Writing abstracts is difficult and the challenge is not always recognised, partly, I think, because of the way academic papers are developed. These days many conference organisers demand the submission of full papers rather than just abstracts but when I first started attending conferences all that was needed was an abstract. My most frequent co-author had a happy knack of constructing very interesting abstracts from some rather vague research ideas with which we had been tinkering: we would send the result off to a conference (chosen largely on the basis of being held in a place we quite fancied visiting) and when the abstract was accepted we would then be faced at a later stage with actually writing the paper. We could change the abstract, of course, but our paper would have been allocated to a presentation stream on the basis of what we'd originally said so there were limitations.
Amazingly, this process worked rather well and we ended up with some sound publications which have stood us in good stead over the years of our careers.
I thought I'd take a look back at the development of the abstract for our most widely cited paper. This paper was one output of a research project financed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland which also resulted in this report.
This is the original abstract sent to the first conference at which we presented our ideas. The title was "From Frog to Prince: the Metamorphosis of Internal Audit".
"Over the last decade, the term ‘audit’ has become widely used in spheres of accountability beyond the purely financial (Power 1997), while accountancy firms have begun to re-brand audit services under the banner of ‘assurance’. This change has been paralleled by a shift in external audit focus from detailed compliance and financial system analysis to a broader strategic emphasis on business risk (Lemon, Tatum et al. 2000). Corporate governance policy recommendations have highlighted the importance of internal control and raised the profile of the internal audit function. In a similar shift to that observed within external audit, the role of internal audit now emphasises risk management (Selim and McNamee 1999), notably in the assumption of a close link between internal control and risk management underpinning the recent Turnbull guidance (Turnbull Committee 1999). In practice, the extent of this shift may be limited (Griffiths 1999). This paper explores the evidence that suggests that these changes are taking place, using interviews with leading internal audit practitioners, set against the background of changing sociological perspectives on risk."
I can't find the notes of our earliest conversation that will have led to this but I'm fairly sure that those citations are a manifestation of my lack of confidence in the broad assertions of my co-author! Including citations in an abstract is rarely helpful: they take up the limited space and the full references don't often accompany the abstract which makes it difficult for a reader to follow them up.
This is the abstract from the first full conference paper draft:
"The publication of the Turnbull report in the UK represented a radical redefinition of the nature of internal control and internal audit as features of corporate governance in the UK. It is surprising that the redefinition has been largely unremarked. In this paper we chart the implied change in the role of internal audit, evaluate evidence that such a change has actually occurred and identify the pivotal role of the concept of risk in the change which is occurring. Competition for organisational turf and influence is identified as a driving force; ownership of risk management is seen as an occupational vacuum which internal auditors are seeking to occupy as a means to acquiring influence on corporate strategy formation. At the same time compliance with systems and verification of internal control are in danger of becoming neglected. Internal auditors are seeking to professionalise their occupation and to compete with external auditors and non-executive directors in providing strategic advice. Meanwhile, who is minding the shop? "
I like that second sentence: well, *we* were surprised. We did eventually come up with evidence to support some of these claims.
"The
publication of the Turnbull guidance represented a radical redefinition of the nature
of internal control as a feature of corporate governance in the UK, explicitly
aligning internal control with risk management. This paper explores this
change, using sociological perspectives on risk and its conceptualisation to
frame the debate about internal control and risk management within
the UK corporate governance arena - the most recent manifestation of an ongoing
competition for the control of economic and social resources. The paper
demonstrates that developments in corporate governance reporting requirements
offer opportunities for the appropriation of
risk and its management by groups wishing to advance their own interests. This is
illustrated by a review of recent changes in internal audit."
It's worth noting that the journal in which this was published now demands structured abstracts.
Looking back at the abstracts I'm not at all sure that they would satisfy @fcablog. But it has made me think more carefully about the role of the abstract and what readers require. I confess that when I've reviewed papers for journals I haven't always paid a great deal of attention to the abstract, other than to check that they are in line with the paper contents. It might be quite interesting to write a paper about writing abstracts...
