Introductions
It is but a short step from structured abstracts to structured texts. In the
following chapters we shall see how each part of the structure of a scientific
article (the introduction, method, results, discussion and conclusion) can
indeed be subdivided into finer structures.
Swales and Feak (2004) describe what they characterise as ‘moves’ in
the various sections of academic articles. Basically, a ‘move’ is a stage in the
argument that all writers go through. The ‘moves’ for the introduction are
typically as follows (p. 244):
• Move 1: The authors establish a research territory:
(a) by showing that the general research area is important,
central, interesting, problematic or relevant in some way
(optional);
(b) by introducing and reviewing items of previous research
in the area (obligatory).
• Move 2: They then establish a ‘niche’ by indicating a weakness in the
account so far:
(a) by indicating a gap in the previous research, raising a
question about it or extending previous knowledge in some
way (obligatory).
• Move 3: They then occupy the niche by saying they are going to put
this right:
(a) by outlining the purposes or stating the nature of the
present research (obligatory);
(b) by listing research questions or hypotheses to be tested
(optional);
(c) by announcing the principal findings (optional).
Swales and Feak argue that most introductions to academic articles follow
this basic structure. Lewin et al. (2001) offer a similar, but more detailed,
analysis that readers might also find useful.
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
31
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
Chapter 2.5
AN EXAMPLE
While writing this section of Academic Writing and Publishing, I coincidentally
received a copy of a paper by Slatcher and Pennebaker (2006). This paper
was about the effects of one of the partners of a dating couple writing either
neutral or strongly emotional letters to the other one about their relationship.
The paper concluded that the participants who wrote the emotional letters
were significantly more likely to be dating their romantic partners three
months later than were the writers of the neutral letters. Be that as it may,
I was intrigued to observe that the introduction to this paper followed
almost exactly the generic structure described by Swales and Feak.
Slatcher and Pennebaker’s introduction contains five paragraphs. Here are
some examples of how the moves appear:
Move 1: Establishing a research territory
The paper starts (paragraphs 1 and 2) with describing the background and
setting the scene. Key phrases are: ‘Researchers are now . . .’, ‘Preliminary
findings suggest . . .’, ‘There are a number of ways in which one could measure
the effects of expressive writing . . .’.
Move 2: Establishing a niche
The paper continues (in paragraphs 3 and 4) with the following key phrases:
‘Although previous studies have addressed . . . none have . . .’, ‘One potential
mediator is . . .’, ‘There are various ways to measure . . .’, ‘The use of emotional
words may be particularly relevant . . .’, ‘One way is to analyse the texts
used in instant messaging . . .’.
Move 3: Occupying the niche
The introduction concludes (in paragraph 5) with the following key phrases:
‘In the present study we sought to investigate the social effects of expressive
writing . . .’, ‘Three predictions were tested. First . . .’.
Slatcher and Pennebaker thus follow Swales and Feak’s analysis almost
line by line. It is also worth noting, in passing, that the literature review
in this paper is quite short, and there are only nine references. Day and
Gastel (2006) comment that, ‘Introductions should supply sufficient information
to allow the reader to understand and evaluate the results of the
present study without (them) needing to refer to previous publications on
the topic’ (pp. 57–8).
Of course many papers are written with more detailed substructures.
Three types of structure typical in introductions are:
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
31
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
42 The academic article
1 The one listed above – where the authors establish their niche by
indicating limitations or omissions in the previous research.
2 One where two (or more) different areas of research are reviewed – and
the authors establish their niche by bringing them together.
3 One where some previous research has provided support for a particular
finding or theory, and some has not – and the authors establish their
niche by seeking to resolve and explain this.
Further, there are disciplinary variations: Haggan (1998), for example,
examined the introductions for twenty-six articles in the sciences, twentysix
in linguistics and twenty-six in the arts. She found that the introductions
in the science papers were less likely to contain a plan for the paper than
were the introductions in linguistics, and that they lay midway in their use
of impersonal language between introductions in the arts (the least personal)
and introductions in linguistics (the most personal). Introductions in the
sciences were more personal, however, when there was more than one author.
Such disciplinary formulaic introductions enhance the clarity of a paper
and ensure that the readers’ expectations about the format and the purpose
of an introduction are maintained. Such devices keep the reader reading.
REFERENCES
Day, R. A. & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th edn).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haggan, M. (1998). In search of the linguistics niche: A study of research article
introductions in Linguistics, Literature and Science. Arab Journal for the Humanities,
61, 345–77.
Lewin, B., Fine, J. & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social
science research texts. London: Continuum.
Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the
words. Psychological Science, 17(8), 660–4.
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students (2nd edn). Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
FURTHER READING
Kendall, P. C., Silk, J. S. & Chu, B. C. (2000). Introducing your research report:
Writing the introduction. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology
journals (pp. 41–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
31
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
Introductions 43
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
31
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111