Dear Students,
I've found over the years that while a good introduction can't 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're in crunch time mode with Theory of War 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.
Best, Dot
(The following intro would be about 2 pages in total, with each paragraph about half a page. I
refer to the Vietnam case throughout, and draw in random theories 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 Napoleon,
Russia, or Vietnam, rather than, "The Clausewitzian conception of friction in war." Once you've
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:
-- Present something puzzling about your case: "The US went to war with Vietnam. The US is
the world's leading military power for reasons X, Y, and Z. And yet, the US lost the war in
Vietnam. Under what circumstances do strong states lose wars against weaker ones?"
-- Present something significant about your case: "The US went to war with Vietnam. The US
spent XX dollars on the war. YY American lives were lost during the conflict. Why did the US
not remove itself earlier from such a costly war?"
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're using to sustain that
argument.
For example:
-- "This paper argues that the US lost the Vietnam war, despite its military superiority, due to
friction. According to Clausewitz, friction's three components are X, Y, and Z, and each can
undermine strategy in war. In Vietnam, there is ample evidence that XXX. Moreover, we can see
that YYY. Finally, ZZZ was present, based on our evidence of... In sum, the Clausewitzian
concept of friction highlights how X, Y, and Z substantially undermined US strategy in Vietnam
and led to the American loss." (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
It's nice to explain to the reader why she should care about this research.
For example:
-- Policy relevance: "By highlighting the significance of logistical constraints in war, 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 constraints on strategy by
considering how modern technology limits Clausewitz's theory of war. (Go on to elaborate on
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 friction undermined US strategy in
Vietnam, this paper starts by XXXX. 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 ft view of the paper. If you're talking about Vietnam and
Afghanistan in the empirics section, the reader should know that by the end of the introduction.
If you're bringing in Clausewitz and Mahan 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 as to why the paper has the parts it does.