move, gap, collocation

for Cynthia again

1. why someone else who is similarly participating in the something bigger or the social movement would be interested in reading more into your topic; they say=something bigger, hopefully connected to some larger research program; you're writing with your hands behind your back and setting yourself up for casting the something bigger as having something wrong with it
2. motive for asking RG, not your motive, why someone who's participating in the something bigger would have a cause to ask that same question themselves. why there's a need to ask that question 
3. the RQ itself

3 requirements of the intro again

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.

title page in APA

whatever individuates your research

• whatever individuates your research
• i mean, people have talked about this before, so it's not like it's totally new or unprecedented, but no one's talked about it in exactly this way, or, while there's this thing that's been going on in the background of lots of research, no one has had a reason to bring it to the forefront of a research program, but i do 
• so, for example, while i realize that scholars have talked about how pollution impacts children's respiratory health, they've background that relationship for this reason ("because"); but, because i'm coming at it from this angle, i have this reason to talk about it explicitly in the foreground and here's why ("because)

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.

example of a "gap"

"

3 requirements for intro

1. identifying with a field of study + articulating why that field of study would be interested in your topic, with reasons 

topic <--> what professional or academic field would be interested in that topic and why? why is this topic relevant now? plus, how does this topic connect to what's going on in public health in general right now? how does this topic connect to or fit into larger trends in public health as articulated by Berridge (2016)?

2. "gap," motive for research question

why would that other audience have a motive to read your paper? what does your paper contribute to the ongoing conversation happening right now in public health? what would they miss out on if they didn't keep reading? why is there an urgency to ask specifically your question as you ask it? what are the costs and benefits if we don't? what do you move from the background to the foreground?

3. the research question itself

function of intro

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

3 requirements for intro

1. identifying with a field of study + articulating why that field of study would be interested in your topic, with reasons 
2. gap, motive for research question
3. the 3rd is just the research question itself; 2nd is the "gap," or the motive to ask the research question

relief, conversation, motive to ask RQ, reasons for putting field of study into questions, consideration of other contexts

identifying with a field of study + articulating why that field of study would be interested in your topic, with reasons <--1st of out 3 requirements [the 3rd is just the research question itself; 2nd is the "gap," or the motive to ask the research question]

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

Intro

2 paragraphs

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

Beginning of paper