The introduction is the door to your paper. If a reader cannot see, within a page, what problem you are solving and why it matters, they will close the door. A strong introduction is not background filler: it is an argument that the paper you are about to read is worth reading.
This guide shows you the proven CARS (Create A Research Space) structure, gives you templates, and contrasts strong with weak examples for empirical, theoretical, and qualitative papers.
Need help writing your introduction?
ThesisAI helps you frame the problem, position your contribution against the literature, and write an introduction that earns the reader's attention.
Start WritingWhat is a Research Paper Introduction?
A research paper introduction is the opening section that establishes the topic, identifies the gap or problem, and tells the reader what your study contributes. It is the first major section after the abstract, and in most papers it runs between 10% and 15% of total length.
A good introduction does five things, usually in this order:
- Establishes the broader topic and why it matters.
- Reviews the current state of knowledge - briefly.
- Identifies a gap, tension, or unanswered question.
- States the aim, research question, or hypothesis of the present study.
- Previews the contribution and the structure of the paper.
That is the entire job. Anything that does not serve one of these five purposes is filler.
The CARS Model: How Strong Introductions Are Built
John Swales' CARS (Create A Research Space) model is the standard template for academic introductions. It has three "moves":
Move 1: Establish the Territory
Show that the topic matters. Cite enough to demonstrate that it is an active area, but do not write a literature review here. Two or three sentences is often enough.
Move 2: Establish the Niche
Identify the specific gap, tension, contradiction, or unanswered question that your paper will address. This is the most important move. If the niche is vague, the rest of the paper has nothing to land on.
Move 3: Occupy the Niche
State what your paper does. Give the research question or aim, summarise the approach, and preview the main contribution. This is where you make the implicit promise the rest of the paper must keep.
Introduction Templates (Copy and Adapt)
Template 1: Empirical Paper (Short Form)
Fill-in-the-blanks template
Para 1 (territory): [Phenomenon] has become an active focus of [field] research because [reason it matters]. Prior work has established that [key established finding 1] and that [key established finding 2].
Para 2 (niche): Despite this progress, [specific gap or contradiction]. In particular, [more precise framing of the gap], leaving open the question of [research question].
Para 3 (occupying): The present study addresses this gap by [brief method]. We ask whether [research question] and test [hypothesis]. Our contribution is [novel point]. The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: [paper map].
Template 2: Thesis or Dissertation Introduction (Longer)
Fill-in-the-blanks template
Section 1 (background and motivation): Open with the broad significance of the topic, the policy or practical context, and the basic conceptual terms the reader needs.
Section 2 (state of the art): A compressed orientation to the literature (the full literature review lives in Chapter 2). Just enough to set up the gap.
Section 3 (problem statement and aims): State the gap directly. Then list aims and research questions, each one short and answerable.
Section 4 (scope and contribution): Say what is in scope, what is out of scope, and what the thesis will contribute - theoretically, methodologically, or practically.
Section 5 (thesis structure): A short paragraph mapping the chapters that follow.
Full Introduction Examples (Strong vs Weak)
Example 1: Empirical - Remote Work and Productivity
Weak version:
Remote work has become very popular in recent years. Many people now work from home. Some studies have looked at whether remote work is good or bad for productivity. The results have been mixed. This study will look at remote work and productivity. The research is important because remote work is a topic of interest today.
Why it's weak: Generic opener ("very popular"), no engagement with specific literature, vague gap ("mixed results"), no clear research question, and the importance statement is circular.
Strong version:
Since 2020, the share of OECD workers regularly working from home has tripled (Eurofound, 2024), turning a fringe arrangement into a default for many knowledge workers. Yet evidence on whether this shift has helped or hurt productivity remains conflicted: experimental studies report gains of 13-22% (Bloom et al., 2015; Choudhury et al., 2024), while quasi-experimental work in software teams reports drops of 8-12% (Gibbs et al., 2023). Two methodological features may explain the divergence. First, gain studies tend to measure output per worker on standardised tasks, while loss studies focus on collaborative output where cross-team coordination dominates. Second, almost all existing work focuses on the first 6-18 months of the transition; little is known about whether observed effects persist as remote norms stabilise. This paper addresses both gaps. Using three years of administrative data from a 4,200-person engineering organisation that adopted hybrid work in 2022, we test whether the early productivity penalty observed in collaborative tasks persists, narrows, or reverses by year three. We then decompose the effect into individual output and team-level coordination to identify which mechanism drives any change over time. Section 2 reviews the relevant literature, Section 3 describes the data and identification strategy, Section 4 reports the results, and Section 5 discusses implications for hybrid-work policy.
Why it works: Concrete opener with a specific number, named tensions in the literature, two precise gaps, a clear research question, the design that addresses it, and a paper map.
Example 2: Qualitative - Disabled Students' Access to University Services
Weak version:
Universities have many disabled students. These students sometimes have problems accessing services. Previous research has shown that disability support is an important issue. This study will explore the experiences of disabled students at one UK university. It is important because disability inclusion matters.
Why it's weak: Statement of the obvious, no specific literature, no defined gap, no theoretical framing, and an importance claim that does not earn its place.
Strong version:
UK higher-education enrolment of students declaring a disability has risen from 11% in 2014 to 19% in 2024 (HESA, 2025), but completion gaps between disabled and non-disabled students remain at around 5 percentage points across the sector. Existing research on disabled-student support has focused predominantly on the formal disclosure-and-adjustments pathway (Hopkins, 2011; Mullins and Preyde, 2013), in which students access services by registering with disability offices and receiving designated accommodations. Less attention has been paid to the everyday work students do to navigate services that were not designed with their access needs in mind - lecture-capture availability, library opening hours, peer-feedback platforms - where adjustments are not formally codified. Drawing on twenty-two semi-structured interviews with disabled students at a UK Russell Group university, this study asks: how do disabled students experience the informal infrastructure of university life, and what work do they do to make it usable? The contribution is to reframe "access" as a sociotechnical and temporal practice rather than a discrete transactional event, with implications for how universities design - rather than retrofit - student-facing systems. The remainder of the article outlines the theoretical framing (Section 2), method and analytic approach (Section 3), three central themes (Section 4), and implications for institutional practice (Section 5).
Why it works: Anchored in a concrete sector statistic, identifies a specific underexplored corner of the literature, names theoretical and practical contributions, and ends with a paper map.
Common Introduction Mistakes (And How to Fix Them)
Mistake 1: Starting Too Broad ("Since the Dawn of Time...")
Problem: "Education has always been important to humanity." Openers like this say nothing and waste the reader's most attentive moment.
Fix: Open one or two steps above your research question, not ten. A specific statistic, a current policy shift, a named tension in the literature - any of these earn attention immediately.
Mistake 2: Writing a Literature Review in the Introduction
Problem: The introduction runs eight pages of citation summaries before arriving at the research question.
Fix: The introduction reviews just enough literature to establish the gap. The full literature review lives in a separate section or chapter.
Mistake 3: A Vague or Missing Gap
Problem: "Previous research has explored this topic, but more research is needed." Why? On what?
Fix: Name the gap precisely. "Existing studies focus on X; the question of Y is unanswered." If you cannot say what is missing in one sentence, the gap is not yet sharp enough.
Mistake 4: No Clear Research Question
Problem: The introduction implies what the paper is about without ever saying it.
Fix: Put the research question in a single sentence, often signalled with "This study asks whether..." or "We investigate...". Make it impossible to miss.
Mistake 5: Promising a Contribution the Paper Does Not Deliver
Problem: The introduction promises generalisable causal claims; the paper is a small qualitative pilot.
Fix: Match the size of the claim to the size of the evidence. Reviewers and markers spot the gap between promise and delivery immediately.
Mistake 6: Skipping the Paper Map
Problem: No preview of how the paper is organised. The reader has to guess what comes next.
Fix: One short paragraph at the end of the introduction: "Section 2 reviews..., Section 3 describes..., Section 4 reports..., Section 5 discusses..." Boring is fine; helpful matters more.
How to Write the Introduction: A 6-Step Process
Step 1: Draft the Research Question First
Write the research question down in one sentence before you write anything else. Everything in the introduction will work backward and forward from it.
Step 2: Identify the Gap You Are Answering
List the 2-4 most relevant prior studies. What did they establish? What did they leave open? That open space is your gap.
Step 3: Write the Niche Paragraph First
Start with Move 2 (the gap), not Move 1. Knowing the gap makes it easy to decide which Move 1 territory framing earns its place.
Step 4: Write the Territory Paragraph
Open the paper with a concrete, current framing of the topic - a statistic, a named shift, a real tension - and lead directly into the gap.
Step 5: Write the Occupying Paragraph
State the research question, the design in one sentence, and the contribution in one sentence. Resist the urge to explain methods in detail - that comes later.
Step 6: Cut Anything That Does Not Help the Reader Reach Section 2
The introduction's only job is to get an interested reader to the next section. Anything that does not serve that job - background trivia, throat-clearing, generic motivation - should be cut.
Introduction Length by Paper Type
Indicative lengths:
- Short journal article (6-10 pages): 1-1.5 pages introduction.
- Standard journal article (20-30 pages): 2-4 pages introduction.
- Master's thesis: 8-15 pages, often as a standalone Chapter 1.
- Doctoral thesis: 15-30 pages, often as a standalone Chapter 1, with a separate literature-review chapter.
- Conference paper (4-6 pages): Half a page to one page, very compressed.
FAQs About Writing a Research Paper Introduction
Should I write the introduction first or last?
Most experienced researchers write a rough introduction first to anchor the project, then rewrite it last once they know what the paper actually argues. Both passes are useful.
How many references should the introduction have?
Enough to establish the territory and the gap, no more. Typical empirical articles cite 8-15 references in the introduction; theses cite more across a longer chapter.
Can I use first person in the introduction?
Yes, in almost all fields now. "We investigate..." or "This paper examines..." both work. Check your target journal or thesis style guide.
How is the introduction different from the abstract?
The abstract summarises the entire paper, including findings, in ~250 words. The introduction frames the problem and motivates the study, usually without revealing the specific results.
Do I need a hypothesis in the introduction?
For confirmatory quantitative work, yes. For exploratory, qualitative, or theoretical papers, a research question or aim is enough.
What if my topic feels obvious or "small"?
Most contributions are narrow. Frame the gap clearly and let the precision do the work - claims like "this study fills a small but well-defined gap" are stronger than inflated claims of significance.
A clear introduction wins the reader's attention; a vague one loses it. Spend more time on the niche paragraph than on any other passage in the paper - it is what makes the rest matter.