In this part, you will learn what an Introduction section is and how to structure this section.
The Introduction section in research proposals (as well as research articles, theses, etc.) is, strategically, one of the key sections of the whole work. Although placed first following the abstract, just like the Abstract, the Introduction is often the last section to be written. This is because it may be difficult to describe your study effectively before you have conducted appropriate survey of relevant literature, identified the problem to be addressed, worked out the research methodology, thought out expected outcomes, and even obtained preliminary findings (if applicable).
The aim of a typical Introduction is twofold:
Much like a mini-synopsis or an overview of the whole proposal, a typical Introduction first sets the scene for the current investigation and then explains why the present study is important, what its purpose is, and what its major contribution (significance) to the field is.
To give the reader an idea of established knowledge in the research area, the Introduction section would often include a review of relevant literature on the topic. This part of the Introduction should give the reader an idea of what has been said about the topic in the research community or what key studies the proposed study will build on. The literature review part will normally conclude with a statement of gap(s) that need to be filled. On the other hand, in research proposals, dissertations and theses, the review of literature on the chosen topic is often not integrated into the Introduction section. It may appear as a separate section (called the “Literature Review” section) which will immediately follow the Introduction and which will provide a more thorough review of relevant sources. More detailed guidelines on writing a literature review can be found in the "Literature Review" module.
Just like other sections in a piece of research writing, most Introductions follow a logical pattern of organization that can be described in terms of the so-called “moves” (Swales, 1990)—stretches of text that fulfil the author’s communicative intentions or functions in a text (e.g., providing the background to a study, describing the study’s purpose, etc.). Moves can be divided into smaller units called “steps,” which serve to convey communicative functions within a certain move. The length of a step can vary from a single sentence to a number of paragraphs. Although there are some steps that carry the weight of the entire Introduction section and are thus obligatory (e.g., indicating a research gap), other steps (e.g., providing definitions) are optional.
Learn about how to structure the Introduction section based on a suggested plan. Check your understanding of this unit by completing comprehension check activities.
In Move 1 of a typical Introduction (widely known as “Establishing a territory”) what the writer would often do is to establish a context for his or her research or situate it within the general topic area. This is done through a series of steps, which allow the author to move from the more general information about the topic to more specific aspects of the topic. In most cases, the necessary background information and details would be provided, and key concepts defined or given new interpretations. The author would often make links to other studies on the topic (the literature review step) before taking the next logical step—letting the reader know what remains unexplored that calls for further research on the topic.
Move 2 (often referred to as “Establishing a niche”) would be the space for the writer to actually say that there exists a “niche” or gap that needs to be filled. New questions can be raised to stress the need for another study in this area, and to make a compelling argument for what this study could add to the current body of knowledge on the topic. This move would most often conclude the review of relevant sources on the topic.
In Move 3 (“Occupying the niche”), the writer outlines how the proposed study will address the gap. This final part of an Introduction is a place for the writer to announce the purpose (and objectives) of the present study, outline the proposed theoretical framework and methods, the study’s scope and boundaries (limitations to what it sets out to achieve), and explain what the expected value and outcomes of the study are.
Here is a possible framework or plan for structuring the Introduction section in a research proposal. Note that some of the steps included in the framework are marked as “optional,” meaning that they may appear in an Introduction, but this is not always the case:
Move 1 |
Establishing a territory |
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 |
Showing the importance of the topic Providing background information or facts (optional) Clarifying definitions (optional) Reviewing previous research |
Move 2 |
Establishing a niche |
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 |
Indicating a research gap or needs Question raising (optional) Presenting justification for the present study (optional) |
Move 3 |
Occupying the niche (introducing the present study) |
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 |
Stating the purpose of the present study, research questions, and/or hypothesis Describing methodology (optional) Stating expected outcomes (optional) |
There are no hard and fast rules as to how the elements (moves and steps) should be ordered in an Introduction or any other section of your work. Research has shown that the move-step structure of Introductions to research articles, reports and proposals, may differ considerably across a variety of disciplines. Some steps can be introduced repeatedly and cyclically within the same move. Moreover, more than one step can be found within the same sentence.
A lot of the steps within these moves will be recurring in the Literature Review section (see the Literature review module), if the latter is a standalone section in a research proposal.
Here is an adapted Introduction to a research proposal in the field of management:
Competition and Scholarly Productivity in Management: Investigating Changes in Scholarship from 1988 to 2008 |
1Industry membership represents a primary emphasis in management research, especially strategic management (Porter, 1980). 2Several studies reveal that industry membership explains a significant amount of variance in firm performance (Misangyi, Elms, Greckhamer, & Lepine, 2006). 3Complementing these investigations of firm performance is research that examines characteristics of the industries themselves, from broad attributes such as life cycles (Agarwal, Sarkar, & Echambadi, 2002) to more detailed characteristics such as munificence, dynamism, and concentration (Dess & Beard, 1984). 4Some scholars have viewed the management discipline as an industry with its own characteristics and influences. 5Researchers, for instance, have studied an array of complementary topics regarding management scholarship such as article impact (e.g., Bergh, Perry, & Hanke, 2006); author impact (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Bachrach, & Podsakoff, 2008); journal quality (Singh, Haddad, & Chow, 2007); faculty pay (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992); and editorial board memberships (Van Fleet, & Hyman, 2009). 6However, scholars have only begun to explore factors that influence scholarly productivity in management. 7We extend this stream of research by examining the evolution of scholarly productivity in the management discipline between 1988 and 2008. 8We focus on research productivity as evidenced by publications in prominent research outlets. 9Because scholarly research influences managerial practice and enables instructors to present new knowledge to students, an understanding of the evolution of research productivity in the management discipline represents a worthy endeavor. 10Such an understanding may help ensure the field’s continued development (Bailey, 2006; Boyd, Finkelstein, & Gove, 2005) and legitimacy (Hambrick & Chen, 2008). 11We hope to make two primary contributions through our research. 12First, we will examine the management discipline as an industry and document significant changes in scholarly productivity over time. 13Using proxies we discuss in detail later, we will explore change over time in the number of individuals who achieve the standards required for promotion to the associate- or full-professor levels at typical research-oriented universities within a typical promotion and tenure “clock.” 14Our preliminary results suggest that competition for space in prominent journals has risen dramatically over time, even when considering the simultaneous increase in journal page space. 15Thus, for the vast majority of active research scholars, the time needed to achieve these outcomes has increased markedly from 1988 to 2008. 16Second, we will develop and implement a routine that will allow us to explore potential differences in scholarly productivity between management’s primary sub-disciplines (which differ on their level of analyses: “Micro” primarily considers individuals or groups of individuals, while “macro” primarily considers organizations). 17We believe that our study has important implications for several stakeholder groups. First, our findings may help to educate both junior and senior professors on the changing publication norms in the management field. 18Likewise, our results may be of use to business school committee members and administrators by enabling such individuals to recognize the changing standards of scholarship within the management discipline. 19Finally, such knowledge may help PhD students—the future of our discipline—to understand and engage the profession more successfully. Adapted from: Certo, S.T., Sirmon, D., & Brymer, R. (2010). Competition and scholarly productivity in management: Investigating changes in scholarship from 1988 to 2008. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 591–606. |