Writing Style (amanthro-writing-style)
An AA paper must be readable by an anthropologist outside its subfield, written with the craft AA prizes
(strong ethnographic prose, a clear argument, reflexive voice), formatted to Chicago author-date,
and disciplined to the section's word cap. AA also asks for inclusive language and citational
practices that lift marginalized voices — style here is partly an ethical commitment.
When to trigger
- Drafting the introduction, framing the contribution, or final polish
- Over the word cap and needing to cut without losing the argument or the ethnography
- Writing the 200-word abstract
- Aligning citations/format to AA house style before submission
Reach all four fields
-
Front-load the contribution. By the end of the introduction the reader knows the question, the
argument, the evidence, and why it matters to anthropology broadly — don't make a generalist dig.
-
Minimize subfield jargon or define it on first use; an archaeologist should follow a linguistic
paper. Spell out acronyms; gloss technical terms.
-
Argument-first, but keep the craft. AA values vivid ethnographic writing and a reflexive voice;
lead with claims and let well-chosen scenes and evidence carry them. Avoid both dry report prose and
description with no argument.
-
Write with care. Use inclusive language; represent interlocutors and communities with
dignity (avoid deficit framing); consider citational politics in who you cite and foreground.
Format to AA house style
-
Citations: Chicago Manual of Style author-date; AA accepts free-format submissions
(you need not perfectly style-conform at first submission), but keep one consistent style and include
DOIs where available. Manage with Zotero/BibTeX.
-
Abstract: 200 words.
-
Anonymize: AA review is anonymous — no author names/affiliations in the manuscript or file
name; supply a separate title page; neutralize obvious self-references and strip file metadata.
-
Land acknowledgment / positionality: include where appropriate to the work and community.
Fit the word cap (Research Articles ≤ 8,000 words incl. figures, tables, references, notes; abstract 200)
- Tighten throat-clearing and literature dumps; engage the conversation, not every paper
(see
amanthro-literature-positioning).
- Choose the scenes and exhibits that argue; cut redundant description.
- Notes count toward the limit — keep them lean.
- If the piece is short and engaged, target the right section (Essay 2,000–3,000; Commentary ≤ 1,500;
Review Essay ≤ 5,000) rather than padding toward a Research Article.
Anti-patterns
- A subfield-insider intro that never states four-field significance
- Burying the contribution under pages of description before the argument appears
- An abstract over 200 words or one that hides the finding
- Deficit or othering language toward communities; a "view from nowhere" with no positionality
- A bibliography that foregrounds only metropolitan theorists
- Padding an Essay/Commentary toward Research-Article length
Output format
【Contribution stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Reads across the four fields?】jargon defined / acronyms spelled? [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (≤ 200)
【Word count】Research Article ≤ 8,000 (incl. figures/tables/refs/notes)?
【Chicago author-date + anonymized + DOIs】[Y/N]
【Care-ful language + citational politics】[Y/N]
【Next】amanthro-transparency-and-data
Supplementary resources
