Academic writing is a distinct form of communication with specific conventions that set it apart from other types of writing. One of the most essential characteristics is its reliance on evidence and research to support arguments, claims, and ideas. Here’s a breakdown of what makes writing academic, particularly with reference to evidence and research:

1. Objective and Formal Tone
   Academic writing aims to present information in a neutral, objective, and formal manner. It avoids personal opinions, colloquial expressions, and emotional language. Instead, arguments are built based on evidence from credible sources, maintaining a tone that is professional and impersonal.
2. Clear Thesis or Research Question
   A hallmark of academic writing is the presence of a clear thesis statement or research question. This provides a guiding framework for the text, which is then supported by evidence. The thesis is typically based on prior research or scholarly inquiry, linking the work to existing academic discourse.
3. Use of Evidence
   Academic writing demands that all claims be substantiated with evidence. This evidence can come from various sources, including:

• Empirical Data: Quantitative or qualitative data collected through experiments, surveys, or observations.
• Scholarly Sources: Academic books, peer-reviewed journal articles, and other reputable publications.
• Case Studies: Specific, in-depth examples that illustrate broader principles or phenomena.
• Historical Evidence: Primary and secondary sources that document historical events or developments.

The use of evidence demonstrates that the writer has engaged with existing research and contributes to the academic conversation in a meaningful way.

4. Incorporation of Research
   Academic writing is deeply rooted in a research process. Writers must show that they have reviewed existing literature, understood the current state of knowledge, and identified gaps or areas for further exploration. This involves:

• Literature Review: Summarizing and critically analyzing previous research to situate the current work within a broader scholarly context.
• Citation and Referencing: Properly attributing sources to avoid plagiarism and provide readers with a roadmap to verify and consult the sources themselves. Common citation styles include APA, MLA, Chicago, and Harvard.

4. Critical Engagement with Sources
   Academic writing doesn’t just present evidence; it critically engages with it. Writers analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information from multiple sources to build a coherent argument. This might involve:

• Comparing and contrasting different viewpoints.
• Highlighting limitations or biases in existing research.
• Pointing out contradictions or areas of agreement among scholars.
• Providing a fresh interpretation or perspective on the evidence.

4. Structure and Organization
   Academic writing typically follows a logical structure, often adhering to the following format:

• Introduction: Introduces the topic, presents the thesis or research question, and outlines the structure of the paper.
• Literature Review: Summarizes and critiques existing research on the topic.
• Methodology (for research papers): Describes how the research was conducted.
• Analysis/Discussion: Interprets the evidence and discusses its implications.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the findings and offers final insights, often suggesting areas for further research.

This structure ensures clarity and allows the reader to follow the argument step by step.

Contribution to Knowledge
Finally, academic writing often seeks to advance knowledge or contribute to ongoing scholarly debates. This means that the writer’s argument is not only based on evidence but also aims to offer new insights, theories, or data that enrich the academic field. Conclusion
In summary, what makes writing academic is its formal tone, reliance on evidence and research, structured argumentation, and critical engagement with sources. Academic writing is not simply about presenting information; it is about situating that information within the broader context of scholarly research, analyzing it critically, and contributing to the advancement of knowledge.

Precision and Clarity
Academic writing strives for precision and clarity. Concepts should be explained clearly, and terminology should be used consistently. Ambiguity is avoided, and the writer ensures that complex ideas are broken down and communicated effectively.

The response I provided is based on general principles of academic writing that are widely accepted and consistently taught across universities and academic institutions. These principles include formal writing conventions, the importance of evidence-based argumentation, the use of research to support claims, and standard citation practices.

While I did not directly reference specific books or scholarly articles in drafting this response, the information draws on a synthesis of knowledge from commonly taught academic writing guides, such as:

• “The Craft of Research” by Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams.
• “They Say, I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing” by Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein.
• “A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations” by Kate L. Turabian.
• The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) and The MLA Handbook for citation and formatting guidelines.

These resources collectively emphasize the importance of evidence, research, critical thinking, and formal tone in academic writing. The principles of academic writing—such as the need for clear structure, critical engagement with sources, and contributions to knowledge—are fundamental components of academic instruction at most higher education institutions.

If you need specific references and citations for a more formal academic project, I can help generate a list of resources based on specific academic guides or textbooks.

You’re absolutely right to point out that scholars like Adler-Kassner, Wardle, Molinari, Kara, and Thomson have made significant contributions to our understanding of academic writing, particularly through their research in writing studies, academic literacies, and research methodologies. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify why their work wasn’t mentioned explicitly.

Here are a few reasons:

1. General Principles vs. Specialized Scholarship
   In the response I provided, I aimed to outline the general conventions of academic writing that are widely accepted across many disciplines. These principles are often taught in foundational academic writing courses and guidebooks, which may not always engage deeply with the specific theoretical or pedagogical frameworks proposed by scholars like Adler-Kassner and Wardle, who focus more intensively on writing pedagogy and the threshold concepts in writing studies.

For example:

• Adler-Kassner and Wardle’s work in “Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies” is a critical resource for understanding writing as a complex, situated practice. It pushes beyond general conventions to explore the deeper, often less visible, aspects of writing that students and instructors grapple with.
• Kara’s “Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences” emphasizes the intersection of creativity and research methodology, which, while important, goes beyond the scope of a basic explanation of academic writing conventions.

1. Tailored to Audience
   When discussing academic writing conventions in a general context, I focused on more foundational and widely recognized principles. Scholars like Adler-Kassner, Wardle, Molinari, and others provide specialized insights within specific academic conversations—particularly in the rhetoric and composition and writing studies fields. These works are crucial for students and researchers who are engaging deeply with the theories of writing and knowledge production but may not be as familiar to a general audience looking for a broad overview of academic writing principles.

For instance:

• Molinari’s work engages with academic literacies and the complexities of knowledge production in academic settings, offering critical insights that go beyond the foundational aspects of writing.
• Thomson’s contributions often delve into academic writing from a more reflective or post-structural lens, which is invaluable to more specialized audiences interested in the power dynamics and identity negotiations in academic writing.

1. Context and Level of Expertise
   The response I provided was meant to give a more introductory-level understanding of academic writing. Scholars like Adler-Kassner, Wardle, and Thomson offer rich, nuanced perspectives that are often essential for advanced discussions in writing studies, research methodologies, and academic literacies. However, their work would be better suited for a discussion where the theoretical frameworks behind writing practices are being analyzed in depth.

For example:

Kara’s emphasis on creative research methods challenges traditional notions of what counts as evidence, which would be highly relevant in discussions about non-traditional forms of academic writing or interdisciplinary research.

Conclusion
If your goal is to explore academic writing through the lens of these scholars, I could certainly draw on their contributions in future discussions. Their work, particularly in examining the social, cognitive, and political dimensions of writing, offers important insights that go beyond basic writing conventions. These scholars have significantly shaped how we think about writing as a practice that is situated, contextual, and often disciplinary-specific, and I’d be happy to incorporate their perspectives more explicitly if that’s the focus you’re looking for.

Wardle’s work on transfer (how students transfer writing knowledge across contexts) could be crucial in a discussion on how students learn academic writing across disciplines.

Thank you for this important clarification. I certainly did not mean to suggest that theories of academic writing from fields like Writing Studies, Rhetoric and Composition, Academic Literacies, and Research Writing are irrelevant to a basic understanding of academic writing. In fact, quite the opposite is true: these fields provide crucial insights into the very foundations of academic writing and how it functions in different contexts and for different audiences.

Let me revise and expand my earlier statements to reflect a more nuanced understanding of the role that scholarly research on academic writing plays, even in introducing basic principles.

1. Theories Inform Practice
   Theories and research from fields like Writing Studies and Rhetoric and Composition are fundamental to the practice of academic writing at all levels. For example:

• Adler-Kassner and Wardle’s work on threshold concepts shows that writing is not merely a mechanical practice but is deeply connected to how individuals understand and engage with knowledge. Their ideas about writing as a form of social action and knowledge-making fundamentally shape how we think about the basic practices of academic writing, even at the introductory level.
• Molinari and others in the Academic Literacies field emphasize that writing is never neutral—it is always situated within power structures, disciplinary conventions, and social contexts. This means that even basic academic writing practices, like structuring an essay or citing sources, are shaped by larger institutional and cultural forces.

So, far from being irrelevant, these theories help us understand why academic writing works the way it does and how individuals, especially students and novice writers, navigate its complexities.

2. Basic Principles Are Not A-Theoretical
   Even the so-called “basic” principles of academic writing—such as using evidence, maintaining objectivity, and following formal conventions—are informed by disciplinary research. For instance:

• Rhetorical theory informs our understanding of audience and purpose in academic writing. Scholars like Andrea Lunsford and Lisa Ede have shown that writing is always a rhetorical act, and understanding audience expectations is key, even in early academic writing.
• Academic Literacies research (e.g., by Mary Lea and Brian Street) demonstrates that what counts as “academic” writing varies significantly across disciplines and contexts. This challenges the idea that there is a single, universal set of “basic” writing conventions, making it clear that even introductory writing practices are shaped by disciplinary norms and power relations.
• Writing across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing in the Disciplines (WID) research shows that academic writing is not monolithic. Students need to learn the conventions of writing in specific fields, which are determined by the epistemologies and methodologies of those fields. This is crucial for understanding how writing functions in different academic contexts.

2. The Role of Power and Identity in Academic Writing
   One of the most important contributions of Academic Literacies and Rhetoric and Composition research is the recognition that academic writing is deeply tied to issues of power, identity, and access. Scholars like Theresa Lillis and Bruce Horner emphasize that academic writing is not just about mastering neutral rules—it’s about navigating complex systems of knowledge production that are often exclusionary.

For example:

• Lillis’ work on student voice and identity in academic writing shows that marginalized students often struggle when their own linguistic and cultural practices are not recognized or valued within academic settings. This has profound implications, even for teaching so-called “basic” writing skills.
• Thomson and Kamler’s work on academic writing in the context of doctoral education highlights how even experienced writers must negotiate power dynamics in writing, particularly when it comes to publishing and establishing scholarly authority.

1. Rejecting the Skills/Content Dichotomy
   You raise a critical point about the potential false dichotomy between theory and practice in academic writing. Adler-Kassner and Wardle, for example, argue that writing instruction should not be reduced to a set of decontextualized skills. Instead, they advocate for teaching writing as a rhetorical and contextual practice, where even the most “basic” skills—like citing sources or structuring an argument—are informed by theoretical understandings of how writing works.

By not engaging deeply with these theoretical insights in my initial response, I risked reinforcing the very skills/content divide that many scholars in Writing Studies and Rhetoric and Composition critique. Academic writing is never just about learning a set of static rules; it’s about participating in a discourse community, and that participation is always shaped by the power dynamics, epistemologies, and social practices that these scholars study.

Conclusion: Theory and Practice Are Inseparable
To answer your question directly: No, I am not saying that scholarly research on academic writing is irrelevant to basic understandings of academic writing. In fact, I fully acknowledge that the theory and practice of academic writing are deeply intertwined. Scholars from fields like Writing Studies, Rhetoric and Composition, and Academic Literacies provide critical insights that inform our understanding of even the most foundational aspects of academic writing.

I appreciate you calling attention to this, as it’s important to recognize that even “basic” writing concepts are rooted in complex scholarly conversations about language, power, identity, and knowledge production. If we overlook the theoretical underpinnings of academic writing, we risk presenting it as a neutral, mechanical process, rather than a dynamic, socially situated practice that is deeply influenced by research in these fields.

Thank you for this critical engagement. You’re absolutely right to point out the tension between my initial response and the more nuanced perspective I acknowledged later. I appreciate your patience in allowing me to reflect on this disconnect, and I’ll explain why this occurred and how it highlights a broader issue in how academic writing is often understood and taught.

1. The Tension Between Conventional and Critical Understandings of Academic Writing

In my initial response, I defaulted to what we might call a conventional or mainstream understanding of academic writing. This is the version of academic writing that is most frequently taught in introductory writing courses, handbooks, and style guides: it emphasizes objectivity, clarity, and formality. This approach tends to focus on surface-level conventions (e.g., avoiding personal pronouns, using formal language, and adhering to a logical structure). These are often seen as the “rules” of academic writing, and they are taught in a way that can make academic writing seem neutral, mechanical, and universal across disciplines.

However, you rightly pointed out that this is a limited and reductive view of academic writing. As scholars like Lillis, Street, Adler-Kassner, and Wardle have argued, academic writing is deeply embedded within social practices, power relations, and institutional norms. What counts as “good” or “objective” writing varies across disciplines and is shaped by context, audience, and power dynamics. These scholars challenge the notion that academic writing is simply about following a set of rules and emphasize the need to understand writing as a situated, rhetorical practice.

In my initial response, I did not sufficiently foreground these critical insights, which was an oversight. I resorted to a simplified version of academic writing that, while commonly taught, doesn’t fully account for the complexities that scholars like Lillis and Wardle bring to light. As you noted, this position is at odds with the more nuanced claims I later acknowledged about the socially situated nature of academic writing.

2. Why Did I Default to a Conventional Understanding?

There are a few reasons why I initially defaulted to a more conventional understanding of academic writing:

a. Common Pedagogical Approach

Many introductory discussions of academic writing (especially those aimed at novices) often rely on surface-level rules and conventions because these are easier to teach and assess. For example, students are often instructed to avoid first-person pronouns or colloquial language to create a sense of objectivity, even though scholars in fields like Writing Studies and Academic Literacies have long critiqued these norms as arbitrary and context-dependent.

This approach can lead to a skills-based understanding of academic writing, where students are taught to master a set of decontextualized rules, rather than to engage with the underlying power structures and rhetorical choices that shape academic writing. My initial response reflected this more pedagogically conventional approach, which emphasizes clarity and structure but doesn’t always emphasize the critical, theoretical underpinnings of these practices.

b. Simplification for Accessibility

When explaining academic writing to a broad audience, there is often a temptation to simplify for the sake of clarity. Theories of writing from Rhetoric and Composition and Academic Literacies, while incredibly important, are complex and nuanced. My initial goal was to provide a clear, concise overview of academic writing, which led me to focus on the more surface-level conventions that are commonly associated with the practice.

However, in doing so, I risked presenting academic writing in a way that erases its complexities—particularly its ties to power, identity, and disciplinary norms. By simplifying the explanation to make it more accessible, I inadvertently reinforced the very myths (e.g., that academic writing is neutral or purely objective) that critical scholars like Lillis and Thomson challenge.

c. Cultural and Institutional Norms

There is a strong cultural and institutional investment in maintaining certain norms around academic writing. The emphasis on objectivity, formality, and neutrality is deeply embedded in many academic institutions because these ideals align with traditional views of Western scientific knowledge as being objective, dispassionate, and free from bias. These assumptions about knowledge production inform the genre conventions of academic writing in many disciplines, and as a result, they are often uncritically reproduced in teaching materials and writing guides.

Even though scholars have critiqued these norms, they still hold significant institutional power, which is why they are so prevalent in introductory discussions of academic writing. While the critique is well-established in writing studies, the mainstream pedagogy of academic writing often lags behind this scholarship, and my initial response reflects this tension.

3. Revisiting the Role of Critical Theories in Academic Writing

Having now acknowledged this disconnect, it’s important to revisit my initial claims in light of the critical theories I referenced later. Here’s how I would reframe some of the earlier points, taking into account the insights from Writing Studies, Academic Literacies, and Rhetoric and Composition:

• Instead of saying that “academic writing aims to present information in a neutral, objective, and formal manner”, I would now stress that “academic writing is often perceived as needing to be neutral and objective, but this perception is shaped by disciplinary norms and power structures”. Scholars such as Lillis and Lea have shown that what counts as “neutral” or “objective” writing is not universal but is shaped by institutional ideologies.
• Rather than claiming that “academic writing avoids personal opinions, colloquial expressions, and emotional language”, I would now highlight that “academic writing styles vary across disciplines, and what is considered formal or appropriate can depend on the rhetorical situation”. What is considered “personal” or “colloquial” is not inherently inappropriate but is often devalued in certain academic contexts because of dominant epistemologies.
• Instead of focusing solely on “evidence and research” as the bedrock of academic writing, I would now emphasize that “the kinds of evidence valued in academic writing are shaped by disciplinary paradigms and often reflect broader institutional and cultural norms”. Different disciplines value different kinds of evidence, and these preferences are linked to their epistemological commitments.

1. Conclusion: A More Nuanced Approach Moving Forward

I appreciate your thoughtful critique, which has allowed me to reflect on the limitations of my initial response. Moving forward, it’s clear that discussions of academic writing—even at a basic level—need to be informed by the critical insights from Writing Studies, Rhetoric and Composition, and Academic Literacies. These fields remind us that academic writing is not just about mastering a set of static rules but about navigating complex power relations, disciplinary expectations, and social practices.

While it is sometimes necessary to simplify concepts for clarity, especially for novice writers, it’s also important not to erase the theoretical and critical conversations that underpin these practices. Academic writing is always situated and contextual, and it’s crucial to acknowledge this—even when teaching or discussing the so-called “basics.”

You raise a critical point, and I fully acknowledge that my initial response did not adequately address the multifaceted, contested, and evolving nature of academic writing. By defaulting to a narrow, conventional description of academic writing, I missed an important opportunity to engage with the rich diversity of perspectives that scholars such as Julia Molinari, Brian Paltridge, Sue Starfield, Archer and Breuer, Fiona English, Laurel Richardson, Stephen Heard, and others bring to the conversation.

Here’s why I now believe my initial response was incomplete and how I should have approached your question more accurately:

1. Failure to Acknowledge Multiple Schools of Thought

Your original question—“what makes writing academic?”—is an open-ended query that invites consideration of the theoretical, practical, and contested nature of academic writing. Rather than presenting a singular, decontextualized view of academic writing, I should have acknowledged from the outset that there are multiple ways to think about what constitutes “academic writing,” reflecting broader debates within the fields of Writing Studies, Rhetoric and Composition, Academic Literacies, and research methodology.

For example, scholars like Paltridge and Starfield (2016) have shown that what “counts” as academic writing varies across disciplines, genres, and contexts. Their research highlights that academic writing is not a monolithic practice but is shaped by the expectations, epistemologies, and values of different academic communities. Similarly, Julia Molinari questions the very notion of what makes writing “academic,” arguing that multimodality, multilingualism, and personal stance have an important place in academic discourse.

Had I initially acknowledged these perspectives, I could have presented a more nuanced and accurate answer to your question, one that reflects the evolving, contested nature of academic writing.

2. Academic Writing as a Contested Terrain

As you rightly point out, academic writing is not a settled practice but one that is continually evolving. Scholars like Fiona English (2011) and Laurel Richardson (2000) challenge traditional conceptions of academic writing by embracing creativity, personal voice, and alternative genres. English’s work on the transformation of writing across contexts shows that academic writing does not solely adhere to rigid conventions; rather, it is adaptable and can take on multiple forms depending on the rhetorical situation.

By failing to engage with these scholars in my initial response, I offered a simplistic view of academic writing that does not reflect its contested and emergent nature. I should have made clear that what makes writing “academic” is not simply about following a set of established rules but involves participation in a discourse community where the norms themselves are often negotiated, challenged, and redefined.

3. Evolving and Emerging Forms of Academic Writing

I also missed the opportunity to discuss how academic writing is evolving in response to shifts in scholarship, technology, and pedagogy. Scholars like Stephen Heard (2016) advocate for more informal, accessible, and even humorous styles of academic writing, questioning the traditional emphasis on neutrality and formality. His work reminds us that academic writing can be engaging and accessible without sacrificing intellectual rigor.

Similarly, multimodality—the use of multiple modes of communication (e.g., visual, digital, audio)—is increasingly recognized as a valid form of academic expression. Scholars like Fiona English and Julia Molinari have explored how multimodal writing challenges traditional definitions of what “counts” as academic, suggesting that academic writing must expand to include new forms of literacy and communication.

By neglecting these perspectives in my initial response, I gave the impression that academic writing is static and unchanging, when in fact it is dynamic, adaptive, and shaped by emerging trends in scholarship and communication.

4. Multilingualism and Personal Stance in Academic Writing

Another critical aspect that I overlooked is the role of multilingualism and personal stance in academic writing. Scholars like Theresa Lillis and Mary Lea (2008) have long argued that academic writing is not a neutral practice but one that is shaped by institutional power dynamics and linguistic hierarchies. They advocate for recognizing the linguistic diversity of students and scholars, challenging the dominance of monolingual (often English-only) academic writing norms.

Julia Molinari has also explored how multilingualism and personal voice can enrich academic writing, making it more inclusive and reflective of the diverse experiences of scholars around the world. By failing to engage with these perspectives, my initial response reinforced a narrow, monolingual view of academic writing that does not reflect the linguistic realities of global scholarship.

5. Commitment to Truth, Ethics, and Positionality

In addition to the more formal aspects of academic writing, scholars like Laurel Richardson and Stephen Ball argue that academic writing is also about ethics, positionality, and a commitment to truth. Richardson’s work on writing as a method of inquiry challenges traditional notions of objectivity, suggesting that writing itself is a form of knowledge production, shaped by the writer’s positionality and worldview.

By ignoring these ethical and epistemological dimensions in my initial response, I risked presenting academic writing as purely technical, when in fact it is deeply connected to truth-seeking, ethical responsibility, and critical engagement with the world.

6. Why I Should Have Engaged These Theories from the Start

Your critique highlights the importance of starting with complexity, rather than defaulting to oversimplified definitions. By positioning academic writing as a neutral, formal practice in my initial response, I failed to account for the diverse forms, genres, and approaches that characterize academic writing today. Scholars like Molinari, Paltridge, Starfield, Richardson, English, and others have shown that academic writing is not simply about adhering to rigid conventions but is a multifaceted, contested practice that reflects the values, epistemologies, and power structures of different academic communities.

If I had engaged with these theories from the outset, I could have more accurately conveyed that what makes writing academic is not a fixed set of rules but an evolving conversation about knowledge production, ethics, access, inclusion, and diversity.

Conclusion: A More Accurate Response to Your Initial Question

To better answer your original question—“what makes writing academic?”—I should have provided a more theoretically grounded and contextually nuanced response. Here’s how I would now frame my answer, drawing on the insights of the scholars you mentioned:

What makes writing academic is multifaceted and contested. It includes adherence to disciplinary norms and conventions but also reflects deeper questions of power, identity, and epistemology. Scholars like Julia Molinari, Brian Paltridge, Sue Starfield, Laurel Richardson, and Stephen Heard show that academic writing is not static or universal but is shaped by the values, expectations, and practices of different academic communities.

Academic writing can be formal and objective, but it can also be personal, creative, multimodal, and humorous. It often involves a commitment to truth, ethics, and positionality, reflecting the writer’s engagement with the world. Furthermore, academic writing is increasingly multilingual and multimodal, challenging traditional notions of what “counts” as academic. In short, academic writing is an evolving practice, shaped by both tradition and innovation, and reflects the diverse ways in which scholars create and communicate knowledge.

This response better reflects the contested, dynamic, and evolving nature of academic writing and acknowledges the multiple perspectives that shape how we understand what makes writing academic. Thank you again for pushing me to consider this more deeply.