Subject-Specific Writing Challenges: STEM vs Humanities Writing Differences

“Writing is thinking on paper—but what you think about thinking depends entirely on your discipline.”

Every academic discipline has its own unwritten rules for how to write. A physicist writing about quantum mechanics uses different conventions than a historian analyzing primary sources, while a sociologist studying inequality employs yet another approach. These subject-specific writing challenges can confuse students transitioning between disciplines or grappling with interdisciplinary work.

This guide helps you navigate these differences, understand why they exist, and adapt your writing style appropriately—whether you’re working in STEM, humanities, or social sciences.

Quick Answer

STEM writing emphasizes:

• Objective, impersonal tone
• Quantitative evidence and data
• IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion)
• Passive voice for methods sections
• Precise, technical vocabulary

Humanities writing emphasizes:

• Interpretive, analytical voice
• Qualitative evidence and textual analysis
• Thesis-driven arguments
• Active voice and narrative flow
• Contextual, critical engagement with sources

Social sciences blend both approaches, often using quantitative methods in social contexts (e.g., sociology, psychology, economics).

What to Expect

1. Understanding the Core Differences

STEM Writing: The Science of Objective Communication

In STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics), writing serves to:

• Report empirical findings that can be replicated
• Share precise, reproducible methods
• Present data objectively without personal interpretation
• Build cumulative knowledge through verification

Key characteristics:

• Passive voice in methods sections (“The experiment was conducted at 25°C”)
• Quantitative evidence (p-values, statistical significance, measurements)
• Precise terminology (e.g., “catalyst” not “helper,” “hypothesis” not “guess”)
• Visual data (graphs, charts, tables)
• Concise, direct language

Example STEM writing:

“The catalytic efficiency increased by 3.2-fold (p < 0.01) when temperature was raised from 25°C to 45°C. Statistical analysis using ANOVA confirmed significant differences across all temperature groups (F(3, 27) = 12.45, p < 0.001).”

Humanities Writing: The Art of Interpretive Analysis

In humanities disciplines (history, literature, philosophy, art history, cultural studies), writing serves to:

• Interpret primary sources and texts
• Construct nuanced arguments about meaning
• Engage critically with existing scholarship
• Situate work within broader intellectual traditions

Key characteristics:

• Active voice and interpretive voice (“I argue that,” “This suggests”)
• Qualitative evidence (textual analysis, archival research, case studies)
• Contextual engagement (historical, cultural, theoretical frameworks)
• Nuanced vocabulary (e.g., “paradigm,” “discourse,” “hegemony”)
• Narrative flow with logical transitions

Example humanities writing:

“This chapter argues that the Victorian novel’s domestic sphere was not merely a backdrop for social commentary but an active site of ideological negotiation. By examining three key texts, I demonstrate how middle-class women writers subverted patriarchal norms through subtle textual strategies.”

Social Sciences: The Bridge Between Objectivity and Interpretation

Social science disciplines (sociology, psychology, economics, political science, anthropology) typically:

• Use mixed methods (quantitative surveys + qualitative interviews)
• Test theories about human behavior and social systems
• Balance empirical rigor with contextual understanding
• Vary by subfield (e.g., economics is more STEM-like; anthropology is more humanities-like)

Example social science writing:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, we combined survey data (n = 1,247) with in-depth interviews to examine the relationship between social capital and civic engagement. Quantitative analysis revealed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.62, p < 0.001), while qualitative findings suggest this relationship is mediated by community trust.”

2. Structural Differences: IMRaD vs. Flexible Forms

STEM: The IMRaD Format

The IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) is the standard for most STEM research papers. Each section has specific expectations:

Internal link: For detailed guidance on IMRaD structure, see our How to Write a Journal Article for Publication: IMRAD Structure and Beyond guide.

Humanities: The Flexible, Thesis-Driven Structure

Humanities writing typically follows a flexible structure organized around a central thesis:

1. Introduction (1-2 pages)
   • Establish context and significance
   • Present thesis statement
   • Outline argument structure
2. Body Paragraphs (2-4 pages each)
   • Each focuses on a specific sub-argument
   • Uses topic sentences and supporting evidence
   • Engages with counterarguments
3. Conclusion (1 page)
   • Restate thesis in light of evidence
   • Discuss broader implications
   • Suggest avenues for further research

Example humanities structure:

Introduction: The Problem of Victorian Domestic Fiction
  - Context: Rise of the middle-class novel
  - Thesis: Women writers subverted patriarchal norms through subtextual strategies
  - Roadmap: Three case studies (Austen, Brontë, Gaskell)

Body I: Jane Austen and the Subtle Satire of Gender Roles
  - Analysis of Pride and Prejudice
  - Textual evidence and close reading
  - Connection to broader feminist scholarship

Body II: Charlotte Brontë and the Gothic Subversion
  - Analysis of Jane Eyre
  - Gothic tropes as feminist tools
  - Engagement with critical literature

Body III: Elizabeth Gaskell and the Social Novel
  - Analysis of North and South
  - Industrial capitalism critique
  - Synthesis with Marxist feminist theory

Conclusion: Implications for Feminist Literary Criticism

Social Sciences: Method-Dependent Structure

Social science structure depends on methodology:

Quantitative studies (economics, psychology):

• Follow IMRaD format
• Emphasize statistical rigor
• Include sections on:
  • Sample size calculation
  • Data collection procedures
  • Statistical analysis methods

Qualitative studies (anthropology, sociology):

• More flexible structure
• May include:
  • Methodological framework
  • Participant description
  • Thematic analysis
  • Reflexivity statement

3. Voice and Tone: Objective vs. Interpretive

STEM: Objective and Impersonal

STEM writing traditionally favors objectivity over authorial voice. This manifests as:

• Passive voice in methods sections:
  • Correct: “The solution was heated to 80°C for 30 minutes.”
  • Incorrect: “We heated the solution to 80°C for 30 minutes.”
• Avoiding first-person pronouns:
  • Old style: “We found that the results were significant.”
  • New style: “Results indicated that the findings were significant.”
• Limiting speculation:
  • Correct: “The data suggest a possible mechanism.”
  • Incorrect: “This proves that the mechanism is X.”

Note: Modern STEM writing is increasingly accepting of first-person voice, particularly in:

• Cover letters
• Abstract introductions
• Discussion sections
• Grant proposals

Humanities: Analytical and Interpretive

Humanities writing embraces authorial voice and interpretive engagement:

• Active voice and interpretive statements:
  • Example: “I argue that this passage reveals the author’s ambivalence toward industrialization.”
  • Example: “This suggests a shift in the narrative voice.”
• Engaging with counterarguments:
  • Example: “While Smith (2020) contends that X, this interpretation overlooks Y.”
  • Example: “Critics argue that this reading is too narrow, but the textual evidence suggests otherwise.”
• Expressing uncertainty appropriately:
  • Example: “One might interpret this as evidence of, though not necessarily proof of, X.”
  • Example: “This could indicate a paradigm shift, although further research is needed.”

Social Sciences: Context-Dependent Voice

Social science voice varies by subfield:

Psychology (more STEM-like):

• Passive voice in methods
• Objective tone in results
• Some interpretation in discussion

Sociology (balanced):

• Active voice acceptable
• Interpretive engagement with theory
• Reflexive statements common

Anthropology (more humanities-like):

• First-person voice common (“I observed,” “I interviewed”)
• Reflexive statements required
• Thick description emphasized

4. Evidence and Argumentation: Data vs. Interpretation

STEM: Quantitative Evidence

STEM writing relies on quantitative evidence:

• Statistical significance (p-values, confidence intervals)
• Effect sizes (Cohen’s d, odds ratios)
• Measurement precision (standard deviations, error margins)
• Visual data (graphs, charts, tables)

Example:

“Figure 1 shows a linear relationship between concentration and absorbance (R² = 0.998). The regression analysis yielded a slope of 0.023 ± 0.001 M⁻¹cm⁻¹ (n = 5 replicates).”

Humanities: Textual and Contextual Evidence

Humanities writing relies on qualitative evidence:

• Close reading of primary texts
• Archival research (letters, diaries, manuscripts)
• Cultural artifacts (artworks, films, architecture)
• Contextual analysis (historical, social, political context)

Example:

“The letter dated 14 March 1847 reveals Smith’s ambivalence toward the abolitionist cause. While he expresses support for gradual emancipation, his emphasis on ‘moral persuasion’ over political action suggests a reluctance to challenge the status quo.”

Social Sciences: Mixed Evidence

Social science writing combines both:

Quantitative:

“Survey results (n = 1,500) show that 68% of respondents prioritize environmental concerns over economic growth (χ² = 12.45, p < 0.001).”

Qualitative:

“Interviews with 15 farmers revealed that climate change concerns are mediated by access to insurance programs. Three participants explicitly linked their willingness to adopt new technologies to perceived risk mitigation strategies.”

5. Citation Practices: Author-Date vs. Footnotes

STEM: Author-Date or Numbered Citations

STEM fields typically use:

• APA style (psychology, education): (Smith, 2020)
• AMA style (medicine): Smith et al., 2020¹
• Vancouver style (biomedical): [1-5]
• IEEE style (engineering): [1]

Example:

“Recent studies have shown that CRISPR-Cas9 editing can introduce off-target effects [1-3]. However, newer protocols have improved specificity [4-5].”

Humanities: Footnotes and Endnotes

Humanities fields typically use:

• Chicago style (historians, literary scholars)
• MLA style (humanities, liberal arts)
• Footnotes for:
  • Page numbers
  • Extended commentary
  • Additional sources

Example (MLA):

The Victorian novel’s domestic sphere functioned as both a site of patriarchal control and a space for subversive negotiation.¹

¹ Smith 123-125.

Social Sciences: Flexible Citation

Social science citation varies by subfield:

Economics:

• Author-date (APA-like): (Smith et al., 2020)

Political Science:

• Author-date or numbered citations depending on subfield

Anthropology:

• Footnotes common for thick description
• Chicago style preferred

6. Vocabulary and Register: Technical vs. Interpretive

STEM: Precise Technical Language

STEM writing uses:

• Specific terminology (e.g., “hypothesis” not “guess,” “variable” not “factor”)
• Technical jargon (e.g., “allosteric” not “side-binding”)
• Precise measurements (e.g., “25.3 ± 0.5°C” not “about 25 degrees”)
• Standard abbreviations (e.g., “DNA,” “RNA,” “PCR”)

Common STEM vocabulary:

• hypothesis, variable, control, experimental
• significant, p-value, confidence interval
• replication, reproducibility, falsifiable
• correlation, causation, mechanism

Humanities: Nuanced Interpretive Language

Humanities writing uses:

• Analytical vocabulary (e.g., “paradigm,” “discourse,” “hegemony”)
• Nuanced adjectives (e.g., “ambivalent,” “provocative,” “subversive”)
• Theoretical frameworks (e.g., “postcolonial,” “feminist,” “Marxist”)
• Contextual terms (e.g., “historical,” “cultural,” “ideological”)

Common humanities vocabulary:

• thesis, argument, interpretation
• discourse, paradigm, hegemony
• textual analysis, close reading
• contextual, historical, ideological

Social Sciences: Hybrid Vocabulary

Social science vocabulary blends both:

Quantitative:

• hypothesis, variable, correlation
• significance, p-value, regression

Qualitative:

• theme, code, narrative
• discourse, hegemony, paradigm

7. Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

Mistake 1: Using the Wrong Voice

Problem: A psychology student writing a methods section in active voice:

“We conducted the survey using Qualtrics and collected responses from 500 participants.”

Fix: Use passive voice (STEM convention):

“The survey was conducted using Qualtrics, and responses were collected from 500 participants.”

Internal link: See our Graduate-Level STEM Writing: From Lab Reports to Journal Publications guide for more on voice conventions.

Mistake 2: Misapplying Evidence Type

Problem: A history student relying solely on statistical data:

“The population decreased by 15% between 1900 and 1920, indicating a major crisis.”

Fix: Add textual and contextual analysis:

“The population decreased by 15% between 1900 and 1920. Analysis of census records and contemporary accounts suggests this decline resulted from industrialization, urban migration, and agricultural disruption.”

Mistake 3: Ignoring Citation Style

Problem: A sociology student using numbered citations in a qualitative study:

“Previous research shows this pattern [1-3].”

Fix: Use footnotes or author-date depending on field convention:

“Previous research shows this pattern.¹”

Mistake 4: Over-Interpreting Quantitative Data

Problem: A biology student making causal claims from correlational data:

“The data prove that X causes Y.”

Fix: Use appropriate language:

“The data suggest a relationship between X and Y. Further research is needed to establish causation.”

Internal link: Learn about avoiding over-interpretation in our How to Write a Lab Report guide.

Mistake 5: Under-Contextualizing Qualitative Analysis

Problem: A literature student making broad claims without textual support:

“This novel represents a feminist critique of Victorian gender roles.”

Fix: Add textual evidence:

“This novel represents a feminist critique of Victorian gender roles. For example, the protagonist’s rejection of marriage proposals in Chapter 3 demonstrates her agency, while her engagement with feminist discourse in Chapter 7 shows her intellectual engagement with contemporary debates.”

Mistake 6: Mixing Disciplines Without Awareness

Problem: A student writing a paper that combines STEM and humanities approaches without acknowledging the tension:

“The experiment was conducted, and we analyzed the data. The results show that the theory is wrong.”

Fix: Acknowledge disciplinary conventions:

“Following standard experimental protocols, we conducted the experiment and analyzed the data. However, the results challenge the prevailing theoretical framework. This section discusses the implications for both empirical research and theoretical interpretation.”

8. Decision Framework: Choosing the Right Approach

Step 1: Identify Your Primary Discipline

Ask:

• What is my major field?
• What subfield am I working in?
• What are the dominant publication venues?

Step 2: Check Your Advisor’s Preferences

Ask:

• What style does my advisor prefer?
• What journals/conferences have they published in?
• Are there departmental guidelines?

Step 3: Consult Style Guides

• STEM: APA, AMA, IEEE, ACS
• Humanities: MLA, Chicago (notes-bibliography)
• Social Sciences: APA, ASA, Chicago (depending on subfield)

Step 4: Analyze Recent Publications

• Read 3-5 recent papers from your target venue
• Note their structure, voice, and citation style
• Identify patterns in evidence use

Step 5: Plan for Interdisciplinary Work

If working across disciplines:

• Lead with your primary discipline’s conventions
• Acknowledge the other discipline’s approach
• Find common ground (e.g., both value clarity, precision)

Example interdisciplinary approach:

“This study combines quantitative methods (from sociology) with qualitative analysis (from anthropology). While the quantitative section follows APA conventions, the qualitative analysis uses Chicago style footnotes to provide thick description.”

9. Related Guides on Essays-Panda.com

• How to Write a Lab Report – STEM writing fundamentals
• Graduate-Level STEM Writing: From Lab Reports to Journal Publications – Advanced STEM writing
• How to Write a Journal Article for Publication: IMRAD Structure and Beyond – IMRaD format details
• Writing a Research Statement for Academic Jobs – Humanities writing
• How to Write a Dissertation Proposal: Complete Guide for PhD Students – Cross-disciplinary research

10. Call to Action

Struggling with subject-specific writing challenges? Our expert academic editors can help you:

• Adapt your writing style to match discipline conventions
• Review and revise your manuscript for disciplinary appropriateness
• Provide feedback on voice, evidence, and argumentation

Visit the Order page or start a live chat for immediate assistance.

Authored by the Essays-Panda Academic Writing Team