John Swales' Create a Research Space (CARS) model provides a proven framework for writing journal article and thesis introductions. Learn the three rhetorical moves that guide readers from broad context to your specific contribution.
Show that the research area is important, interesting, and worthy of investigation through background and citations.
Identify a gap, problem, or unanswered question in existing literature that your study will address.
State how your research fills the gap, present your purpose statement, and outline your paper's structure.
A step-by-step breakdown of Swales' influential model with examples
Demonstrate the significance of your research area. Convince readers that the topic is worth investigating through strategic citations.
"The relationship between X and Y has received considerable attention in recent years due to..."
Create a research space by identifying what remains unknown, unresolved, or underexplored in existing literature.
"However, no previous study has examined the effects of X on Y in the context of Z..."
Present your research as the solution to the gap. State your purpose, methods, and contribution clearly.
"This study aims to investigate the effects of X on Y using [methodology] to address this gap..."
Proven strategies from published authors and dissertation chairs
Start with a compelling fact, statistic, or problem statement - not a dictionary definition. Engage readers immediately with real-world relevance.
Begin with general background, then progressively narrow to your specific research question. Each paragraph should become more focused.
Use explicit gap indicators: "However," "Despite this," "What remains unknown," "A notable limitation is..." Make the gap unmistakable.
From broad context to your specific contribution
These introduction errors can undermine your paper before reviewers reach the methods section
Opening with "According to Merriam-Webster..." is clichéd and wastes valuable space that could engage readers.
Global statements about humanity or overly specific technical details without context both lose readers.
Reviewers need an explicit "so what?" - why does your study matter? What is missing from current knowledge?
The introduction should expand on the abstract, not copy it. Add contextual depth and background information.