CommunityData:Advice on writing a background section to an academic paper: Difference between revisions

From CommunityData
(Created page with "Advice given to Aaron and Mako in a revise and resubmit letter by Mac Parks (editor of the Journal of Communication) that is general useful: :The introduction/background need...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Advice given to Aaron and Mako in a revise and resubmit letter by Mac Parks (editor of the Journal of Communication) that is general useful:
Advice given to Aaron and Mako in a revise and resubmit letter by Mac Parks (editor of the Journal of Communication) that is general useful. This is parphrased:


:The introduction/background needs to do just three things:
:An introduction/background needs to do just three things:


:First, it needs to identify the general purpose of the study and justify why its worth doing.  That's usually done in the opening paragraph, certain within the first page or so.
:First, it needs to identify the general purpose of the study and justify why its worth doing.  That's usually done in the opening paragraph, certain within the first page or so.

Revision as of 01:32, 19 December 2015

Advice given to Aaron and Mako in a revise and resubmit letter by Mac Parks (editor of the Journal of Communication) that is general useful. This is parphrased:

An introduction/background needs to do just three things:
First, it needs to identify the general purpose of the study and justify why its worth doing. That's usually done in the opening paragraph, certain within the first page or so.
Second, the choice of research settings is justified unless otherwise obvious.
Third, and most important, the bulk of the introductory setting should be devoted to defining the key terms in your hypotheses and advancing the arguments to justify your hypotheses in terms of your own reasoning and previous literature.
Nothing else matters. We really don't need additional background or other material that moves the spotlight away from your hypotheses.