Introduction of Reseach Paper - should consider 3 Qs
- Who cares?
- What do we know what do we not know and so what?
- What will we learn?
Common mistakes - introduction
- Failing to motivate and problematize: The gap is oHen not self-evident. A gap is also not sufficient for an interesting contribution.
- Lack of focus: Too long, featuring extraneous details and asides. Using too many frameworks and theories to position the paper. Summarizing what the next sections of the paper will be.
- Overpromising: Setting too high expectations that the rest of the thesis will not meet. Be realistic, but at the same time there is no need to be too humble.
Building blocks - common ground
- What is the topic of the study?
- What do we know about this?
building blocks - complication
- Expose the limitati ons of the current academic discussion -> What do we not know?
- This is the gap!
building blocks - concern
- Why does this gap matter?
building blocks - course of action
- What are you going to do about it?
Building block - contribution
- What new insights will you offer?
Theoretical gap
Discrepancy between existing theories or models and observed phenomena.
example: lack of studies examining the relationship between X and Y.
How to address: conduct further research to test existing theories or develop new theoretical frameworks.
Methodological Gap
Insufficiency or inadequacy in the methods used to investigate a RQ.
example: absence of studies utilitizing qualitative methods in the field.
How to adress: review and refine research methodologies, consider alternative approaches, or combine methods to address limitations.
Empirical gap
missing data or evidence needed to fully understand or explain a phenomenon.
How to address: gather additional data to fill the gaps in knowlegde.
Conceptual gap
lack of clarity or consensus regarding key concepts or definitions in the field.
temporal gap
lack of research over a certain period, leaving a discontinuity in understanding
spatial gap
Absence of research in specific geographical areas, limiting generalizability.
Literature gap
failure to address existing knowledge gaps or build upon prior research adequately
Proposed structure for introduction
- Identify the topic
- Make and fill a gap
- move the focus to the thesis
- contribution
- structure of the thesis
Contributions
- How do empirical findings change how we think about the puzzle?
References are not theory
- References to prior studies are key, but in and of themselves do not make the theory.
- Listing references to existing theories is not the same as explicating the causal logic they contain.
- References are often used as a smoke screen; “argument by citation”
- If your supervisor says your theory is weak or you need more theory, this doesn’t mean “add more references”.
Data are not theory
- Data play an important role in confirming, revising, or discrediting existing theory and guiding development of new theory.
- But: they describe which empirical patterns are observed— theory explains why empirical patterns were observed or are expected to be observed. This applies to any type of data.
- Brute empiricism: when hypotheses are motivated by prior data rather than theory. This is why it’s so risky to start from data
Lists of variables are not theory
- Variables, constructs, and definitions are important to be clear about what you’re focusing on
- But without connecting these using logical arguments, they do not make theory. Theory explains why variables or constructs come about and how they are connected.
- With just variables, you have “a dictionary of a language that possesses no sentences.”
Diagrams are not theory
- Diagrams and figures play an important role in making explicit what your expectations are.
- But verbal explanation is nearly always necessary to get to the causal mechanisms at play and their motivations.
- So it’s not enough to engage in a literature review, to draw a figure, and leave it at that
Hypotheses are not theory
- Hypotheses serve as the crucial bridges between theory and data. Yet, hypotheses do noy (and should not) contain the arguments: “hypotheses are concise statements about what is expected to occur, not why it is expected to occur.”
- Common pitfall: presenting so many hypotheses that none can adequately be explained or motivated.
- Your grade does not correlate with the number of H’s you test in your thesis!
Literature review
Explains what and why you are investigating.
- What are the central concepts?
- How are they related?
- Why?
It is CONCEPT- centric, not author-centric.
Hypotheses
are concise statements about what is expected to occur. They are a summary of what you expect to find, given what you said preceding them in your theory development and literature review.
Boundary conditions and limitations
- How broadly applicable are the findings and in what conditions might they not hold?
- What are the main limitations of your study and how can future research address them?
