Adapted from Wendy Belcher’s Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks (2019)

What is your entry point?  

Your entry point is how your argument enters the debate occurring in the previous research on the topic. 

Types of entry points

  1. finding the previous research inadequate or nonexistent and filling the gap
  2. finding it sound and supporting it or extending it
  3. finding it unsound and correcting it

Entry Point Type 1: Addressing a Gap in Previous Research

Identifying a gap (or gaps) in the related scholarly literature and setting out to fill it is one of the most common entry points in academic writing. In the humanities, gap claims often relate to sources, with scholars claiming that there is a gap in attention given to certain authors or texts, or to particular types of authors, texts, or textual themes. In the professions, social sciences, or health sciences, gap claims often relate to problems-many scholars claim that there is a gap in attention given to certain equality challenges in politics, economics, society, health, and so on. Filling gaps is a strong claim for significance. However, the success of this claim rests on having a good grasp of the research. 

Here is an example from a published article of an author announcing a gap entry point into previous research.

 “Listening is surprisingly and problematically overlooked in the large body of literature on organization-public communication including government, political, corporate, and marketing communication. Based on critical analysis of relevant literature and primary research among 36 organizations in three countries, this analysis identifies a ‘crisis listening' in organization-public communication and proposes strategies to address gaps in theory and practice including attention to the work of listening and the creation of an architecture of listening in organizations, which can offer significant stakeholder. societal. and organizational benefits.” (from Macnamara 2016, 133)

Entry Point Type 2: Supporting Previous Research

Approving of and using other scholars’ theories to analyze new subjects is another common

scholarly entry point. Thus, naming authors or articles you find useful is part of positioning

your article vis-a-vis the previous research. This can be as simple as identifying the school, camp, movement, or tradition your research participates in. In all disciplines, supporting or extending previous research often relates to theorists, with scholars claiming that a particular theorist's work, idea(s), or definition is especially helpful in understanding the subject at hand (or that a group of theorists or a school of theory is helpful). Bridging two discussions in the related literature is another way of supporting or extending research.

Here are examples from published articles of authors announcing supportive entry points into previous research.

Extending the related literature. “Although some evidence indicates that personality
characteristics, such as extroversion and proactivity, are related to career success, scholars
have called for research to understand how such effects occur…. Consistent with prior
research…, we theorize that personality traits, specifically extroversion and proactivity,
influence mentoring received, which in turn influences career success.” (from Turban et al. 2016, 21)

Bridging two bodies of related literature. "We bring together two long-standing rural sociological traditions to address debates framed at the national level and for Appalachian communities facing the throes of transition from the coal industry. From rural sociology’s

‘poverty and place’ tradition and from natural resources sociology, we examine the relationship between coal employment and communities' economic well-being as indicated by poverty, household income, and unemployment. Our findings extend the poverty and place literature and the natural resources literature and underscore why a just transition away from coal should focus on moving communities toward sectors offering better future livelihoods.” (from Lobao et al. 2016, 343)

Bridging a debate in the related literature. “Recent statistics on African American readers outline distinct trends that are difficult to reconcile with each other: …. trailing in proficiency yet thriving in general book reading…. A roiling debate…. focuses on whether readers' preoccupation with urban fiction is symbolic of black literacy's triumph or downfall in the twenty-first century .... I examine the motivating factors…. of these positions in the debate. First I discuss democratizers who ... advocate ... bringing urban fiction into the classroom. I then consider cultural gatekeepers who bemoan mass book reading as a kind of rampant false consciousness …. I turn, finally, to a position between them that values urban fiction in those spaces and situations that are friendly to its consumption…. I characterize the position as merely reading…. adjustable to its surroundings and supple in its execution, it is compatible with serious reading and other literate behaviors.” (from Nishikawa 2015, 697, 698, 702)

Entry Point Type 3: Correcting Previous Research

The most common entry point into the previous research is stating that previous scholarly approaches to a subject are erroneous, and that your article will overturn these misconceptions. Such corrections of the related literature take many forms, from weighing in on a debate (whether choosing one side or saying both are wrong) ; questioning a policy, practice, or interpretation; addressing a contradiction; or offering a solution.

Here is an example of criticizing a theorist

“Giorgio Agamben's formulations of ‘the state of exception’ and ‘bare life’ have become touchstones for analyses of sovereign violence and biopolitics, yet it seems to have escaped note that Agamben’s use of these terms is marked by a peculiar oversight. While Agamben's Eurocentrism has been redressed by scholars such as… , even his most careful readers do not comment on Agamben's treatment of a word that he takes from Primo Levi as the key to  understanding politics and ethics after World War II…. (from Jarvis 2014, 707, 710)