---

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

Section-by-section job sheet

A JAAR essay has no IMRaD scaffold, so each section earns its place by the work it does for the argument. The shape below is common at the AAR/Oxford University Press flagship — adapt it; do not impose it mechanically.

Section	Its one job	Failure mode
Introduction	Pose the field-level problem; state the thesis; signal method	Case minutiae before any stake
Positioning	Locate the intervention briefly	A detached survey
Analytical core (2–4 sections)	Each advances the thesis with evidence + method	A section that only describes
Methodological reflection	Make the method visible where it produces the reading	Method invisible after the intro
Conclusion	Deliver the payoff for the study of religion	"In this article I discussed…"

Worked vignette: rescuing a sprawling draft

A 14,000-word draft on "Sacred Geography in Two Andean Pilgrimages" buries its thesis on page nine behind a standalone literature review. Restructuring against JAAR's norms:

• Hoist the thesis. The field-level claim — that the cases pressure the category "sacred space" — moves to the first two pages, so a non-specialist meets the stakes immediately.
• Dissolve the survey. The detached review is cut to a tight positioning passage; the rest is woven into the analytical sections at the point of use.
• Make each section work. Two sections that merely narrated the routes are merged and rewritten so each advances the recategorization claim, signposted.
• Hit the budget. Trimming the survey, pruning block quotations, and converting citation-only notes (via jaar-citation-and-style) brings the essay under the ceiling — references and footnotes count toward the word total.

Length and shape pushback → the fix

• "I lost the thread by §3" → add section-opening claims that name the move.
• "Over length, notes bloated" → prune notes and block quotes; weave positioning in.

Hedged calibration: the ~8,000–12,000-word range (including references and footnotes) and the absence of a fixed section template reflect the journal's humanities-essay norm; treat the word ceiling and any abstract or heading requirements as volatile and confirm them against the journal's current submission guidelines.

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — article length range and structure expectations