How write an article when the "waterfall model" is not a good fit?

Question

Most scientific articles are written as if the research followed some kind of waterfall model. In other words, a typical paper proceeds pretty linearly from the idea to the results to the implications of the research, hiding the fact that one thing might have lead to another in a very non-linear way.

I guess the reason for the linear format is to attempt to make the research easy to digest for others, and to keep the paper as short as possible. However, what should one do when following the standard format becomes a too large burden (e.g. excessive cross-referencing), or hides a key insight about the research process itself, which could be valuable for others to know?

Answer 1

Whatever format you choose, you have to make sure that your audience can grasp what your paper is about within the first 4 sentences, that (s)he won't get "lost" while reading your article, and that it is easy to strategically skip much of the article and still get the main message. Remember that there is way too much being published, and that it is impossible to read it all. So most articles are only quickly glanced at and are only read if you convince the reader while (s)he is glancing at your article that it is interesting. This is the benefit of the standard format of articles.

While writing your article, you are obviously convinced that your article is worth reading, but keep that reader in mind for whom your article is just one of way too many and who won't read your article very attentively.

For example, the research process almost never follows the strick linear form in which it is presented in most articles. If that deviation is somehow relevant, then you can often use footnotes to discuss that without deviating from the standard form. For things that need more room, there are (web-)appendices.

Answer 2

I recently fought my way through unpicking a thicket of cross-references like this. By focusing on the hourglass model (broad problem, specific problem, new contribution, specific implications, broad implications) and pruning unnecessary tangents I was able to shuffle the content around into an order without any forwards references, though doing so took me months.

Your process in producing the research and paper are not the paper's topic. I would think twice before even referring to it.

Answer 3

Though most of the papers publish only mention their liner approach, some do try to mention the multiple path summery (mostly psychological research), but that's where citing comes, an author conducts his/her research in a single path with controlled conditions, and opens door to other authors to take other path.

Even if you plan to include all the possibilities of your research outcomes, you should first follow waterfall model, and just jot down other possible outcomes for future, because reaching the destination is initially lots of trial and error process.

PS: it will mostly depend on your area of research and the approach you are taking