Give each section the conceptual components a reader expects
Each part of a research paper has argumentative components that a content expert expects to find in it. Leaving one out distracts that reader more than putting it in the wrong part, and the components most at risk of being left out are those of the introduction that make the case for the research.
The components of each section
A content expert reads each section of a journal article expecting particular argumentative components. Some of these components have become standard in the structured abstracts of many journals, which list them as subheadings so that each one is addressed.
Each section of a journal article is expected to carry these components:
| Introduction | Materials and methods | Results | Discussion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Research problem pertinent background | Method 1 (embedded materials) | Data set 1: orientation (accomplished as a subheading) | Hypothesis support (experimental results + literature) |
| Research problem | Method 2 (embedded materials) | Data verbalisation | Limitation + counterargument + recommendation for resolving the limitations |
| Hypothesis justification | Data reliability | Conclusion + consequence | |
| Hypothesis | Data interrelation (observation, trend, comparison) | ||
| Objective | Data preliminary interpretation | ||
| Experimental approach | Data set 2 (same as above) |
Eight of the components are defined as follows:
- Research problem pertinent background: the information needed to understand the problem, giving what is known as a prologue to what is not known. What is known can be preceded by the subordinating conjunction although.
- Research problem: the nature of the problem, a gap in knowledge or the insufficient clarity of existing knowledge.
- Hypothesis justification: why the hypothesis was plausible. It is the most argumentative component of the introduction, a before-the-fact perspective that justifies the hypothesis, consisting of published results, theoretical argument and possibly a preliminary experiment.
- Hypothesis: the cause of, or an approach for, resolving the research problem, and the salient component of the scientific method. A hypothesis is general compared with an objective, as in the objective of this study was to test the effect of specific hormones on inhibition of orthodontically induced tooth movement, thereby testing the hypothesis that hormone inhibition is involved in the orthodontic process.
- Data verbalisation: a transliteration of the data, such as values, into a different structural form: from a foreign language into English text.
- Data interrelation: an observation, trend or comparison based on the data, representing the results.
- Data preliminary interpretation: a level beyond data interrelation but short of an inference.
- Conclusion: pertinent to the hypothesis, and not an equivalent of in summary.
Omitting or misplacing a component
Omitting an expected component from a section distracts a content expert more than misplacing it into another section. Misplacement is a lack of organisation, not an omission of essential information. Both give the writing a non-professional tone. Misplacement can also be considered the other side of omission: a component put into the wrong section may then be missing from the right one.
Components omitted from the introduction
Of all the components of a journal article, those of the introduction are more likely to be omitted, because an extensive background obscures the omission. The ones particularly at risk are those that make the argument for doing the research: the research problem pertinent background, the research problem, the hypothesis justification and the hypothesis. The objective and the experimental approach, by contrast, are rarely absent. A systematic approach to writing the introduction is a useful way to avoid leaving out information that is probably obvious to the author but not to the reader.
Leaving out the research problem, the reason for undertaking the research, is not uncommon. Authors often do so thinking the background is sufficient, probably adding the component in their own minds but not in their writing. For example, one introduction reads: "Weight-bearing is one neuro-developmental treatment (NDT) principle usually applied by therapists before or in preparation for a functional activity. This treatment principle has been based on the assumption that weight-bearing facilitates development of muscle tone. Consequently, the purpose of this current study was to determine the effect of weight-bearing on hand-opening in children with cerebral palsy." It states the pertinent background and the objective but not the research problem, and it also lacks the hypothesis justification and the hypothesis. The revision inserts one sentence that states the research problem: "However, no systematic study justifying this assumption has been reported."
An introduction can state the research problem pertinent background, the research problem, the hypothesis, the objective and the experimental approach, and still omit the hypothesis justification. For example, one introduction reads: "The anterior pituitary gland consists of six cell types, each producing a unique hormone. However, the mechanism of cellular differentiation for anterior gland cells remains unclear. Consequently, it was hypothesised that transcription factors affect the fate of a cell. To test this hypothesis, the function of each of these factors was determined by adding and removing transcription factors in separate trials." The revision adds one referenced sentence that says why the hypothesis was plausible: "The recent indirectly supported involvement of transcription factors indicates their function in differentiation." That addition conveys systematic thinking by the author and fulfils a reader's expectations.
An introduction can also lack all three argumentative components: the research problem, the hypothesis justification and the hypothesis. Such an introduction is probably a consequence of extensive background information in place of a focused research problem pertinent background, from which the author mistakenly feels justified in moving to the objective. Examined closely, such a background often lacks the argumentative components that justified undertaking the research.
Components in the wrong section
A reader in the profession expects each component in its appropriate section, not because of rules but because a component out of place breaks the continuity of a developing argument. A misplaced component reads as redundant over-emphasis, which is not without value in a grant application but distracts in a journal article.
Results and a conclusion placed in the introduction are an over-statement, because the abstract states them and the results and discussion state them again. In the introduction they seem both to repeat the abstract and to anticipate the results and discussion. For example, one introduction on the refractive index of bacteriorhodopsin gives the pertinent background, the research problem and the objective in its first three sentences, then runs on into the results and a conclusion with its consequence. The revision stops at the objective. Both the example and the revision lack the hypothesis justification and the hypothesis between the research problem and the objective.
The hypothesis justification and the hypothesis do not belong in the materials and methods either. For example, one materials and methods section opens with three sentences on shorter rehabilitation stays and the resulting importance of family and caregiver education, and only then reaches the convenience sample and the exclusion criteria. Those three sentences are the hypothesis justification and the hypothesis, which belong in the introduction, and the revision removes them. No component of the introduction needs repeating in the materials and methods. It is not uncommon to forget that each section of a journal article is part of a continuum, but readers of journal articles respond negatively to repetition between sections, taking it as a lack of discipline on the author's part.