科技论文漏斗：连接开篇与挑战
Highlights from Chapter 6 in <<Writing Science>> by Joshua Schimel
1.
The opening of a paper identifies a large problem, while the challenge defines a specific question. The main body of the Introduction must connect these elements.
2.
When you frame the knowledge gap, you provide the background information necessary to understand the story.
In an OCAR structure, the background material flows seamlessly from the opening — it is an extension of introducing the problem and the main characters.
3.
Framing the knowledge gap taps into core elements of the SUCCES formula for a sticky story, particularly the U and E elements, unexpectedness and emotion.
By defining a knowledge gap, unmasking a hole in the wall of knowledge, you create unexpectedness.
4.
Bad Introductions: Failing to define the problem
1) A good Introduction defines a problem and narrows to an interesting question. A weak or poor Introduction, in contrast, either fails to define the problem or tries to sell a solution before defining the problem, and so fails on curiosity.
2) It’s not very convincing to say “little is known about X” for scientific, logical, and literary reasons.
Scientifically, it is unconvincing because it’s probably false. Very few of us have written a paper on a topic that hasn’t had tens or hundreds of studies already published on it. Invariably, we know a lot about the topic at hand. There are important questions remaining, which is why we did the work, but those are bounded and defined by a large body of knowledge. So when someone says, “little is known about X,” we often feel that the author either doesn’t know the literature or is overstating the case.
Linguistically, it’s not convincing because it’s not concrete. “Little is known” is fuzzy — how little is little? If you tell us the six things that are known, is that still a “little?” Because the language is fuzzy, the argument is unconvincing. To make it convincing, it needs to be concrete — what specifically do we not know?
A concrete statement that defines a small knowledge gap will do better than a fuzzy one that fails to define one.
3) Offering a Solution before Defining a Problem
To sell us a solution, first sell us a problem.
5.
Introduction vs Literature Review
An effective Introduction cannot be merely a literature review that synopsizes what we know about a topic. Instead, because you must convince us of the importance of the problem, you must show us what we don’t know and why it is important.
Literature review builds a solid wall — describing knowledge — whereas an Introduction focuses on the hole in that wall — describing ignorance. They tell different stories and move the story in different ways. They also use the existing literature differently; an Introduction focuses on the publications that define the edges, rather than the core of knowledge.
When you describe something we know, do you use it to identify the boundaries of that knowledge? If so, you’re writing an Introduction; if not, you’re probably creating a literature review.
Literature review: Smith (2000) found X.
Introduction: X occurs (Smith 2000).
The “Smith found X” approach to discussing the literature is common. But it frequently signals that we haven’t fully synthesized the information and figured out why we’re presenting it. It is a flag that we’re still in the data-dump stage and need at least one more major revision.
The background is never a place for a data dump where you tell us everything about the field. If a piece of information does not have a specific and concrete role in moving the story forward, it does not need to be included.
The vital elements of an Introduction are the opening and the challenge. Those are the “dots” that you must connect by filling in the background and forming the funnel. That material has only one purpose: to show a reader why answering your questions is essential to making progress on the overall problem.