’t  take  time  to  define—or  give  any  background  information  about—“atrazine,”   “metalachlor,”  “lysimeter,”  or  “metribuzin.”  This  may  be  because  other  ecologists  know  what  these   are,  but  even  if  that’s  not  the  case,  you  shouldn’t  take  time  to  define  terms  in  your  abstract.     Results/findings/product:  Similar  to  the  methods  component  of  the  abstract,  you  want  to  condense   your  findings  to  include  only  the  major  result  of  the  experiment.  Again,  this  study  focused  on  two   major  trials,  so  both  trials  and  both  major  results  are  listed.  A  particularly  important  word  to  consider   when  sharing  results  in  an  abstract  is  “significant.”  In  statistics,  “significant”  means  roughly  that  your   results  were  not  due  to  chance.  In  your  paper,  your  results  may  be  hundreds  of  words  long,  and  involve   dozens  of  tables  and  graphs,  but  ultimately,  your  reader  only  wants  to  know:  “What  was  the  main   result,  and  was  that  result  significant?”  So,  try  to  answer  both  these  questions  in  the  abstract.   Conclusion/implications:  This  abstract’s  conclusion  sounds  more  like  a  result:  “…lysimeters  covered   with  grass  were  found  to  be  the  most  effective  treatment  system.”  This  may  seem  incomplete,  since  it   does  not  explain  how  this  system  could/should/would  be  applied  to  other  situations,  but  that’s  okay.   There  is  plenty  of  space  for  addressing  those  issues  in  the  body  of  the  paper.   ABSTRACT  #3:  Philosophy  /  Literature   [Note:  Many  papers  don’t  precisely  follow  the  previous  format,  since  they  do  not  involve  an  experiment   and  its  methods.  Nonetheless,  they  typically  rely  on  a  similar  structure.]   “Participatory  Legitimation:  A  Reply  to  Arash  Abizadeh”   Author:  Eric  Schmidt,  Louisiana  State  University,  2011   Arash  Abizadeh’s  argument  against  unilateral  border  control  relies  on  his  unbounded  demos  thesis,  which  is  supported   negatively  by  arguing  that  the  ‘bounded  demos  thesis’  is  incoherent.  The  incoherency  arises  for  two  reasons:  (1)   Democratic  principles  cannot  be  brought  to  bear  on  matters  (border  control)  logically  prior  to  the  constitution  of  a   group,  and  (2),  the  civic  definition  of  citizens  and  non-­‐citizens  creates  an  ‘externality  problem’  because  the  act  of   definition  is  an  exercise  of  coercive  power  over  all  persons.  The  bounded  demos  thesis  is  rejected  because  the  “will  of   the  people”  fails  to  legitimate  democratic  political  order  because  there  can  be  no  pre-­‐political  political  will  of  the   people.  However,  I  argue  that  “the  will  of  the  people”  can  be  made  manifest  under  a  robust  understanding  of   participatory  legitimation,  which  exists  concurrently  with  the  political  state,  and  thus  defines  both  its  borders  and   citizens  as  bounded,  rescuing  the  bounded  demos  thesis  and  compromising  the  rest  of  Abizadeh’s  article.   This  paper  may  not  make  any  sense  to  someone  not  studying  philosophy,  or  not  having  read  the  text  being   critiqued.  However,  we  can  still  see  where  the  author  separates  the  different  components  of  the  abstract,   even  if  we  don’t  understand  the  terminology  used. Motivation/problem  statement:  The  problem  is  not  really  a  problem,  but  rather  another  person’s   belief  on  a  subject  matter.  For  that  reason,  the  author  takes  time  to  carefully  explain  the  exact   theory  that  he  will  be  arguing  against.     Methods/procedure/approach:  [Note  that  there  is  no  traditional  “Methods”  component  of  this   abstract.]  Reviews  like  this  are  purely  critical  and  don’t  necessarily  involve  performing  experiments   as  in  the  other  abstracts  we  have  seen.  Still,  a  paper  like  this  may  incorporate  ideas  from  other   sources,  much  like  our  traditional  definition  of  experimental  research.   Results/findings/product:  In  a  paper  like  this,  the  “findings”  tend  to  resemble  what  you  have   concluded  about  something,  which  will  largely  be  based  on  your  own  opinion,  supported  by  various   examples.  For  that  reason,  the  finding  of  this  paper  is:  “The  ‘will  of  the  people,’  actually  corresponds   to  a  ‘bounded  demos  thesis.’”  Even  though  we  aren’t  sure  what  the  terms  mean,  we  can  plainly  see   that  the  finding  (argument)  is  in  support  of  “bounded,”  rather  than  “unbounded.”   Conclusion/implications:  If  our  finding  is  that  “bounded”  is  correct,  then  what  should  we  conclude?   [In  this  case,  the  conclusion  is  simply  that  the  initial  author,  A.A.,  is  wrong.]  Some  critical  papers   attempt  to  broaden  the  conclusion  to  show  something  outside  the  scope  of  the  paper.  For  example,   if  A.A.  believes  his  “unbounded  demos  thesis”  to  be  correct  (when  he  is  actually  mistaken),  what   does  this  say  about  him?  About  his  philosophy?  About  society  as  a  whole?  Maybe  people  who  agree   with  him  are  more  likely  to  vote  Democrat,  more  likely  to  approve  of  certain  immigration  policies,   more  likely  to  own  Labrador  retrievers  as  pets,  etc.   Applying  These  Skills   Now  that  you  know  the  general  layout  of  an  abstract,  here  are  some  tips  to  keep  in  mind  as  you  write  your   own:   1. The  abstract  stands  alone • An  abstract  shouldn’t  be  considered  “part”  of  a  paper—it  should  be  able  to  stand independently  and  still  tell  the  reader  something  significant. 2. Keep  it  short • A  general  rule  of  abstract  length  is  200-­‐300  words,  or  about  1/10th  of  the  entire  paper. 3. Don’t  add  new  information • If  something  doesn’t  appear  in  your  actual  paper,  then  don’t  put  it  in  the  abstract. 4. Be  consistent  with  voice,  tone,  and  style • Try  to  write  the  abstract  in  the  same  style  as  your  paper  (i.e.  If  you’re  not  using contractions  in  your  paper,  the  do  not  use  them  in  your  abstract). 5. Be  concise • Try  to  shorten  your  sentences  as  often  as  possible.  If  you  can  say  something  clearly  in  five words  rather  than  ten,  then  do  it. 6. Break  up  its  components • If  allowed,  subdivide  the  components  of  your  abstract  with  bolded  headings  for “Background,”  “Methods,”  etc. 7. The  abstract  should  be  part  of  your  writing  process • Consider  writing  your  abstract  after  you  finish  your  entire  paper. • There’s  nothing  wrong  with  copying  and  pasting  important  sentences  and  phrases  from your  paper  …  provided  that  they’re  your  own  words. • Write  multiple  drafts,  and  keep  revising.  An  abstract  is  very  important  to  your  publication (or  assignment)  and  should  be  treated  as  such. Last  updated  August  2013