How deep are your insights on the issue? Is your professor or other audience likely to keep reading your paper till the very end?
Posted on January 22, 9 Comments In a one-on-one writing consultation, the most common thing—hands down—for me to discuss with a student is the effectiveness of an introduction. Most draft writing comes with introductions that are inadequate to the task. His model consists of three moves: I find it a bit removed from the language that we naturally employ when talking about our research; for me, it seems useful to use more hospitable language, language that reflects the instinctive way we talk about our research.
I very much like the way that Booth, Colomb, and Williams talk about the moves of the introduction; indeed, as I have said beforeI generally like the way that they talk about all parts of the research process.
Their introduction model also has three stages: I find students sometimes interpret common ground as requiring an actual consensus rather than just an established context which may, of course, be highly fractious.
Drawing on these two sources, here is the way I present introductions: What your audience will need to know in order to understand the problem you are going to confront. This background material will be familiar rather than novel to your target audience; it may act as a refresher or even a primer, but will not cover new ground.
I usually suggest that students try to form a template sentence that they can then use as a prompt to help them sketch out each of the three moves.
That is, the problem statement will explain what you want to understand or reveal or explain or explore or reinterpret or contest and why it will matter to have done so. Given the importance of establishing significance and given the frequency with which this step is neglected, I have often wondered about framing it as a separate step.
First, the three moves are so well established; it seems needlessly confusing to disrupt that familiarity by talking about four moves. The significance is requisite for the problem, not separate from it.
What you are actually going to do in your research. The beauty of this basic model is, of course, that it makes a great deal of intuitive sense. When students hear it for the first time, they generally feel an immediate sense of familiarity. I focus on four things about this model that may help writers deepen their understanding and thus be better able to use these moves proficiently.
The way it encourages us to take the perspective of the reader. These three moves tell readers what they need to know; having these needs met will then motivate them to continue reading. Our natural inclination is often to express our research as a by-product of our own thinking process.
These three moves remind us to disrupt that inclination: Take the example of context. As writers, we often struggle to define the correct amount of context to provide; if we approach this question from the perspective of the reader we are more likely to provide the right amount of context.
The way it forces us to express the significance of the problem.
The significance is generally the least apparent thing to the reader and yet is often the most neglected by the writer. Remembering that the current work needs to be valuable in the narrower context of the existing work in the field—responding to it, extending it, altering the way it may be done in the future—can help us to craft a clear and credible statement of significance.
The way its explicit breakdown shows us what may still be underdeveloped. By breaking down the introductory passages into distinct parts, this model helps us to see what is already there and what still needs to be addressed.
It is very common, for instance, for writers to have a clearly articulated response but a confusing context and weakly expressed problem. Making the breakdown explicit can help us see what we still need to develop.
The way its scalability helps us to see how we must repeat and reinforce our key issues. Once these three moves are clear to you, you will see them—writ small or writ large—throughout your text. Take the literature reviewfor instance. Understood as a deeper iteration of the context, we are better able to understand what the work of reviewing the literature means.Sep 12, · When writing your Master's thesis (or any report or paper), it's a good idea to write at least 1 or 2 sentences into the next topic before taking a break.
This can make it much easier to continue writing the next day%(64). Introduction You can't write a good introduction until you know what the body of the paper says.
Consider writing the introductory section(s) after you have completed the . Honours thesis writing; Thesis structure; Print to PDF. Introductions.
What types of information should you include in your introduction? In the introduction of your thesis, you’ll be trying to do three main things, which are called Moves: Most thesis introductions include . 3 Chapter 1: Introduction to Graduate Research and Thesis Writing Section What is expected in a thesis?
Research is an essential component of graduate education. THESIS GENERATOR. Thesis Statement Guide Development Tool. Start your introduction with an interesting "hook" to reel your reader in. An introduction can begin with a rhetorical question, a quotation, an anecdote, a concession, an interesting fact, or a question that will be answered in your paper.
At the end of the introduction, you. Guidelines for the Preparation of Your Master’s Thesis Foreword Chapter 1: Introduction to Graduate Research and Thesis Writing Section What is expected in a thesis? determine which type of thesis you are writing early in your graduate program.