WRT533: Notes

The Introduction
1/28/2008

Syllabus | Dr. Logan

"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

—Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, Paul Clifford (1830)
The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest

Your refereed journal article must begin somewhere. Most of us begin to write by toying first with an introduction. As with the rest of the article, in writing the introduction we should write only what is needed, and no more. Knowing what content an introduction should include, and what purposes it serves, also helps us know what the introduction should not do.

Day (1999) helps us with five suggestions. “Suggested rules for a good Introduction are as follows: (i) It should present first, with all possible clarity, the nature and scope of the problem investigated. (ii) It should review the pertinent literature to orient the reader. (iii) It should state the method of the investigation. If deemed necessary, the reasons for the choice of a particular methods should be stated. (iv) It should state the principal results of the investigation. (v) It should state the principal conclusion(s) suggested by the results. Do not keep the reader in suspense: let the reader follow the development of the evidence. An O. Henry surprise ending might make good literature, but it hardly fits the mold of the scientific method.”

Woodford (1986) echoes, “Good introductions often fall into three parts, be they sentences or paragraphs. The first states the general field of interest. The second presents, in main lines only, the findings of others that will be challenged or developed. The third specifies the question to which the present paper is addressed. The third part may indicate by what means the question has been examined, especially if the methods are new or unfamiliar, and may or may not state the conclusions, as the author wishes. The aim throughout should be to excite and interest, not bore, the reader, and answer the question: Why was this work embarked upon?”

These two authorities aren't saying exactly the same thing. Google up "Scientific Writing Introduction" and you'll find many web pages that have even different things to say about what should be done in the introduction. That may be frustrating, but don't despair. In the end, the contents of the introduction are yours to craft, after all. Yours will be the name in the author slot, so you get the final say over just what you do in your introduction. It's your responsibility, but it isn't all that hard.

My suggestion is that you at least pay attention to Day's first four points. Certainly, a sentence or two that lets the reader immediately grasp the nature and scope of your article should come in the first paragraph, or at least at the beginning of the second. Don't make the reader wade through a half dozen paragraphs that lead up to what this article is all about. Do the reader a big favor: come out with it right away and make it clear, "This is what I'm writing about." Then, give them a simple overview of what you did (methods) and what you found (results). I think it is a great service to the reader if you also clue them in as to what you conclude from your work (or how it can be used, perhaps).

My other suggestion is that you remember the parallels between the journal article and the scientific method. In the introduction, you are posing a question. How or why you came to ask that question is important and belongs in the introduction, too. Most often this is explained by reference to the literature. A preview of how you are going to answer the question helps those readers who are interested as much in the approach to answering the question as they are in the question itself (are you answering the question with a field study, lab work, a computer simulation, etc.?). And Day is right, don't turn this into a suspense novel: tell your reader a little about where this all leads by summarizing the results in a sentence or two. I can agree with Woodward that you shouldn't set out to bore your reader here, but I trust that anyone venturing into this article is already excited about the area, and is already motivated to look at what you've found and how you found it, so that entertainment value (exciting and interesting the reader) shouldn't cause you to resort to gimmickry in your writing.

These suggestions are about all there is to it. Remember that you are following the scientific method. You have made some observations of things in either the physical world or the world of literature. Your observations stimulate you to ask some questions. Your questions demand methods to get answers. The introduction merely captures all of the above, in as brief a fashion as possible.

References