The introduction is where readers decide whether to keep reading. A strong research paper introduction does four things quickly: it names the broader conversation, narrows to the specific problem, identifies what has not yet been answered, and states the claim or question your paper addresses. That structure — the funnel — is used across disciplines because it works. This guide shows you how to apply it: the four moves every research introduction makes, the sentence-level conventions that vary by field, and the openings to avoid. You will see a worked example, learn the failure modes that kill credibility in the first paragraph, and pick up a drafting pattern you can revise into the introduction your paper actually needs.
PaperDraft is a writing assistant, not a paper generator — the draft is your starting point, not your submission. You are responsible for editing, verifying sources, and following your school's academic integrity policy.
What a research paper introduction is — and what it is not
A research paper introduction is the opening section of the paper, typically one to three paragraphs in a short paper and up to several pages in a thesis chapter, that orients the reader and commits to the paper's argument. It makes four moves, sometimes called the CARS model (Create A Research Space): establish the territory (the broader context), establish the niche (the specific problem and the gap), occupy the niche (your thesis, research question, or aims), and preview the structure that follows.
An introduction is not a literature review. It names the relevant prior work to establish the gap, but it does not survey the field exhaustively. That full survey lives in a dedicated literature-review section or chapter. A good rule: cite only the work a reader needs in order to understand why your paper is necessary.
An introduction is not an abstract. The abstract summarizes the entire paper, including methods, results, and implications. The introduction argues for why the question matters and commits to the approach — it usually does not reveal the results. Leave the findings for where they belong.
An introduction is not a history of the field. "Since the dawn of time, humans have wondered about X" and its relatives signal weak framing. Start where the relevant conversation starts, not at the beginning of civilization.
An introduction is not a warm-up paragraph. Every sentence must earn its place. Generic openers ("In today's fast-paced society...") say nothing and waste the reader's most attentive moment.
Finally, an introduction is not the place for dictionary definitions. "According to Merriam-Webster, 'justice' is defined as..." marks a writer who has not yet engaged with how the term is used in the relevant field.
Before you write
You should draft the introduction — or redraft it — after the paper's argument is stable. Many writers draft a rough introduction early to orient themselves, then rewrite it after the body is done. Either is fine; submitting the rough early version is not.
Gather four things before you open the document:
- The research question in one sentence. The introduction funnels toward it.
- The thesis or position you defend, if argumentative or analytical. If it is an empirical paper, the hypotheses or aims.
- The gap — the specific thing that prior work has not answered or resolved. You cannot establish a niche without knowing what is missing.
- Four to eight key sources you will cite in the introduction to establish context and gap. Not every source in your paper; just the ones that frame the problem.
Check the assignment or venue for conventions. Lab reports often have a compact introduction with explicit hypotheses at the end. IMRaD-style papers (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) follow the CARS moves tightly. Humanities papers may open with an epigraph, an anecdote, or a close reading of a single passage before widening. Read two or three recent introductions in your target venue before drafting yours — conventions are easier to match than to derive.
Know the expected length. A 3,000-word paper might have a 250–400 word introduction. A 6,000-word empirical paper might have a 500–800 word introduction. A thesis chapter might have several pages. The funnel moves scale, but the proportion stays roughly stable.
Step-by-step: how to write a research paper introduction
1. Start with the broad context
Open with the larger conversation your paper joins. Not the beginning of time — the beginning of the relevant discourse. A sociology paper on platform labor might open with the rise of gig-economy work in the 2010s. A literature paper on Beloved might open with debates in African American literary studies about memory and trauma. The first sentence sets scale: broad enough that the reader knows the territory, narrow enough that it is not platitudinous.
2. Narrow to the specific problem
Over the next two or three sentences, move from the broad context to the specific problem your paper addresses. This is the funnel in action. Each sentence is narrower than the one before. If you open with "platform labor" you might narrow to "misclassification of drivers" then to "the legal definition of employer in Uber v. Aslam." Each step should feel like a natural consequence of the one before.
3. Establish the gap
Tell the reader what has not yet been answered, reconciled, or examined. The gap is the argument for why your paper exists. Be specific: "While prior work has examined X and Y, it has not addressed Z" is a template, but it only works if Z is genuinely open. A fake gap — one that prior work has in fact addressed — destroys credibility. Cite the work you are positioning against, in the correct citation format.
4. State the thesis or research question
Place your thesis or research question at or near the end of the introduction, where readers look for it. For an argumentative paper, state the claim in a single sentence; for an empirical paper, state the research question and, if applicable, the hypotheses. Do not bury the thesis. See our thesis statement guide for how to compose it.
5. Preview the structure briefly
One or two sentences telling the reader what sections or moves follow. "The paper proceeds in four sections: I first review the legal history of driver classification, then present a close reading of the Supreme Court's judgment, then..." Keep it short. Readers do not need more than a map.
6. Cut the first paragraph
After drafting, read your introduction and ask whether the paper would lose anything if the first paragraph were cut. Often it would not. Throat-clearing is the most common introduction failure. If the second paragraph is where the real argument starts, delete the first and promote the second.
7. Match tone and register to your discipline
Science introductions are terse, citation-dense, and strictly impersonal. Humanities introductions can open with narrative, invoke the writer's position, and take longer to reach the thesis. Social-science introductions sit between. Read current work in your field and match its register. The funnel moves are universal; the prose style is not.
Stuck at the start? PaperDraft scaffolds a starting introduction — the moves, the register, the structure — for you to revise. Start this paper — free.
Example introduction
Below is an introduction for a hypothetical sociology paper on platform labor misclassification, annotated in brackets.
[Broad context, first sentence] Platform-mediated work has expanded rapidly over the past decade, with estimates suggesting that 16% of U.S. adults have earned income through an online gig platform (Pew Research Center, 2021). [Narrowing: named phenomenon and its stakes] Ride-hailing services in particular have generated persistent disputes over whether drivers are employees, entitled to minimum-wage and benefit protections, or independent contractors who bear those costs themselves. [Narrowing further: the specific legal terrain] Courts in the United Kingdom, California, and the Netherlands have reached different conclusions on this question, producing a patchwork of classifications that both labor scholars and platform operators have characterized as incoherent (Choudary, 2022; De Stefano, 2020).
[Gap, explicitly named] What remains underexamined is how the reasoning courts have used to distinguish employees from contractors aligns — or fails to align — with the actual conditions drivers experience. Existing work has either focused on doctrinal analysis of individual judgments (Aloisi, 2019) or on quantitative surveys of driver conditions (Rosenblat, 2018), but has not systematically compared the two. [Why this matters, compact] This gap matters because future legal reform depends on whether the doctrinal tests currently in use track the lived reality of platform work or diverge from it.
[Thesis / argument, placed at end of intro] This paper argues that the control test as applied in recent U.K. and Californian judgments captures the algorithmic management of drivers more accurately than either party in those cases acknowledged, but systematically understates the economic-dependence dimension that is central to driver experience. [Preview of structure] I first trace the evolution of the control test from its twentieth-century origins; I then analyze three recent judgments against empirical accounts of driver work collected by labor-studies researchers; I conclude by proposing a revised test that integrates algorithmic control with economic-dependence criteria.
Notice the funnel: platform work → ride-hailing → driver classification → the specific doctrinal question. Notice that the gap is specific and defensible. Notice that the thesis is placed at the end and previewed by a compact roadmap.
Common mistakes
- The dictionary-definition opener. "According to Merriam-Webster..." signals a writer who has not engaged with how the term is used in the relevant field. Open with the conversation, not the dictionary.
- The dawn-of-time opener. "Since ancient times, humans have wondered about..." compresses millennia into a platitude. Start where the relevant conversation starts.
- The fake gap. Claiming prior work has not addressed something when it has is a credibility failure that a knowledgeable reader will catch immediately. Read enough to know where the real gap is.
- The buried thesis. Putting the thesis in paragraph three of a three-paragraph introduction makes readers work to find it. Place it at the end of the intro.
- The overgrown literature review. An introduction that spends 1,500 words surveying prior work has become a literature review. Cut to the sources that establish the gap; save the rest for the literature-review section. Over-citation can shade into weak paraphrasing — see our academic responsibility guide for why integrating sources in your own voice matters.
How PaperDraft helps you start
PaperDraft is a writing assistant, not a paper generator — the draft is your starting point, not your submission. For research paper introductions, PaperDraft scaffolds a starting version with the funnel structure in place — broad context, narrowing moves, a gap statement, a thesis slot, a preview. You then rewrite the scaffold into your paper's actual argument, replace placeholder citations with the real sources you have read and verified, and match the register to your discipline. Start scaffolding at PaperDraft's research-paper workflow, and see the companion conclusion guide for how the closing section echoes the introduction's moves in reverse.
Frequently asked questions
How long should a research paper introduction be?
Roughly 5–10% of the paper's total length. A 3,000-word paper has a 250–400 word introduction; a 6,000-word empirical paper has 500–800 words; a thesis chapter introduction may run several pages.
Where does the thesis go?
At or near the end of the introduction — the last sentence or the penultimate one. Readers expect it there. Delaying the thesis is a genre choice in some humanities writing; for most academic work, end-of-intro is the default.
Should I write the introduction first or last?
Many writers draft a working introduction first to orient themselves, then rewrite it after the body is finished. The final version should reflect the paper you actually wrote, not the paper you planned to write.
Do I need to cite in the introduction?
Yes — citations establish the context and the gap. An introduction without citations usually signals an under-sourced paper. In some humanities genres, citations can be deferred until the body; in science and social science, they appear throughout the introduction.
Is it okay to use a drafting tool for my introduction?
Many programs allow it if you disclose and if the final writing is yours. Scaffolding the funnel structure and rewriting it into your own argument is different from submitting a generated introduction unchanged. See our AI disclosure guide for program conventions and how to word an honest disclosure.