4-26: discussing the intro

title page is the first page

abstract is the second

the intro ought to be composed of three parts: (a) the stable context, or the sense of ongoing conversation in the field of public health today. here, you could use the berridge (2016) but you could also use some section from another article's introduction or conclusion, purposing that history or context in order to give your topic a way of fitting in with something bigger that's going on. remember, the key here is also to make sure that another researcher in the field would be interested in your topic. the key words and phrases here are

• interested
• distinction between topic and field
• ongoing conversation and 
• something bigger that's going on now in public health

then there's (b) the gap, where you detail what the motive is for asking your research question is, that is, not in the sense that you just find it interesting, but why the field of public health in general or, more realistically, the sub-field of whatever you're doing actually has overlooked or misrepresented or discussed wrongly etc. some aspect of your topic. i would put this in the second paragraph of the intro but it's not required. but, if i were writing this paper, the intro would be two paragraphs. one for (a) and the other for (b), but in the second paragraph i would also put (c): that is, the research question itself. i would embed that question towards the end and put it in a single bullet point.

gap, motive for research question<--requirement 2 out of 3

example of an embedded RQ

important moves for the discussion

1. stable context ; conversational they say, these others say, status now, go from the general to the more specific possible using berridge 2016 interest, motive ; establish research territory general --> specific 
2. the status now is incomplete ; there's a gap ; there;s this thing that's happening for these reasons urgency ; establish CARS, urgency to reorganize what's in the background as being in the foreground ; i had this motive for seeing this gap
3. research question fills gap again for these reasons,  

articulate context but only context necessary for the research question err on the side of being too direct

there's this thing that's happening out there--teen suicides rates have risen [y]

x might contribute to y, or at least could exacerbate y

this LR expostulates that 

why someone might be interested in the topic <-------------->stable context 

motive to ask research question  <------------------------------->and gap

1st para- = 

interest, motive

general ,  they say, these others say, 

interest . smoking. and depression. and anxiety. this is what everybody agree on. status. berridge 2016. this is what everyone is talking about and why they have a reason for doing that

because of its

foreground as such

this is what's available to talk about

this is what's on offer to talk about

this graph talks about a, b, c, d, e, f<--

but e has been really neglected 

2nd=suicide gap. 

single out one of those as less exploited 

urgency

gap 

because 

context

bigger more general context [c]

contexts that problematize your RQ

function of introduction

1. only the context necessary for your research question
2. only reliable sources, and probably only Berridge (2016)
3. context out of which your RQ emerges, back and fourth, some sort of discussion, "they say," "these other people say," etc. sense of the conversation and how the RG emerges out or or fits into the conversation 
4. gap
5. RQ that speaks to or tries to fill gap

research question bullet-ed out of the intro

Arrangement of the sections

Notice the baby intro/road map first. I said on Friday that I don't mind whether your research question is embedded into the road map paragraph or not, but it definitely needs to be there. In the AJPH and thus AMA literature review we looked at, the research question is in bullet points. But in the APA ones, they seem to be more embedded. 

Also notice how the sections go

1. Introduction

Technically the research question + road map goes here. 

1.1. Methods/Search Strategy

2. Results

2.1. Theme One (don't call it this; it has to have a helpful title [see rubric])

2.2. Theme Two

2.3. Etc.

2.4. Etc. 

3. Discussion

And, also technically, the answer to your research question goes here. 

Also notice how the verbs will tend to be more passive in the intro and more active in the results section.