Returning to the notion of anticipating the imaginary reader’s questions, the true scholar will address the points on which the claim could be challenged and present information supporting the challenge and information refuting the challenge. This demonstrates that the author has considered the topic from many angles and makes the claim more believable to the reader. In the preliminary proposal example, these are the ideas mentioned under the heading of Rival Explanations. One does not necessarily have to research these rival explanations, but one does need to review the existing literature on the rival explanations in order to make a case for why this particular claim is the one to be researched.

Under these two techniques (anticipating the reaction of the imaginary reader and the format of an intellectual argument), the student is expected to cover certain content in the introduction. Many of these elements have been addressed previously, but for the sake of clarity and completeness they will again be listed here:

This is the context.

The expected findings (the claim or assertion of the study) should be predicted by existing, accepted theory or theories. The theoretical framework should be woven into the rationale of the problem (or using the same language used in describing the intellectual argument, it should be woven into the justification of the claim).

Only the concepts introduced in this chapter need be defined. While all the various definitions of the term are covered in the review of the literature in Chapter Two, only the overall definition used in the study is presented in this chapter. Terms introduced in later chapters should be defined as they are introduced.

This is a formulation of the issue to be researched. This is the heart of the study. The statement of the problem can be thought of as a one to five sentence summary of the issue. The statement of the problem can be combined with an explanation of the purpose of this particular study, that is, what this study proposes to do about the problem. The purpose is typically stated using words such as“investigate,” “compare,” “describe,” “evaluate,” “provide a new explanation,” “identify causes,” etc. The explanation of purpose can be accomplished in one or two sentences. The questions to be answered or hypotheses to be tested may be stated at this point, as they flow logically from the explanation of purpose.

This is a very brief and very general explanation of the Methodology to be used. The details of the Methodology belong in Chapter Three.

A case is made for why this study is worth doing. The study’ is worth doing because it fills a gap in existing knowledge, sheds light on a controversy, corrects previous flaws in methodology, extends the generalizability of previous findings, or provides information useful to solving some practical problem, e.g., modifying a program at the police academy, coroner’s office, etc.

These elements need not appear in a specific order. The order of presentation is dictated by the need for logical flow of ideas. The use of such “Definition of Terms” or “Theoretical Framework” is discouraged in as much these types of headings often interfere with logical flow of ideas rather than enhance it. The student is encouraged to create as few as many headings as will organize the information in a meaningful and coherent way and will guide the reader through the document. The one heading that students are encouraged to use is “Statement of the Problem.” Since this is the heart of the project, the reader needs to be able to locate it easily.