The introduction is the first section of your text that is not regarded as front matter (titles, authors, affiliation, abstract, keywords, etc.) and is the first letter of the acronym IMRaD – meaning introduction, methods, results and discussion – which is currently the most common structure used by scientists to organize their research reports. This structure was first adopted by researchers in the field of biomedicine in the 1940s and gradually became widespread as it was adopted by more and more biomedical journals. Despite its biomedical origins, however, it is now commonly used by academic journals from a wide range of disciplines and it is recommended for empirical research studies by the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, the style manual of choice for many writers in the social sciences.

In the introduction you take your readers on a journey from the general description of a particular subject area to the announcement of a particular research topic. First you summarize current knowledge and give background information, and then you go on to state the problem that has prompted the research and for which you intend to provide an answer. Finally, you move on to describe exactly how you intend to provide this answer by giving details of the scope of the research, the methodology, the findings and the structure of the rest of the paper.

This general organization of the introduction for research papers was first reported by John Swales in Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings (Swales, 1990) and is known as the Create A Research Space (CARS) model. The model is a general one, can be applied – with some adaptation – to all levels of research and all disciplines, and is still valid today. Essentially, the CARS model describes three main moves that you should make when writing an introduction. These three moves go from the general to the specific and are divided up into a series of steps. By way of these moves and their constituent steps, you summarize the key features of previous work in the field, identify some sort of gap, problem or shortcoming and, on this basis, announce the topic you have chosen for your own research, which you then go on to describe.  

Swales’s model, with its three moves, sub-steps and some comments, is outlined below in Move 1, Move 2 and Move 3. Note that the model is a general one and must be adapted to particular situations. The numbering of the individual steps does not indicate a compulsory order. Authors can choose to follow the order of the steps given, use a different order to adapt to their particular needs or even decide not to include a particular step. Also note that some steps are marked with a letter as well as a number. In these cases, the steps are mutually exclusive, and authors must decide to use only one. One final consideration is that the model gives little indication about length. Each of the steps can be just one or two sentences or one or two paragraphs.

• Move 1: Establishing a territory (the situation)
  
  
  • Step 1. Claim importance.
    Describe the research area and discuss why it needs to be studied.
    
    
  • Step 2. Make generalizations about the topic.
    Discuss the current state of knowledge or practice, or describe a particular phenomenon.
    
    
  • Step 3. Review previous research.
    Summarize the research done in the field to date. This is not a complete literature review, just a brief mention of major studies.
  
  
  The information given in the first of the three moves of a typical introduction section identifies and describes an area of research with reference to the existing literature. It indicates the origin of the issue you have decided to focus on and provides context in terms of theory, research and practice. Likewise, it shows how other studies have approached the same or similar issues, although it does not attempt to make a full review of the literature, merely situate the present research in its proper context. In general terms, it answers the question “What did I know about the topic before I started this study?”. The information you give shows readers that you have a general understanding of the research problem you have decided to investigate and that you have sufficient knowledge for them to trust your judgement, analysis and findings.
  
  
• Move 2: Establishing a niche (the problem)
  
  
  • Step 1a. Counter-claim.
    Announce a point of view that goes against current thinking or identify a weakness in previous research that undermines prevailing theories.
    
    
  • Step 1b. Indicate a gap.
    Identify a gap in previous research or an area that has not been studied.
    
    
  • Step 1c. Raise a question.
    Like identifying gaps, in this step ask questions that have not been answered by previous research.
    
    
  • Step 1d. Continue a tradition.
    Take over where previous research has left off, thus advancing science by making a contribution to existing lines of research.
  
  
  The information in Move 2 makes a clear statement about a theoretical or practical issue in the scholarly literature that requires attention, improvement or further investigation. On the basis of this statement, readers see the significance of your study and will judge its relevance. This problem statement is the origin of all subsequent hypotheses and assumptions.
  
  
• Move 3: occupying the niche (the solution)
  
  
  • Step 1a. Outline the purpose.
    Clearly state the objectives of the study.
    
    
  • Step 1b. Announce the present research.
    State what you did and what you intended to accomplish.
    
    
  • Step 2. Announce principal findings.
    Provide a brief summary of the significance of the main findings (for example, “Our findings suggest that there is a need for…”).
    
    
  • Step 3. Indicate text structure.
    Describe how the rest of the text is structured.
  
  
  The information in Move 3 tells readers how you intend to provide new understanding that builds on the work done by previous research and adds to the existing body of knowledge. Essentially, you explain how you filled the gap, answered the question or continued the research tradition that you outlined in Move 2. It can also reveal your findings, although some researchers and journals prefer not to give this information here since it has already been disclosed in the abstract. Ask your final project supervisor for advice on what to do.  
  
  If you are writing a standard IMRaD text, Step 3 of Move 3 may not be required because, as the acronym suggests, the structure is totally predictable. However, if you are writing a text with a structure that does not adhere faithfully to the IMRaD format, readers may find it useful if you indicate the sections and the order in which they will occur. This will facilitate the reading process and help readers to find relevant information.