Jaar Structure And Exposition

---
name: jaar-structure-and-exposition
description: Use when organizing a Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) article so a method-conscious argument unfolds clearly within the ~8,000-12,000-word range (including references and footnotes). Builds the essay's architecture; it does not generate content.
---

# Structure & Exposition (jaar-structure-and-exposition)

A JAAR article is a humanities essay, not an IMRaD report: it has no fixed Methods/Results sections.
Its architecture must carry a thesis-driven argument and make the broad significance visible, all
inside roughly **8,000–12,000 words including references and footnotes**. This skill designs that build.

## When to trigger

- Outlining the article or restructuring a sprawling draft
- The argument is sound but readers get lost in the sections
- Over the length budget and needing to cut without losing the argument
- The introduction or conclusion isn't doing its job

## A structure that works at JAAR

1. **Introduction that frames the field-level problem.** Open with the broad question (the reframing
   from `jaar-topic-selection`), state the thesis early, and signal the method. By the end of the intro a
   non-specialist knows the stakes and the claim.
2. **Situate, then argue.** Position the intervention (briefly — not a survey), then move into the
   analysis. Avoid a long detached "literature review" section; weave scholarship into the argument.
3. **Analytical sections that advance the thesis.** Each section does work; use signposting so the
   reader tracks how evidence and method build toward the claim. Keep the throughline visible.
4. **Conclusion that delivers the payoff.** Return to the field-level stakes: what the argument
   establishes for the study of religion, and what it opens up — not a summary.
5. **Budget the length.** ~8,000–12,000 words counts references and footnotes; reserve footnotes for
   substantive points (citations go in-text — see `jaar-citation-and-style`), and prune block quotations.

## Exposition for two audiences

- Define specialist terms and transliterations on first use so generalists can follow.
- Give just enough context on the tradition/sources for a non-specialist, without lecturing specialists.
- Keep the argument, not the material, in the driver's seat.

## Anti-patterns

- An IMRaD skeleton imposed on a humanities essay
- A detached literature-review section that stalls the argument
- Sections that describe without advancing the thesis
- A conclusion that merely recaps ("In this article I discussed…")
- Footnote sprawl or block-quote bloat that busts the word budget

## Output format

```
【Intro】field-level problem + thesis + method signaled early? [Y/N]
【Positioning】woven in, not a detached survey? [Y/N]
【Sections】each advances the thesis; signposted?
【Conclusion】delivers field-level payoff (not a recap)? [Y/N]
【Length】within ~8,000-12,000 words incl. refs + footnotes?
【Next】jaar-writing-style
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — article length range and structure expectations