Comparative Research Paper: Intro Writing
I have found over the years that while a good introduction cannot save a poorly researched paper,
it does (1) go extremely far in putting the reader in a good mood diving into the reading, and (2)
help you clarify for yourself what the paper’s all about.
Since we are in crunch time mode with In(security) drafts, I wanted to give you one model for
writing a solid research paper introduction. I encourage you to read this thoroughly and try to
mimic this kind of introduction—adapted to your research focus, of course.
The following intro would be about 2 pages in total, with each paragraph about half a page. I
refer to one paper example throughout—military response to unrest in Egypt 2011 and China
1989—just to illustrate how you might apply this model.
P1: Introduce your interesting cases
One nice way to start a research paper is to begin by introducing the really cool real-world cases
the paper is going to study. Readers often find it more interesting to hear about Mubarak,
Tunisia, or the Republican Guard, rather than, “The rational choice approach to explaining
responses to domestic unrest.” Once you have grabbed their attention with the interesting nature
of your case studies, you can end this paragraph with your research question and ease the reader
into the scholarly logic.
Here are some examples to introduce the empirics in your first paragraph:
 Present something puzzling about your case:
o “In 1989, the Chinese military was ordered to use lethal force to suppress a mass,
popular uprising. In 2011, the Egyptian military faced a very similar decision, as
citizens mobilized in Cairo and Alexandria. Despite such similar circumstances, these
militaries chose two very different courses of action—the Chinese military violently
cracked down on demonstrators, whereas the Egyptian military facilitated President
Mubarak’s removal. Under what circumstances do militaries remain loyal to the
regime despite wide-scale domestic unrest?”
 Present something significant about your case:
o “In 1989 China and 2011 Egypt, authoritarian leaders faced significant challenges to
their rule. In both cases, hundreds of thousands of citizens were in the streets
demanding not only regime reform but regime change. Both episodes of wide-scale
domestic unrest tested the regime’s strength. In China, the military remained loyal
and the regime stood, and the regime continues to govern this leading authoritarian
country today. In Egypt, the military abandoned Mubarak and the regime fell,
contributing to insecurity in the country, a military coup, and an uncertain future for
this former US ally. Given the huge consequences for regime change, how can we
predict when militaries will remain loyal to the regime in the face of wide-scale
domestic unrest?”
P2: Link to scholarly logic
After hooking the reader with your interesting empirics, make an immediate link to the theory
your paper is picking up. Again, you can do this in different ways. But it might be helpful to first
state the paper’s thesis and then follow it up by introducing the theory you are using to sustain
that argument.
For example:
 One paper might engage the theory that the nature of citizen protest strategies influences
the military’s response to unrest.
 Such a paper would go on to explain: “This paper argues that citizen protest strategies
best explain why the Chinese remained loyal while the Egypt military defected from the
regime amid domestic unrest. There are two primary ways citizen protest strategies
influence military officers’ calculus in responding to unrest. First, [logic #1]. Second,
[logic #2]. Focusing on citizen protest strategies highlights how [logic #1] and [logic #2]
led to military loyalty in China in 1989 and defection in Egypt in 2011.”
 Careful though, don’t get too into the weeds here. We just want the bottom line up front
regarding which theory you’re using to shed light on your case study, and the major
concepts underpinning that theory.
P3: Emphasize research’s significance
By this point, it is nice to explain to the reader why she should care about this research, such as:
 Policy relevance: “By explaining military behavior amid unrest, this paper has clear
policy implications. First, the findings suggest that... [the US should change where
defense money should be allocated? change who is considered a threat? etc.].”
 Scholarly progress: “This paper advances scholarly research on military loyalty and
regime stability by [its elaboration on an existing logic. Go on to explain why this
scholarship advancement is necessary and significant.]”
P4: Lay out paper’s road map
As a reader, I find these paragraphs crucial. This is the last part of the introduction. You should
have one sentence (or two) devoted to each part of the paper.
You can literally use sentence starters such as:
 “To argue that citizen protest strategies determined the military’s reaction to unrest in
China in 1989 and Egypt in 2011, this paper starts by... Second, I introduce... I then
compare... The comparison shows that [insert main finding]. The paper closes by...”
The key is to give the reader a 30,000-foot view of the paper. If you are talking about Egypt
2011 and China 1989 in the empirics section, the reader should know that by the end of the
introduction. If you’re relying on Chenoweth and Stephan in the theory, the reader should know
that by the end of the introduction. There are no paper surprises—the roadmap paragraph lays
everything out on the table and gives us a sense of why the paper has the parts it does.