Internal logic of the Introduction
→ See also: IMRaD sections
An good introduction should answer two questions:
- Why this study? (Justification)
- What exactly did you study? (Explanation)
Justification: Problem → Gap → Study
This part forms a coherent argument that moves from the broader problem to the only logical conclusion: we simply must study this.
Claim: Problem X matters to society/science (broader context) → Claim: But we don’t know Y (knowledge + gap) → Conclusion: Therefore, we must study Y.
Claim is just a fancy way of stating: I'm saying this is true.
Each claim is supported by facts — in other words, the literature. For example:
Claim: But we don’t know Y (knowledge + gap)
- Supporting statement: Here’s what we know (e.g., “Smith (2020) showed that protein A increases”)
- Supporting statement: But here’s what’s missing (e.g., “However, Jones (2021) found conflicting results, and no study has tested this in vivo”)
Explanation: Aims and Scope
The study aims should state clear, specific research question(s) that directly address the knowledge gap. This establishes a contract: you promise to answer a bounded question.
Make sure don’t just justify your aims, but also your scope. This prevents reviewers from later asking why you didn’t “also test Z”.
Tip
What these justifications and explanations actually looks like in a published paper can vary widely. Have a look at papers in your field an see if you can recognise the claims and how they are supported.
To DO: add examples + how to analyse papers in your field