The introduction tells the personal story of your research. All stories have a story plot to make them interesting and clear. Here is a frequent story plot found in introductions.
A story I’m so excited about telling you this great story. My father [1] is on the front lawn cleaning the lawn mower. My sister [2] is in the back kitchen making a cake. My mum [3] has gone shopping, and I am playing my electric guitar in my bedroom.
Do you like my story? No??!!! It’s a great story. What’s that you’re saying? My story has no plot??? Of course there is a plot! See, it describes my family’s activities, starting with my father. We all have something in common: family ties, living under one roof, etc. Here we are again.
If this story left you cold, the analogous story found in scien- tific papers will also leave the reader cold. In short, the story says the following: in this domain, this particular researcher did this; that research lab did that; in Finland, this other researcher is doing some- thing else; and I am doing this particular thing. The problem with this type of story is that the relationship between their work and your work is not stated. In symbolic graphical form, the story plot would look like☛1. The pieces are juxtaposed, not linked.
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
☛1. All of the story elements are juxtaposed and disconnected. Contrast the first story with this one:
A better story I’m so excited. I’m going to tell you a great story. My father [1] is on the front lawn cleaning the lawn mower. And do you know what that means? Trouble! He hates it. He wants (Continued)
(Continued) everyone to help bring this or bring that in order to feel less miserable. Whenever that happens, we all run away, not because we refuse to help him, but because he wants us to stand there and watch idly while he works. So, my sister [2] is taking refuge in the back kitchen and is plunging her hands in flour to slowly make a cake. My mum [3] has suddenly discovered that she is missing something or other, and has rushed out to shop, saying she’ll be gone for an hour or so. As for me, I am in my bedroom playing the electric guitar with my amplifier at maximum volume.
A thread that links all the parts together is necessary to make an interesting story plot, as in☛2. The difference is striking, is it not? The story has a direction and its parts are all connected.
☛2. Three story elements share a common bond. This bond isolates the square element.
Here is a second story based on a story plot frequently found in scientific papers.
A terrible story I’m so excited. I’m going to tell you my second best story. A red Ferrari [1] would take me to Vladimir Toldoff ’s (Continued)
(Continued) house in 5 hours. It is fast. However, it is very expen- sive [2,7,12]. A red bicycle [3] is much less expensive and is quite convenient for short trips. So, if Vladimir Toldoff came to live near my house, it would be quite cost-effective [4]. However, a bicycle that doesn’t have a mudguard requires a bicycle clip [5] so as not to dirty trousers. Since red athletic shoes [6] do not require a bicycle clip, they are a better solution than a bicycle to travel short distances [8]. However, their colour is easily degraded [9] by adverse weather conditions, particularly in the muddy rainy season. On the other hand, brown- ish open plastic sandals [10] do not have any of the previous problems: they are cheap, convenient, require no bicycle clip, and do not show mud stains. Furthermore, they are easy to clean, and are fast to put on. However, con- trary to the Ferrari, they reflect poorly on the status [11] of their owners. Therefore, I am working on a framework to integrate self-awareness into the means of transportation, and will validate it through the popular Sims 2 simulation package.
Yes, I have exaggerated (only a little), but you get the point. The however plot, after taking readers through four sharp however turns, completely loses and confuses them. The seemingly logical connection between the elements is tenuous, as in ☛3. On the way to the last proposal (the writer’s contribution), a long list of disconnected advantages and disadvantages is given; by the time readers get to the end of the list, they innocently (and wrongly) assume that the final solution will provide all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of the previous solutions. Unfortunately,
☛3. Story elements loosely connected two by two. Four shapes: a sun, a star, a cross, an ellipse. The first element is compared with the second, the second with the third, and so on. At the end, the final element is connected back to the original element, thus completing the loop. Yet, the sun is never compared with the cross, and the star is never compared with the ellipse. For the chain of comparisons to be meaningful, the comparison criteria must be identical for all elements, and all elements must be compared.
the comparison criteria continuously vary, and therefore nothing is really comparable.
Both plots are frequently found because they are convenient from a writer’s perspective:
1. They allow a list of loosely related references to be easily assembled.
2. The shallow analysis of related works is fast because it does not require extensive reading of other people’s work (abstracts or titles are enough in most cases).
Are there better plots? Assuredly. But, giving examples would fill too many pages. That is why I have presented them in schematic form in☛4.
I have found that a plot that works well in movies is also useful in scientific writing. The author shows you how the story ends before it even starts. When readers have the full picture, they are better able to situate your work in it. They understand how and with whose help you will achieve it. In addition, they know your limitations and expect that, in the future, you will deal with them. Graphically, this story plot is represented in☛5.
☛4. Various schematic story plots that work.
☛5. The ideal solution story plot. First, the ideal system or solution is depicted (circle). Then, the story tells how this ideal picture comes together: what the author contributes (square); what others have already contributed (left brace); and what still remains an open field of research, but with its parts identified (right brace). Everything is clear, everything fits nicely, and the reader is more easily convinced of the worth of your contribution.
Identify your story plot. Does it look like a series of juxtaposed elements without any connection or like a “however” meander? Is your story easy to follow? Does it flow logically: from past to recent, from general to specific, from specific to general, from primitive to sophisticated, from static to dynamic, from problem to solution, or from one element of a sequence to the next in line?