How To Write The Perfect Introduction To Your Research Paper (Prof. David Stuckler)

Main ideas / lessons conveyed

• Write the introduction last: The introduction is described as the “hardest section” of a research paper. Save it for after you’ve finished your research, because you’ll only have the “crystal clear clarity” needed about:

  • what you want to say, and
  • how all sections fit together.

• Use a structured “formula” to reduce confusion: A clear template helps, especially with:

  • reviewer expectations, and
  • writers who struggle with scientific English.

• Three-part structure for the introduction (core methodology taught in the video):

  1. Why are we having this conversation now?
  2. The gap / what is still unknown and why
  3. Your winning study / how you address the gap

• Support the structure with context and clear contribution:

  • Sometimes you must expand with key definitions and crucial background.
  • You must quickly and clearly signal novelty/contribution; failing to do so is a major reason papers get rejected.

• The approach works across disciplines:

  • Examples are shown from both Natural/Health Sciences and Social Sciences.
  • In social sciences, introductions often emphasize the clarity of the big question up front to help readers understand the paper’s purpose.

---

Methodology / instructions

When to write

• Write the introduction last (after finishing your research) because:
  • you’ll know exactly what your paper argues, and
  • you’ll know how the sections connect.
• If a program requires an introduction earlier:
  • still try to follow the correct structure, and
  • ensure your idea appears coherent and feasible, even if refined later.

The “three-part formula” for the introduction

• Part 1 — “Why are we having this conversation now?”

  • Open with the burning issue / big debate.
  • Explain why the topic matters from the reader’s perspective (“why should I care / why should I keep reading?”).
  • Include language early that signals the relevance and urgency of the problem.

• Part 2 — “What has previous research found, and what is missing?” (the Gap)

  • Summarize what prior studies have found.
  • Explicitly identify limitations in existing research (e.g., lack of high-quality evidence).
  • State what is still not known—the gap that motivates your study.

• Part 3 — “Your winning study” (plugging the gap)

  • Clearly state what your study will do to address the gap:
    • optionally include your main research question
    • describe your method at a high level
  • Keep it straightforward (“no need to overcomplicate”).

Optional expansions to improve clarity and reviewer confidence

• Add crucial context when needed (e.g., define terms or explain relevant background).
• Provide rapid definitions of key terms/concepts so non-expert readers can follow.
• Make your novel contribution unmistakable:
  • avoid reviewer confusion by ensuring the contribution is explicit
  • ensure it is not “not novel” in reviewers’ eyes (a common rejection reason)

Discipline-specific emphasis (as illustrated by examples)

• Natural/Health Sciences

  • Often structures tightly into 3 sections/paragraphs:
    • debate/issue → prior work & limitations → your study to address the gap

• Social Sciences

  • Typically emphasizes:
    • clarity of the big question right away
    • “signposting” and contrasts between competing hypotheses/perspectives
  • Includes light “marketing” by communicating the value of the paper and why it matters

---

Featured speakers / sources

• Speaker: Prof. David Stuckler
• Sources referenced (paper examples mentioned in the video):
  • A paper from the British Medical Journal (BMJ)
  • A paper from the American Sociological Review