creating a research space model

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Introduction

The Creating a Research Space [C.A.R.S.] Model was developed by John Swales based upon his analysis of journal articles representing a variety of discipline-based writing practices. His model attempts to explain and describe the organizational pattern of writing the introduction to scholarly research studies. Following the C.A.R.S. Model can be useful approach because it can help you to: 1) begin the writing process [getting started is often the most difficult task]; 2) understand the way in which an introduction sets the stage for the rest of your paper; and, 3) assess how the introduction fits within the larger scope of your study. The model assumes that writers follow a general organizational pattern in response to two types of challenges [“competitions”] relating to establishing a presence within a particular domain of research: 1) the competition to create a rhetorical space and, 2) the competition to attract readers into that space. The model proposes three actions [Swales calls them “moves”], accompanied by specific steps, that reflect the development of an effective introduction for a research paper. These “moves” and steps can be used as a template for writing the introduction to your own social sciences research papers.

"Introductions." The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Coffin, Caroline and Rupert Wegerif. “How to Write a Standard Research Article.” Inspiring Academic Practice at the University of Exeter; Kayfetz, Janet. "Academic Writing Workshop." University of California, Santa Barbara, Fall 2009; Pennington, Ken. "The Introduction Section: Creating a Research Space CARS Model." Language Centre, Helsinki University of Technology, 2005; Swales, John and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Skills and Tasks. 2nd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Creating a Research Space Move 1: Establishing a Territory [the situation] This is generally accomplished in two ways: by demonstrating that a general area of research is important, critical, interesting, problematic, relevant, or otherwise worthy of investigation and by introducing and reviewing key sources of prior research in that area to show where gaps exist or where prior research has been inadequate in addressing the research problem. The steps taken to achieve this would be:

• Step 1 -- Claiming importance of, and/or  [writing action = describing the research problem and providing evidence to support why the topic is important to study]
• Step 2 -- Making topic generalizations, and/or  [writing action = providing statements about the current state of knowledge, consensus, practice or description of phenomena]
• Step 3 -- Reviewing items of previous research  [writing action = synthesize prior research that further supports the need to study the research problem; this is not a literature review but more a reflection of key studies that have touched upon but perhaps not fully addressed the topic]

Move 2: Establishing a Niche [the problem] This action refers to making a clear and cogent argument that your particular piece of research is important and possesses value. This can be done by indicating a specific gap in previous research, by challenging a broadly accepted assumption, by raising a question, a hypothesis, or need, or by extending previous knowledge in some way. The steps taken to achieve this would be:

• Step 1a -- Counter-claiming, or  [writing action = introduce an opposing viewpoint or perspective or identify a gap in prior research that you believe has weakened or undermined the prevailing argument]
• Step 1b -- Indicating a gap, or  [writing action = develop the research problem around a gap or understudied area of the literature]
• Step 1c -- Question-raising, or  [writing action = similar to gap identification, this involves presenting key questions about the consequences of gaps in prior research that will be addressed by your study. For example, one could state, “Despite prior observations of voter behavior in local elections in urban Detroit, it remains unclear why do some single mothers choose to avoid....”]
• Step 1d -- Continuing a tradition  [writing action = extend prior research to expand upon or clarify a research problem. This is often signaled with logical connecting terminology, such as, “hence,” “therefore,” “consequently,” “thus” or language that indicates a need. For example, one could state, “Consequently, these factors need to examined in more detail....” or “Evidence suggests an interesting correlation, therefore, it is desirable to survey different respondents....”]

Move 3: Occupying the Niche [the solution] The final "move" is to announce the means by which your study will contribute new knowledge or new understanding in contrast to prior research on the topic. This is also where you describe the remaining organizational structure of the paper. The steps taken to achieve this would be:

• Step 1a -- Outlining purposes, or  [writing action = answering the “So What?” question. Explain in clear language the objectives of your study]
• Step 1b -- Announcing present research [writing action = describe the purpose of your study in terms of what the research is going to do or accomplish. In the social sciences, the “So What?” question still needs to addressed]
• Step 2 -- Announcing principle findings  [writing action = present a brief, general summary of key findings written, such as, “The findings indicate a need for...,” or “The research suggests four approaches to....”]
• Step 3 -- Indicating article structure  [writing action = state how the remainder of your paper is organized]

"Introductions." The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Atai, Mahmood Reza. “Exploring Subdisciplinary Variations and Generic Structure of Applied Linguistics Research Article Introductions Using CARS Model.” The Journal of Applied Linguistics 2 (Fall 2009): 26-51; Chanel, Dana. "Research Article Introductions in Cultural Studies: A Genre Analysis Explorationn of Rhetorical Structure." The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes 2 (2014): 1-20; Coffin, Caroline and Rupert Wegerif. “How to Write a Standard Research Article.” Inspiring Academic Practice at the University of Exeter; Kayfetz, Janet. "Academic Writing Workshop." University of California, Santa Barbara, Fall 2009; Pennington, Ken. "The Introduction Section: Creating a Research Space CARS Model." Language Centre, Helsinki University of Technology, 2005; Swales, John and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Skills and Tasks . 2nd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004; Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990; Chapter 5: Beginning Work. In Writing for Peer Reviewed Journals: Strategies for Getting Published . Pat Thomson and Barbara Kamler. (New York: Routledge, 2013), pp. 93-96.

Writing Tip

Swales showed that establishing a research niche [move 2] is often signaled by specific terminology that expresses a contrasting viewpoint, a critical evaluation of gaps in the literature, or a perceived weakness in prior research. The purpose of using these words is to draw a clear distinction between perceived deficiencies in previous studies and the research you are presenting that is intended to help resolve these deficiencies. Below is a table of common words used by authors.

NOTE: You may prefer not to adopt a negative stance in your writing when placing it within the context of prior research. In such cases, an alternative approach is to utilize a neutral, contrastive statement that expresses a new perspective without giving the appearance of trying to diminish the validity of other people's research. Examples of how to take a more neutral contrasting stance can be achieved in the following ways, with A representing the findings of prior research, B representing your research problem, and X representing one or more variables that have been investigated.

• Prior research has focused primarily on A , rather than on B ...
• Prior research into A can be beneficial but to rectify X , it is important to examine B ...
• These studies have placed an emphasis in the areas of A as opposed to describing B ...
• While prior studies have examined A , it may be preferable to contemplate the impact of B ...
• After consideration of A , it is important to also distinguish B ...
• The study of A has been thorough, but changing circumstances related to X support a need for examining [or revisiting] B ...
• Although research has been devoted to A , less attention has been paid to B ...
• Earlier research offers insights into the need for A , though consideration of B would be particularly helpful to...

In each of these example statements, what follows the ellipsis is the justification for designing a study that approaches the problem in the way that contrasts with prior research but which does not devalue its ongoing contributions to current knowledge and understanding.

Dretske, Fred I. “Contrastive Statements.” The Philosophical Review 81 (October 1972): 411-437; Kayfetz, Janet. "Academic Writing Workshop." University of California, Santa Barbara, Fall 2009; Pennington, Ken. "The Introduction Section: Creating a Research Space CARS Model." Language Centre, Helsinki University of Technology, 2005; Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990

• << Previous: 4. The Introduction
• Next: Background Information >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Departments
• For Students
• For Faculty
• Book Appointment

• Flow and Cohesion
• Reverse Outline
• Paper Skeleton

Creating a Research Space

• Personal Statements
• Literature Reviews

Typical Research Genre Structure

Swales’ Model of Rhetorical moves in Research Articles: Create A Research Space (CARS)

Move 1 Establishing a territory Step 1 Claiming centrality and/or Step 2 Making topic generalization(s) and/or Step 3 Reviewing items of previous research  Move 2 Establishing a niche  Step 1A Counter-claiming or Step 1B Indicating a gap or Step 1C Question-raising or Step 1D Continuing a tradition  Move 3 Occupying the niche  Step 1A Outlining purposes or Step 1B Announcing present research Step 2 Announcing principal findings Step 3 Indicating research article structure

The CARS Model (Create a Research Space), by John Swales

According to Swales, research writers frequently use  three rhetorical moves  to create a context for their work. These moves can happen both in the introduction of a piece, as well as on a larger scale, throughout the research paper/proposal/document:

MOVE 1: Establishing a Territory (Annotated Bibliography/Literature Review)

• Ask yourself:  “Why is my research important in this current moment of 2016 – politically, socially, historically?” Then
• Example phrase:  “In recent years, researchers have become increasingly interested in...” “A central issue in  ______  is...” “Many recent studies have focused on..."
• Imagine that all past research on your topic is an ongoing academic conversation that you need to understand fully before joining in; then, to structure your synthesis,  ask yourself:  "What would X author say to Y author? Does X author extend Y author's research, or does she critique it, etc.?"
• Example phrase:  “Much research has examined ______, though different conclusions have been made.”

MOVE 2: Establishing a Niche (Rhetorical Prospectus)

• Imagine that you now understand the conversation, and you see some limitation or place where extension is needed; join the conversation to make the limitation or need for more research clear.
• Example phrases:  (limitation) “However, these studies have failed to recognize the...” or (extension) “X...has been extensively studied. However, less attention has been paid to..."

MOVE 3: Occupying the Niche (Research Proposal)

• Imagine that you now have everyone’s attention, and that you must explain to fellow scholars how your ideas will add or move the conversation forward.
• Example phrases – for proposal:  “The purpose of this investigation is to...” or “To focus my research, I will ask the following questions..."
• Example phrases – for research article or dissertation introduction:  “The remainder of this paper is divided into five sections. Section 1 describes..."

Works Consulted:

• Swales, John M.  Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings  (1990)
• Swales, John M. and Christine B. Feak.  Academic Writing for Graduate Students  (2008)

[Adapted by Lisha Storey, May 2015]

Topic Guide - Developing Your Research Study

• Purpose of Guide
• Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• APA 7th Edition
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model

Introduction

Writing tip.

• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• 10. Proofreading Your Paper
• Writing Concisely
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Study
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Bibliography

The Creating a Research Space [C.A.R.S.] Model was developed by John Swales based upon his analysis of journal articles representing a variety of discipline-based writing practices. His model attempts to explain and describe the organizational pattern of writing the introduction to scholarly research studies. Following the C.A.R.S. Model can be useful approach because it can help you to: 1) begin the writing process [getting started is often the most difficult task]; 2) understand the way in which an introduction sets the stage for the rest of your paper; and, 3) assess how the introduction fits within the larger scope of your study. The model assumes that writers follow a general organizational pattern in response to two types of challenges [“competitions”] relating to establishing a presence within a particular domain of research: 1) the competition to create a rhetorical space and, 2) the competition to attract readers into that space. The model proposes three actions [Swales calls them “moves”], accompanied by specific steps, that reflect the development of an effective introduction for a research paper. These “moves” and steps can be used as a template for writing the introduction to your own social sciences research papers.

" Introductions ." The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Coffin, Caroline and Rupert Wegerif. “ How to Write a Standard Research Article .” Inspiring Academic Practice at the University of Exeter; Kayfetz, Janet. " Academic Writing Workshop ." University of California, Santa Barbara, Fall 2009; Pennington, Ken. " The Introduction Section: Creating a Research Space CARS Model ." Language Centre, Helsinki University of Technology, 2005; Swales, John and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Skills and Tasks . 2nd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Creating a Research Space Move 1: Establishing a Territory [the situation] This is generally accomplished in two ways: by demonstrating that a general area of research is important, critical, interesting, problematic, relevant, or otherwise worthy of investigation and by introducing and reviewing key sources of prior research in that area to show where gaps exist or where prior research has been inadequate in addressing the research problem. The steps taken to achieve this would be:

• Step 1 -- Claiming importance of, and/or  [writing action = describing the research problem and providing evidence to support why the topic is important to study]
• Step 2 -- Making topic generalizations, and/or  [writing action = providing statements about the current state of knowledge, consensus, practice or description of phenomena]
• Step 3 -- Reviewing items of previous research  [writing action = synthesize prior research that further supports the need to study the research problem; this is not a literature review but more a reflection of key studies that have touched upon but perhaps not fully addressed the topic]

Move 2: Establishing a Niche [the problem] This action refers to making a clear and cogent argument that your particular piece of research is important and possesses value. This can be done by indicating a specific gap in previous research, by challenging a broadly accepted assumption, by raising a question, a hypothesis, or need, or by extending previous knowledge in some way. The steps taken to achieve this would be:

• Step 1a -- Counter-claiming, or  [writing action = introduce an opposing viewpoint or perspective or identify a gap in prior research that you believe has weakened or undermined the prevailing argument]
• Step 1b -- Indicating a gap, or  [writing action = develop the research problem around a gap or understudied area of the literature]
• Step 1c -- Question-raising, or  [writing action = similar to gap identification, this involves presenting key questions about the consequences of gaps in prior research that will be addressed by your study. For example, one could state, “Despite prior observations of voter behavior in local elections in urban Detroit, it remains unclear why do some single mothers choose to avoid....”]
• Step 1d -- Continuing a tradition  [writing action = extend prior research to expand upon or clarify a research problem. This is often signaled with logical connecting terminology, such as, “hence,” “therefore,” “consequently,” “thus” or language that indicates a need. For example, one could state, “Consequently, these factors need to examined in more detail....” or “Evidence suggests an interesting correlation, therefore, it is desirable to survey different respondents....”]

Move 3: Occupying the Niche [the solution] The final "move" is to announce the means by which your study will contribute new knowledge or new understanding in contrast to prior research on the topic. This is also where you describe the remaining organizational structure of the paper. The steps taken to achieve this would be:

• Step 1a -- Outlining purposes, or  [writing action = answering the “So What?” question. Explain in clear language the objectives of your study]
• Step 1b -- Announcing present research [writing action = describe the purpose of your study in terms of what the research is going to do or accomplish. In the social sciences, the “So What?” question still needs to addressed]
• Step 2 -- Announcing principle findings  [writing action = present a brief, general summary of key findings written, such as, “The findings indicate a need for...,” or “The research suggests four approaches to....”]
• Step 3 -- Indicating article structure  [writing action = state how the remainder of your paper is organized]

" Introductions ." The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Atai, Mahmood Reza. “Exploring Subdisciplinary Variations and Generic Structure of Applied Linguistics Research Article Introductions Using CARS Model.” The Journal of Applied Linguistics 2 (Fall 2009): 26-51; Chanel, Dana. "Research Article Introductions in Cultural Studies: A Genre Analysis Explorationn of Rhetorical Structure." The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes 2 (2014): 1-20; Coffin, Caroline and Rupert Wegerif. “ How to Write a Standard Research Article .” Inspiring Academic Practice at the University of Exeter; Kayfetz, Janet. " Academic Writing Workshop ." University of California, Santa Barbara, Fall 2009; Pennington, Ken. " The Introduction Section: Creating a Research Space CARS Model ." Language Centre, Helsinki University of Technology, 2005; Swales, John and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Skills and Tasks . 2nd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004; Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990; Chapter 5: Beginning Work. In Writing for Peer Reviewed Journals: Strategies for Getting Published . Pat Thomson and Barbara Kamler. ( New York: Routledge, 2013), pp. 93-96.

Swales showed that establishing a research niche [move 2] is often signaled by specific terminology that expresses a contrasting viewpoint, a critical evaluation of gaps in the literature, or a perceived weakness in prior research. The purpose of using these words is to draw a clear distinction between perceived deficiencies in previous studies and the research you are presenting that is intended to help resolve these deficiencies. Below is a table of common words used by authors.

NOTE : You may prefer not to adopt a negative stance in your writing when placing it within the context of prior research. In such cases, an alternative approach is to utilize a neutral, contrastive statement that expresses a new perspective without giving the appearance of trying to diminish the validity of other people's research.

Examples of how this can be achieved include the following statements, with A representing the findings of prior research, B representing your research problem, and X representing one or more variables that have been investigated.

• Prior  research has focused on A, rather than on B...
• Prior research into A can be useful but to counterbalance X, it is important to consider B...
• These studies have emphasized A, as opposed to B...
• While prior studies have examined A, it may be preferable to contemplate the impact of B...
• After consideration of A, it is important to also recognize B...
• The study of A has been exhaustive, but changing circumstances related to X support the need for examining [or revisiting] B...
• Although considerable research has been devoted to A, less attention has been paid to B...
• Earlier research offers insight into the need for A, though consideration of B is also helpful...

Dretske, Fred I. “Contrastive Statements.” The Philosophical Review 81 (October 1972): 411-437; Kayfetz, Janet. " Academic Writing Workshop ." University of California, Santa Barbara, Fall 2009; Pennington, Ken. " The Introduction Section: Creating a Research Space CARS Model ." Language Centre, Helsinki University of Technology, 2005; Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990

• << Previous: 4. The Introduction
• Next: Background Information >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2022 8:49 AM
• URL: https://leeuniversity.libguides.com/research_study_guide

We’re reviewing our resources this spring (May-August 2024). We will do our best to minimize disruption, but you might notice changes over the next few months as we correct errors & delete redundant resources. 

Creating a Research Space: CaRS Model 

The CaRS Model can help you build an introduction, especially in STEM fields. The model consists of three rhetorical moves that help identify the background, motivation, and focus of the research. This framework can help give your reader a basic overview of your larger project.

Move 1: Establish a Research Territory

The research territory, or broad topic, is the context required to both understand and conduct the research being explored. Your goal is to explain the current state of scholarship in the field and answer the question, “Why is this general research area important?” 

Language for Establishing a Research Territory:

__________ has been extensively studied... 

Interest in _________ has been growing. 

Recent studies have focused on... 

__________ has become a major issue...

Move 2: Establish a Niche

The niche is the reason or motivation for the research. You are preparing your audience to understand how your research relates to the background you have given, highlighting gaps/problems in current knowledge that justify or explain the need for further investigation.  

Methods for Establishing a Niche

Make a counter-claim (something is wrong) 

Indicate a gap (something is missing) 

Raise a question or make an inference (something is unclear) 

Continue a tradition (adding something) 

Language for Establishing a Niche

Previous studies of _______ have not examined...

Such studies are unsatisfactory because...

One question that needs to be asked, however is...

Research on _______ has mostly been restricted to _______ so...

Move 3: Occupying a Niche

This step is an explanation of how you are responding to the need for further investigation. Explain how your research addresses the need you identified in the previous step and list your specific research objectives, questions, or methods.  

Strategies for Occupying the Niche  

Outline purpose(s) of your research 

List research questions or hypotheses 

Announce principal research findings 

Indicate structure of your research process

Example: Three Moves in Action

Move 1:   Stress is a seemingly ever-present factor in the lives of university students, and many have difficulty regulating stress and functioning to their fullest potential. Many individuals choose to relieve their stress by listening to music, and stress relief as a result of music listening has been researched through both physiological and self-perception studies. Music listening decreases physiological stress by indirectly decreasing cortisol levels (a hormone linked to high stress levels) through a down-regulation of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) Axis (Linnemann, Ditzen, Strahler, Doerr, & Nater, 2015). Studies focused on self-perceived stress levels found that listening to music with the goal of relaxation is significantly more effective than listening to music for the purpose of distraction according to self-report measures (Linnemann et al., 2015).   Move 2:   While the positive relationship between music listening and stress relief has been supported within the general population, little research has been done to examine music’s effect on the mental health and stress levels of university students in particular. University students exhibit a higher rate of both stress-induced depression and anxiety than the general population due to the pressures of completing complex programs while often living away from home for the first time (Hanser, 1985, p. 419; Regehr, Glancy, & Pitts, 2013). As a result, student stress relief is a critical part of ensuring student wellbeing, especially with student mental health at the forefront of many recent discussions among university faculty, staff, and students.   Move 3:   This investigatory survey is the first step in a multi-stage study on how undergraduate residents at Conrad Grebel University College use music in relation to stressful situations, and how stress relief through music listening is perceived. We hypothesize that students will report stress-relief as one of the primary reasons they choose to listen to music, and that they will report choosing music they enjoy when they need to relieve stress. Patterns observed in student responses will be used to determine specific research questions for further investigation, and research on student stress relief could help to inform university policy makers on ways to create healthier campuses.

Adapted from: Swales, John and Christine Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013. Print. 

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Organization & the CARS Model

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Although each discipline has its own conventions for what articles, research reports, dissertations, and other types of scholarly writing should look like, academic writing shares some general characteristics across each field. One area of similarity is the introduction section. This handout provides strategies for revising introductions.

CARS (Creating a Research Space)

John Swales’ CARS model for introductions is based on his study of articles across a range of disciplines. He identified the following moves as common among most articles:

Move 1: Establishing a territory

Step 1 Claiming importance and/or

Step 2 Making topic generalizations and/or

Step 3 Reviewing items of previous research

Move 2: Establishing a niche

Step 1a Counter-claiming or

Step 1b Indicating a gap or

Step 1c Question-raising or

Step 1d Continuing a tradition

Move 3: Occupying the niche

Step 1a Outlining purposes or

Step 1b Announcing present research

Step 2 Announcing principle findings

Step 3 Indicating article structure

Writers can use these moves as a guide for revising their own writing, or for helping others.

Questions for Revision

Does the introduction to the piece of writing you are working with…

Topic Outline

A topic outline is a fast and easy way to analyze whether an introduction is effectively organized. According to Pyrczak and Bruce, a topic outline can help show the flow of an introduction to ensure it moves from a general introduction of the problem or gap to a specific discussion of the current research (33). The topic outline can be combined with the CARS model to improve your introduction or to offer advice to a peer.

Topic Outline Exercise

Works cited.

Pyrczak, Fred and Randall R. Bruce. Writing Empirical Research Reports : A Basic Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Los Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing, 2000. Print.

Swales, John. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings . 1990. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.

CADW Resource Hub

Tools for writing program affiliated faculty, interdisciplinary: how to create a research space (cars).

“The Creating a Research Space [C.A.R.S.] Model was developed by John Swales based upon his analysis of journal articles representing a variety of discipline-based writing practices. His model attempts to explain and describe the organizational pattern of writing the introduction to scholarly research studies.” ( From an online tutorial on the CARS model found her e .)

Although this model was initially applied to social science research, subsequent studies revealed it applies to the humanities and STEM equally well, possibly because the three CARS moves follow the basic rhetorical steps of a proposal argument.

Introducing this model to CADW students can give them a framework to understand WHY they discuss existing research in the first place: not just to summarize viewpoints, but to establish the importance of their topic (move 1) and construct a “gap” or “need” in the field  (move 2). These two moves thus “create the space” that justifies their own contribution to a conversation (move 3). Teaching this model also gives students a powerful heuristic to investigate research articles in their field of study. This model can be integrated with student writing and research processes to help students shape what type of research they should look for (narrow the scope), how to review scholarship with a purpose, and how to frame their own contributions within an ongoing conversation in their area of study.

Comments are closed.

• About WordPress
• Get Involved
• WordPress.org
• Documentation
• Learn WordPress
• View Calendar

Explore our publications and services.

University of michigan press.

Publishes award-winning books that advance humanities and social science fields, as well as English language teaching and regional resources.

Michigan Publishing Services

Assists the U-M community of faculty, staff, and students in achieving their publishing ambitions.

Deep Blue Repositories

Share and access research data, articles, chapters, dissertations and more produced by the U-M community.

A community-based, open source publishing platform that helps publishers present the full richness of their authors' research outputs in a durable, discoverable, accessible and flexible form. Developed by Michigan Publishing and University of Michigan Library.

• shopping_cart Cart

Browse Our Books

• See All Books
• Distributed Clients

Feature Selections

• New Releases
• Forthcoming
• Bestsellers
• Great Lakes

English Language Teaching

• Companion Websites
• Subject Index
• Resources for Teachers and Students

By Skill Area

• Academic Skills/EAP
• Teacher Training

For Authors

Prospective authors.

• Why Publish with Michigan?
• Open Access
• Our Publishing Program
• Submission Guidelines

Author's Guide

• Introduction
• Final Manuscript Preparation
• Production Process
• Marketing and Sales
• Guidelines for Indexing

For Instructors

• Exam Copies
• Desk Copies

For Librarians and Booksellers

• Our Ebook Collection
• Ordering Information for Booksellers
• Review Copies

Background and Contacts

• About the Press
• Customer Service
• Staff Directory

News and Information

• Conferences and Events

Policies and Requests

• Rights and Permissions
• Accessibility

Creating Contexts

Writing introductions across genres, revised/expanded english in today's research world, look inside.

• Introduction to the Introductions Volume

Copyright &copy; 2011, University of Michigan. All rights reserved.

Description

Research article introductions are central to Creating Contexts: Writing across Genres with the CaRS (creating a research space) model used as a starting point. This volume focuses on introductions for other kinds of texts that are also part of the graduate student writing experience such as course papers and critiques, proposals, and dissertations.

This volume represents a revision and expansion of the material on introductions that appeared in English in Today's Research World .

The material presented in this volume is appropriate for graduate students and others already working in their chosen academic fields. The material has, in fact, been used with each of these groups in both writing courses and writing workshops. We believe that the material would also be suitable for those wishing to pursue a course of self-study. To target these different possible uses, we have included a variety of topics and tasks that we hope will deepen users’ understanding of how to create a writing context for their work. Tasks range from evaluating text commentaries to open-ended questions and have been designed to generate lively classroom or workshop discussion as well as thoughtful consideration by an individual user.

The Create a Research Space (CARS) Model, by John Swales

DECODING ACADEMIC WRITING/RESEARCH

The Create A Research Space (CARS) Model, by John Swales

According to Swales, research writers frequently use 4 rhetorical moves to situate their argument.

• They demonstrate the interest or importance of the research topic (establish centrality, or describe exigency).
• They selectively synthesize and review previous work
• They show there is some kind of gap, shortcoming, or limitation in existing work, or that some extension or verification is required.
• They show how their work resolves the gap, shortcoming, or limitation in existing work, that it successfully extends or verifies past research (in the humanities far more emphasis may be placed on complication and problematizing as ends in themselves –see Susan Peck MacDonald).

CARS (create a research space) model, adapted from John Swales’ work

Move 1: establishing a territory/entering the conversation

a) claim centrality and/or significance

b) introduce the specific problem or issue

c) establish “insider status”

Move 2: define the scope of the problem or issue by summarizing previous research

Move 3: create a research space by:

a) indicating a gap in previous research

b) indicating a shortcoming, limitation or weakness in previous research

c) indicating a possible extension

Move 4: introduce present research by:

a)stating the aim of the research

b)describing the research

c)justifying the research

HIGH LEVEL and low level moves

HIGH LEVEL RHETORICAL MOVES

- establish exigency (“this matters”), centrality, or establish SIGNIFICANCE

- represent the conversation/acknowledge past work/lit review (THEY SAY)

- locate gap/create niche for contribution/situate own research

- present claims/research results, or occupy niche

(Extend, use lens, challenge or rebut, synthesize, illustrate)

- acknowledge limits/qualify claims/conclude

LOWER LEVEL MOVES

-present purpose, argument and claims

-present evidence

-employ strategies/appeals

-qualify claims (admit limitations of research)

-introduce rebuttals (deal with opponents)

MOVES IN LITERATURE REVIEWS OR PRESENTING AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTION Situating claims in relation to previous research/texts [1]

• Previous research or ways of approaching this topic are completely wrong: 'My research/approach is completely original--doesn't link up with any tradition'.
• Previous research or ways of approaching this topic are mostly wrong: 'My research/approach is highly original--quite different from what has gone before. It’s a radical challenge and complication of existing research.
• Previous research or ways of approaching this topic are somewhat wrong: 'My research/approach both fits in with tradition ( extends, illustrates) and departs (complicates ) from it in important ways.'
• Previous research or ways of approaching this topic are not wrong, but have missed/ignored some things: 'My research/approach fills in the gaps ( extends, illustrates, applies ) left by previous research/approaches'.
• Previous research or ways of approaching this topic are essentially right, but can be extended: 'My research/approach is an extension of well established tradition.'
• Previous research or ways of approaching this topic are right and flawless: 'My research/approach is not original, but it replicates/lends (illustrates) support to previous research'.

Some Research & Analysis Strategies

• Verify an existing idea/theory.
• Apply an existing idea/theory.
• Extend an existing idea/theory – develop the idea or show how it applies to some new area.
• Take an idea/theory from an existing field and apply to a new context (“emergence” in social theory; adaptation in biology; networks in the study of social relations; computation in the study of cognition, etc.)
• Find counterexamples or shortcomings ( complicate/challenge ) to suggest that an existing idea/theory needs to be qualified or revised. Focus on a prediction, implication, assumption, claim, chain of reasoning, use of evidence, etc.
• Find counterexamples or shortcomings to suggest that an existing idea/theory is seriously flawed, and a paradigm may need to be abandoned. Focus = Critique ( challenge, complicate )
• Find counterexamples or shortcomings to suggest that an existing idea/theory is seriously flawed, and suggest an alternative.
• Synthesize and clarify work in some research area – provide an overview of competing or related work.
• Synthesize and clarify work in some research area – provide an overview of competing or related work and analyze strengths and weaknesses.
• CARS model – centrality claim, gap, review of research, announce purposes, research, etc.

A) INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS“A Framework for Culture Assessment.” Tomasz Lenartowicz; Kendall Roth. Journal of International Business Studies , Vol. 30, No. 4., pp. 781-798.

1.Understanding the nature and influences of culture is central to international business. 2.Such inquiry presupposes knowing that the cultural grouping(s) of a study is a valid unit of analysis, which is critical in that the estimation of culture effects can vary based on the unit definition. 3.Unfortunately, perhaps out of convenience, international studies often simply use a country-based definition of culture. 4.In a desire to facilitate further development in understanding culture effects, in this paper, we propose a framework by which valid cultural groupings may be assessed.

B) YOUTH & POPULAR CULTURE “Adolescent Ambiguities In American Pie: Popular Culture as a Resource for Sex Education.” Catherine Ashcraft. Youth & Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, September 2003 37-70 1. Popular culture is a key site in the formation of teen knowledges about sex. 2.Yet formal sex education programs have largely ignored this arena. 3. In this article, the author proposes the need to critically incorporate popular culture into sex education efforts to develop programs that resonate with teens’ experiences and, at the same time, allow them to construct more equitable social relations. 4. The author illustrates how this might be done through an analysis of the recent teen film American Pie. 5. In addition, the author identifies specific implications and resources for broader theoretical efforts to reconstruct discourses of masculinity, femininity, and sexuality.

C) MARKETING “‘Do the Right Thing:’ Diverging Effects of Accountability in a Managerial Context” Christina L. Brown. Marketing Science Vol. 18, No.3, 1999, Pp. 230-246.

1.The need to justify one's decisions is a signal characteristic of decision-making in a managerial environment. 2.Even chief executives must communicate reasons for their actions. 3.Yet, despite a significant amount of laboratory research on the effects of accountability on decision-making, few studies have attempted to assess what affects accountability might have outside the lab for actual managers. 4.In this paper, we use as subjects actual members of the professional account, research, and creative staffs of several advertising agencies in an experimental simulation of an advertising copy meeting. 5.We demonstrate that accountability effects in complex, managerial decision contexts diverge considerably from those found in the lab.

D. “The Visual and The Verbal: A Case Study in Macroeconomics,” Ann M. Johns

Although EAP researchers have devoted considerable attention to written texts, less has been paid to the use of visual representation in the disciplines. 2. After reviewing the literature from several fields, this paper describes the strategies of a first year university student as she privileges visual texts in both her macroeconomics and reading/writing classes. 3. Suggestions for research and pedagogy relating to visual representation conclude the paper.

E. “Dissertation Writing in Action: The Development of a Dissertation Writing Support Program for ESL Graduate Research Students.” Desmond Allison, Linda Cooley, Jo Lewkowicz and David Nunan

1. Despite an explosion in the number of students writing graduate theses in a language other than their first, there are very few accounts, either of research into the difficulties encountered by these students, or of writing programs designed to help such students present dissertations written to an acceptable standard. 2. This article describes and evaluates a program developed within the English Centre at the University of Hong Kong to assist students who are required to present dissertations in English. 3. The program was based on data collected from detailed interviews with graduate supervisors and a survey of graduate students, as well as an analysis of extended pieces of graduate writing.”

F. LITERARY STUDIES“Professing Literature is a history of academic literary studies in the United States, roughly from the Yale Report of 1828, which assured the primacy of the classical over the vernacular languages in American colleges for another half century, to the waning of the New Criticism in the 1960s and subsequent controversies over literary theory…These early practices assumed a theory of the social function of literature that affected the shape of literature departments…Those who see that the humanities have become disablingly incoherent seem to me right, but many of them fail to see that coherence can no longer be grounded in some restored consensus, whether it be traditional “basics,” revolutionary ideological critique, or something else. In the final analysis, what academic literary studies have had to work with is not a coherent tradition, but a series of conflicts that remain unresolved, unacknowledged, and assumed to be outside the proper sphere of literary education. To bring these conflicts into that sphere will mean thinking of literary education as part of a larger cultural history that includes the other humanities as well as the sciences…” [Gerald Graff, Professing Literature]

G) Social Policy 1. The author believes that violence by women has been ignored in research and social policy because of society's refusal to acknowledge that women, especially mothers, can be aggressive. 2. In addition, most of the offenses committed by women are private events and are believed to be underreported to authorities. 3. The author presents a psychodynamic perspective of female violence, explaining it as an expression of frustration and anger rooted in childhood experiences of abuse and neglect. 4. Violent behavior is described as female perversion, an act in which women use their bodies to assault images of motherhood in an attempt to resolve some type of psychological problem. 5. The text highlights the failure of social services to recognize the long-term effects of abuse on children and advocates for greater efforts to prevent victims from becoming offenders. 6. Case studies provide examples of violent acts perpetrated by women against their children, themselves, and their batterers. 7. Female sexual abuse, Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, maternal physical abuse, and infanticide are discussed. H)English For Specific Purposes (1.) Despite an explosion in the number of students writing graduate theses in a language other than their first, there are very few accounts, either of research into the difficulties encountered by these students, or of writing programs designed to help such students present dissertations written to an acceptable standard. (2) This article describes and evaluates a program developed within the English Centre at the University of Hong Kong to assist students who are required to present dissertations in English. (3) The program was based on data collected from detailed interviews with graduate supervisors and a survey of graduate students, as well as an analysis of extended pieces of graduate writing.”

H) Communication Studies 1. Although much criticism of alcohol advertising has focused on the youth and underage drinking, targeted marketing of alcohol beverages towards minorities and women has created much controversy in recent years yet is much less understood.2. Content analyses of four consumer magazines from 1979-1992 reveal significant variations in the amount of alcohol advertising, product types, advertisement features, and advertising appeals. 3. The findings suggest that alcohol advertising is more concentrated in minority magazines, and different products are targeted toward minorities and women with distinct advertising techniques. 4. Consumer education and health communication programs need to increase their effort to reach minorities and women and adopt customized social marketing strategies.

EXTENDED EXAMPLE AND ANALYSIS: “Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering.” RayMoynihan et al.,British Medical Journal 2002;324:886-891 (13April)

INTRODUCTION Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering There's a lot of money to be made from telling healthy people they're sick. Some forms of medicalising ordinary life may nowbe better described as disease mongering: widening the boundariesof treatable illness in order to expand markets for those whosell and deliver treatments. Pharmaceutical companiesare actively involved in sponsoring the definition of diseasesand promoting them to both prescribers and consumers. The socialconstruction of illness is being replaced by the corporate constructionofdisease. Whereas some aspects of medicalisation are the subject of ongoing debate, the mechanics of corporate backed disease mongering,and its impact on public consciousness, medical practice, humanhealth, and national budgets, have attracted limited criticalscrutiny. Within many disease categories informal alliances have emerged, comprising drug company staff, doctors, and consumer groups.Ostensibly engaged in raising public awareness about underdiagnosedand undertreated problems, these alliances tend to promote a viewof their particular condition as widespread, serious, and treatable.Because these "disease awareness" campaigns are commonly linkedto companies' marketing strategies, they operate to expand marketsfor new pharmaceutical products. Alternative approaches emphasizingthe self limiting or relatively benign natural history of a problem,or the importance of personal coping strategies are played downor ignored. As the late medical writer Lynn Payer observed, diseasemongers "gnaw away at our self-confidence."2 Although some sponsored professionals or consumers may act independently and all concerned may have honourable motives, inmany cases the formula is the same: groups and/or campaigns areorchestrated, funded, and facilitated by corporate interests,often via their public relations and marketing infrastructure. A key strategy of the alliances is to target the news media with stories designed to create fears about the condition or diseaseand draw attention to the latest treatment. Company sponsoredadvisory boards supply the "independent experts" for these stories,consumer groups provide the "victims," and public relations companiesprovide media outlets with the positive spin about the latest"breakthrough"medications. Inappropriate medicalisation carries the dangers of unnecessary labelling, poor treatment decisions, iatrogenic illness, andeconomic waste, as well as the opportunity costs that result whenresources are diverted away from treating or preventing more seriousdisease. At a deeper level it may help to feed unhealthy obsessionswith health,3 obscure or mystify sociological or politicalexplanations for health problems,4 and focus undue attentionon pharmacological, individualised, or privatised solutions.3More tangibly and immediately, the costs of new drugs targetedat essentially healthy people are threatening the viability ofpublicly funded universal health insurance systems.5 Recent discussions about medicalisation6 have emphasised the limitations of earlier critiques1 of the disabling impactof a powerful medical establishment. Contemporary writers arguethat the lay populace has become more active, better informedabout risks and benefits, less trusting of medical authority,and less passively accepting of the expansion of medical jurisdictioninto their bodies and lives. Although these views may herald amore mature debate about medicalisation, the erosion of trustin medical opinion reinforces the need for wide public scrutinyof industry's role in theseprocesses. In this paper we do not aim for a comprehensive classification or definitive description of disease mongering, but ratherwe draw attention to an important but under-recognised phenomenon.We identify examples, taken from the Australian context but familiarinternationally, which loosely represent five examples of diseasemongering: the ordinary processes or ailments of life classifiedas medical problems; mild symptoms portrayed as portents of aserious disease; personal or social problems seen as medical ones;risks conceptualised as diseases; and disease prevalence estimatesframed to maximise the size of a medical problem. These groupsare not mutually exclusive and some examplesoverlap.

Sample: Rhetorical Analysis of an Academic Journal Introduction

Ray Moynihan, Iona Heath and David Henry present their findings on the practice of disease mongering within the pharmaceutical industry in an article entitled “Selling sickness: the Pharmaceutical Industry and Disease Mongering” published in the British Medical Journal. An analysis of the introduction to this article reveals that, like many other authors publishing their work in peer reviewed journals, Moynihan, Heath and Henry have employed a set of basic rhetorical moves that coincide with the Create A Research Space (CARS) writing model identified by John Swales.

The introduction to this article makes use of all four of Swales’s moves and employs them in the typical order found in research writing. They open their article with Swales’s first move before they even specifically identify their topic within the text. The very first sentence, “There’s a lot of money to be made from telling healthy people they’re sick,” immediately presents the reader with a scenario that conjures up unethical behavior. This establishes an urgency for their topic before the reader even knows exactly what that topic is and how the authors will approach it. They follow this with sentences that not only provide the reader with a clearer picture of the topic but also continue to firmly establish the importance of that topic. For example, “Some forms of medicalising ordinary life may now be better described as disease mongering: widening the boundaries of treatable illness in order to expand markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.

The authors conclude their first move with the sentence “Whereas some aspects of medicalisation are the subject of ongoing debate, the mechanics of corporate backed disease mongering, and its impact on public consciousness, medical practice, human health, and national budgets, have attracted limited critical scrutiny.” This sentence functions in multiple ways. It tells the reader that this area has not been adequately explored and therefore sets the authors up to make CARS Move 3 (identify the specific area their article will explore) later in the introduction: “In this paper we do not aim for a comprehensive classification or definitive description of disease mongering, but rather we draw attention to an important but under-recognized phenomenon. The sentence that concludes Move 1 also serves as an effective transition to move 2. This sentence tells the reader that within the area of “medicalisaton” not enough attention has been paid to “the mechanics of corporate backed disease mongering.” From this platform the authors shift to Move 2 in which they synthesize information about what little work has been done in this area.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

"Create a Research I Space" (CARS) Model of Research Introductions 1

Related Papers

Ana Stefanelli

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

Lynne Flowerdew

Wasima Shehzad

Driving research questions from the prevailing issues and interests and developing from them new theories, formulas, algorithms, methods, and designs, and linking them to the interests of the larger audience is a vital component of scientific research papers. The present article discusses outlining purposes or stating the nature of the present research, and listing research questions or hypotheses in the introduction of academic papers. This corpus-based genre study focuses particularly on Move 3 of the model " occupying the niche. " The results indicating disciplinary variation show that the writers of Computer Science (CS) research articles, over the years have developed an increased use of outlining purpose/stating the nature of the present research, having the characteristics of purposive, descriptive, extension of the previous work, contrast to the existing work, brevity, complexity , and a description of methodology. It also shows that listing research questions or hypothesis may have distinctively different functions in developing genres as compared to the established ones such as physics.

Luz Gil-Salom

Humera Rahman

Academic writers have reported that research article Introductions are more problematic to write than the rest of the paper. It is because they have to choose from amongst the various options available to them for making a start. The CARS Model beautifully captures these options in functional terms which make it very easy to understand and implement. In this paper, I discuss the model with examples from published geology research articles to show the model&#39;s usefulness. However, the model is equally applicable to other disciplines.

Christian Merand Mendoza Azul

Yasir B J Al-shujairi

The discussion section is considered as a crucial part in the writing process of a research article (RA). Research writers find it difficult to write an effective discussion for their results and this could be due to the unawareness of the various move functions that shape this section. A rhetorical move is a sentence or group of sentences that serves a communicative function. This paper focuses on move Background information, its linguistic devices such as verb, tense, and self-reference and lexical bundles (LBs) including 3-to 5-word bundles that are used to construct this communicative move. The corpus of the study includes a total of 50 medical RAs discussion section which were selected from five prestigious journals in the field. The corpus was analysed in terms of the occurrence of move Background information, the linguistic devices associated with this move and the LBs that initiate it. The analysis of the move and the linguistic realizations was done manually and the identification of LBs was done using AntConc3.5.7w computer program. The findings revealed that 34 (64%) of the corpus included move Background information. This move was mainly employed to describe methodological aspects and restate the research purpose. These functions were characterized by the use of procedural verbs, first-person plural pronouns and simple past tense. Moreover, several 3-5 words LBs (e.g., we tested the hypothesis, this study was based on) were found to initiate move Background information. Further studies are needed to examine other obligatory and optional moves such as Explaining research findings and Indicating research limitations.

The discussion section forms an integral part in the writing process of a research article (RA). Research authors find it difficult to write and produce a well-structured discussion for their findings. The reason could be due to the unawareness of the main components (rhetorical moves) that shape this section. Therefore, this paper aims to provide a review of the studies that have been done to analyze the discussion section of RAs over the last 36 years. Also, this review seeks to examine the discussion section of RAs across various scientific disciplines and different types of journals. The review showed that the rhetorical structure of RAs discussion section witnessed some changes over the course of time. New moves such as Research Implications and Research Limitations started to be parts of the discussion section of RAs. In addition, it was revealed that differences in writing the discussion section can be varied broadly across disciplines such as soft sciences (e.g., applied linguistics, sociology, psychology) and hard sciences (e.g., engineering, chemistry, biology) and slightly across types of journals such as ISI and local journals. In conclusion, this paper offered several suggestions for further research to be conducted in the area.

Publishing Research Quarterly

Sweta Pandey

RELATED PAPERS

Tansel Yazıcıoğlu

Journal of Applied Geophysics

IRJET Journal

ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems

Jeffery Westbrook

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

Pramod Singh

Iktisadi Ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi

Azzem Özkan

2021 International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS)

Ahmed Saïdi

Engel Pascalade

Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine

amarnath reddy b

Xavier de la Torre

European Journal of Business Science and Technology

Erhard Teschl

Javier Villaverde-Moreno

The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences

Priscilla Loh

办理坎布里亚大学毕业证 cumbria毕业证本科文凭证书GRE成绩单原版一模一样

Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma

Alec Flores

Journal of Plasma Physics

Alexander Oreshko

Procedia Engineering

IETE Journal of Research

qutubuddin saifee

Roberta Falcetta

Toxicology Letters

Belem Trejo-valdivia

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: The C.A.R.S. Model

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Bibliography

Introduction

The Creating a Research Space [C.A.R.S.] Model was developed by John Swales based upon his analysis of journal articles representing a variety of discipline-based writing practices. His model attempts to explain and describe the organizational pattern of writing the introduction to scholarly research studies. Following the C.A.R.S. Model is useful because it can help you to: 1) begin the writing process [getting started is often the most difficult task]; 2) understand the way in which an introduction sets the stage for the rest of your paper; and, 3) assess how the introduction fits within the larger scope of your study. The model assumes that writers follow a general organizational pattern in response to two types of challenges [“competitions”] relating to establishing a presence within a particular domain of research: 1) the competition to create a rhetorical space and, 2) the competition to attract readers into that space. The model proposes three actions [Swales calls them “moves”], accompanied by specific steps, that reflect the development of an effective introduction for a research paper. These “moves” and steps can be used as a template for writing the introduction to your own social sciences research papers.

" Introductions ." The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Coffin, Caroline and Rupert Wegerif. “ How to Write a Standard Research Article .” Inspiring Academic Practice at the University of Exeter; Kayfetz, Janet. " Academic Writing Workshop ." University of California, Santa Barbara, Fall 2009; Pennington, Ken. " The Introduction Section: Creating a Research Space CARS Model ." Language Centre, Helsinki University of Technology, 2005; Swales, John and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Skills and Tasks . 2nd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Creating a Research Space Move 1: Establishing a Territory [the situation] This is generally accomplished in two ways: by demonstrating that a general area of research is important, critical, interesting, problematic, relevant, or otherwise worthy of investigation and by introducing and reviewing key sources of prior research in that area to show where gaps exist or where prior research has been inadequate in addressing the research problem. The steps taken to achieve this would be:

• Step 1 -- Claiming importance of, and/or  [writing action = describing the research problem and providing evidence to support why the topic is important to study]
• Step 2 -- Making topic generalizations, and/or  [writing action = providing statements about the current state of knowledge, consensus, practice or description of phenomena]
• Step 3 -- Reviewing items of previous research  [writing action = synthesize prior research that further supports the need to study the research problem; this is not a literature review but more a reflection of key studies that have touched upon but perhaps not fully addressed the topic]

Move 2: Establishing a Niche [the problem] This action refers to making a clear and cogent argument that your particular piece of research is important and possesses value. This can be done by indicating a specific gap in previous research, by challenging a broadly accepted assumption, by raising a question, a hypothesis, or need, or by extending previous knowledge in some way. The steps taken to achieve this would be:

• Step 1a -- Counter-claiming, or  [writing action = introduce an opposing viewpoint or perspective or identify a gap in prior research that you believe has weakened or undermined the prevailing argument]
• Step 1b -- Indicating a gap, or  [writing action = develop the research problem around a gap or understudied area of the literature]
• Step 1c -- Question-raising, or  [writing action = similar to gap identification, this involves presenting key questions about the consequences of gaps in prior research that will be addressed by your study. For example, one could state, “Despite prior observations of voter behavior in local elections in urban Detroit, it remains unclear why do some single mothers choose to avoid....”]
• Step 1d -- Continuing a tradition  [writing action = extend prior research to expand upon or clarify a research problem. This is often signaled with logical connecting terminology, such as, “hence,” “therefore,” “consequently,” “thus” or language that indicates a need. For example, one could state, “Consequently, these factors need to examined in more detail....” or “Evidence suggests an interesting correlation, therefore, it is desirable to survey different respondents....”]

Move 3: Occupying the Niche [the solution] The final "move" is to announce the means by which your study will contribute new knowledge or new understanding in contrast to prior research on the topic. This is also where you describe the remaining organizational structure of the paper. The steps taken to achieve this would be:

• Step 1a -- Outlining purposes, or  [writing action = answering the “So What?” question. Explain in clear language the objectives of your study]
• Step 1b -- Announcing present research [writing action = describe the purpose of your study in terms of what the research is going to do or accomplish. In the social sciences, the “So What?” question still needs to addressed]
• Step 2 -- Announcing principle findings  [writing action = present a brief, general summary of key findings written, such as, “The findings indicate a need for...,” or “The research suggests four approaches to....”]
• Step 3 -- Indicating article structure  [writing action = state how the remainder of your paper is organized]

" Introductions ." The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Atai, Mahmood Reza. “Exploring Subdisciplinary Variations and Generic Structure of Applied Linguistics Research Article Introductions Using CARS Model.” The Journal of Applied Linguistics 2 (Fall 2009): 26-51; Chanel, Dana. "Research Article Introductions in Cultural Studies: A Genre Analysis Explorationn of Rhetorical Structure." The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes 2 (2014): 1-20; Coffin, Caroline and Rupert Wegerif. “ How to Write a Standard Research Article .” Inspiring Academic Practice at the University of Exeter; Kayfetz, Janet. " Academic Writing Workshop ." University of California, Santa Barbara, Fall 2009; Pennington, Ken. " The Introduction Section: Creating a Research Space CARS Model ." Language Centre, Helsinki University of Technology, 2005; Swales, John and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Skills and Tasks . 2nd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004; Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990; Chapter 5: Beginning Work. In Writing for Peer Reviewed Journals: Strategies for Getting Published . Pat Thomson and Barbara Kamler. ( New York: Routledge, 2013), pp. 93-96.

Writing Tip

Swales showed that establishing a research niche [move 2] is often signaled by specific terminology that expresses a contrasting viewpoint, a critical evaluation of gaps in the literature, or a perceived weakness in prior research. The purpose of using these words is to draw a clear distinction between perceived deficiencies in previous studies and the research you are presenting that is intended to help resolve these deficiencies. Below is a table of common words used by authors.

NOTE : You may prefer not to adopt a negative stance in your writing when placing it within the context of prior research. In such cases, an alternative approach is to utilize a neutral, contrastive statement that expresses a new perspective without giving the appearance of trying to diminish the validity of other people's research.

Examples of how this can be achieved include the following statements, with A representing the findings of prior research, B representing your research problem, and X representing one or more variables that have been investigated.

• The research has focused on A, rather than on B...
• Research into A can be useful but to counterbalance X, it is important to consider B...
• These studies have emphasized A, as opposed to B...
• While prior studies have examined A, it may be preferable to contemplate the impact of B...
• After consideration of A, it is important to also recognize B...
• The study of A has been exhaustive, but changing circumstances related to X support the need for examining [or revisiting] B...
• Although considerable research has been devoted to A, less attention has been paid to B...
• This research offers insight into the need for A, though consideration of B is also helpful...

Dretske, Fred I. “Contrastive Statements.” The Philosophical Review 81 (October 1972): 411-437; Kayfetz, Janet. " Academic Writing Workshop ." University of California, Santa Barbara, Fall 2009; Pennington, Ken. " The Introduction Section: Creating a Research Space CARS Model ." Language Centre, Helsinki University of Technology, 2005; Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990

• << Previous: 4. The Introduction
• Next: Background Information >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2023 10:50 AM
• URL: https://libguides.pointloma.edu/ResearchPaper

What executives are saying about the future of hybrid work

In the postpandemic future of work, nine out of ten organizations will be combining remote and on-site working, according to a new McKinsey survey of 100 executives across industries and geographies. 1 From December 2020 through January 2021, McKinsey surveyed and analyzed responses from 100 respondents at the C-suite, vice-president, and director level, evenly split among organizations based in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States, and among a variety of industries. Company revenues ranged, on average, from $5.1 billion to $11.0 billion per year. The survey confirms that productivity and customer satisfaction have increased during the pandemic.

About the authors

A McKinsey Live event on ‘Getting hybrid work right: What employees are saying’

The following charts, drawn from our survey, offer insights for executives who are sorting out the particulars of the hybrid approach. A notable finding is that organizations with the biggest productivity increases during the pandemic have supported and encouraged “small moments of engagement” among their employees, moments in which coaching, mentorship, idea sharing, and coworking take place. These organizations are preparing for hybrid working by training managers for remote leadership, by reimagining processes, and by rethinking how to help employees thrive in their roles.

The future will be more hybrid. Prior to the COVID-19 crisis, the majority of organizations required employees to spend most of their time on-site. But as the pandemic eases, executives say that the hybrid model—in which employees work both remotely and in the office—will become far more common. The majority of executives expect that (for all roles that aren’t essential to perform on-site) employees will be on-site between 21 and 80 percent of the time, or one to four days per week.

Future vision. Although nine out of ten executives envision a hybrid model going forward, most have at best a high-level plan for how to carry it out—and nearly a third of them say that their organizations lack alignment on a high-level vision among the top team. Although another third of organizations have a more detailed vision in place, only one in ten organizations have begun communicating and piloting that vision.

Productive nonetheless. The survey also confirms that during the pandemic most organizations have seen rises in individual and team productivity and employee engagement, and, perhaps as a result of this increased focus and energy, a rise in the satisfaction of their customers as well.

But not every organization has experienced the same improvement. Take individual productivity. Some 58 percent of executives report improvements in individual productivity, but an additional third say that productivity has not changed. Lagging companies, which make up 10 percent of respondents, relate that individual productivity has declined during the pandemic. It’s important to note the high correlation between individual and team productivity: C-suite executives who say that individual productivity has improved are five times more likely to report that team productivity has risen too.

Making the small connections count. Why have some companies enjoyed higher productivity during the pandemic? According to our survey, they’re the ones supporting small connections between colleagues—opportunities to discuss projects, share ideas, network, mentor, and coach, for example. Two-thirds of productivity leaders report that these kinds of “microtransactions” have increased, compared with just 9 percent of productivity laggards. As executives look to sustain pandemic-style productivity gains with a hybrid model, they will need to design and develop the right spaces for these small interactions to take place.

Managing differently. Supporting small moments of connection requires subtle shifts in how managers work. Nearly all executives surveyed recognize that managing remotely differs from when all employees are on-site, but other subtleties may not be as apparent. Nuances can be seen in the more than half of productivity leaders that have trained their managers on how to lead teams more effectively. Only a third of productivity laggards have done the same. The emphasis on small connections suggests that organizations could better support managers  by, among other things, educating them about the positive and negative impact they have on the people who report to them, and by training managers on soft skills , such as providing and receiving feedback. Organizations can also explore novel ways to address the loss of empathy  that often accompanies gains in authority.

Experiment and iterate. Across organizations, executives already recognize the need to redesign processes to better support a remote workforce—with the majority having at least identified the processes that will require rethinking. But productivity leaders are more likely to continually iterate and tweak their processes as the context shifts. As organizations look to codify the hybrid model, there is evidence that the test-and-learn approach to process redesign will be an important enabler.

Reimagine hiring. Hiring is among the most crucial processes to reconsider in the hybrid world. Should organizations continue to hire within specific geographies, or should they open up their talent aperture beyond traditional recruiting locations, for instance? Should they conduct more remote interviews? During the pandemic, nearly two-thirds of organizations have moved in-person recruiting events and activities to remote settings, but only one in three have reimagined hiring from the ground up. Forty percent of productivity leaders, by contrast, have holistically redesigned their entire hiring process.

Rethink talent allocation. During the pandemic, nearly two-thirds of organizations have reassessed the number of people in each role and in each function in the company. But productivity leaders are more likely than middle performers and laggards to fall into this category. A select few leading companies have taken it even further and have gone beyond reassessing to actually implementing changes. As organizations redesign their hybrid future, matching the workforce with the right priorities could help spur productivity improvements.

Andrea Alexander is an associate partner in McKinsey’s Houston office, where Mihir Mysore is a partner; Rich Cracknell is a solution leader in the Silicon Valley office; Aaron De Smet is a senior partner in the New Jersey office; and Meredith Langstaff is an associate partner in the Washington, DC, office, where Dan Ravid is a research and knowledge fellow.

This article was edited by Lang Davison, an executive editor in the Seattle office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

What employees are saying about the future of remote work

Reimagining the postpandemic workforce

Reimagining the postpandemic organization

Suggested Searches

• Climate Change
• Expedition 64
• Mars perseverance
• SpaceX Crew-2
• International Space Station
• View All Topics A-Z

Humans in Space

Earth & climate, the solar system, the universe, aeronautics, learning resources, news & events.

NASA Mission Flies Over Arctic to Study Sea Ice Melt Causes

NASA Releases New High-Quality, Near Real-Time Air Quality Data

Twin NASA Satellites Ready to Help Gauge Earth’s Energy Balance

• Search All NASA Missions
• A to Z List of Missions
• Upcoming Launches and Landings
• Spaceships and Rockets
• Communicating with Missions
• James Webb Space Telescope
• Hubble Space Telescope
• Why Go to Space
• Astronauts Home
• Commercial Space
• Destinations
• Living in Space
• Explore Earth Science
• Earth, Our Planet
• Earth Science in Action
• Earth Multimedia
• Earth Science Researchers
• Pluto & Dwarf Planets
• Asteroids, Comets & Meteors
• The Kuiper Belt
• The Oort Cloud
• Skywatching
• The Search for Life in the Universe
• Black Holes
• The Big Bang
• Dark Energy & Dark Matter
• Earth Science
• Planetary Science
• Astrophysics & Space Science
• The Sun & Heliophysics
• Biological & Physical Sciences
• Lunar Science
• Citizen Science
• Astromaterials
• Aeronautics Research
• Human Space Travel Research
• Science in the Air
• NASA Aircraft
• Flight Innovation
• Supersonic Flight
• Air Traffic Solutions
• Green Aviation Tech
• Drones & You
• Technology Transfer & Spinoffs
• Space Travel Technology
• Technology Living in Space
• Manufacturing and Materials
• Science Instruments
• For Kids and Students
• For Educators
• For Colleges and Universities
• For Professionals
• Science for Everyone
• Requests for Exhibits, Artifacts, or Speakers
• STEM Engagement at NASA
• NASA's Impacts
• Centers and Facilities
• Directorates
• Organizations
• People of NASA
• Internships
• Our History
• Doing Business with NASA
• Get Involved
• Aeronáutica
• Ciencias Terrestres
• Sistema Solar
• All NASA News
• Video Series on NASA+
• Newsletters
• Social Media
• Media Resources
• Upcoming Launches & Landings
• Virtual Events
• Sounds and Ringtones
• Interactives
• STEM Multimedia

NASA’s Hubble Temporarily Pauses Science

Space Station Research Advances NASA’s Plans to Explore the Moon, Mars

Welcome Back to Planet Earth, Expedition 70 Crew! 

Astronaut Exercise

Ongoing Venus Volcanic Activity Discovered With NASA’s Magellan Data

C.12 Planetary Instrument Concepts for the Advancement of Solar System Observations POC Change

June’s Night Sky Notes: Constant Companions: Circumpolar Constellations, Part III

What’s Up: June 2024 Skywatching Tips from NASA

Hubble Views the Lights of a Galactic Bar

Travel Through Data From Space in New 3D Instagram Experiences

Discovery Alert: Spock’s Home Planet Goes ‘Poof’

NASA, Industry to Start Designing More Sustainable Jet Engine Core

Aviary: A New NASA Software Platform for Aircraft Modelling

NASA’s X-59 Passes Milestone Toward Safe First Flight 

Tech Today: Measuring the Buzz, Hum, and Rattle

NASA to Measure Moonquakes With Help From InSight Mars Mission

NASA Around the World: Interns Teach Virtual Lessons in Kenya

The Moon and Amaey Shah

NASA Stennis Helps Family Build a Generational Legacy

Diez maneras en que los estudiantes pueden prepararse para ser astronautas

Astronauta de la NASA Marcos Berríos

Resultados científicos revolucionarios en la estación espacial de 2023

A new project provides special 3D “experiences” on Instagram using data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes through augmented reality (AR), allowing users to travel virtually through objects in space. These new experiences of astronomical objects – including the debris fields of exploded stars – are being released to help celebrate the 25 th anniversary of operations from Chandra, NASA’s flagship X-ray telescope.  

In recent years, Instagram experiences (previously referred to as filters) of NASA mission control, the International Space Station, and the Perseverance Rover on Mars have allowed participants to virtually explore what NASA does. This new set of Chandra Instagram filters joins this space-themed collection.

“We are excited to bring data from the universe down to earth in this way,” said Kimberly Arcand, visualization and emerging technology scientist at the Chandra X-ray Center. “By enabling people to access cosmic data on their phones and through AR, it brings Chandra’s amazing discoveries literally right to your fingertips.”

The new Instagram experiences are created from 3D models based on data collected by Chandra and other telescopes along with mathematical models. Traditionally, it has been very difficult to gather 3D data of objects in our galaxy due to their two-dimensional projection on the sky. New instruments and techniques, however, have helped allowed astronomers in recent years to construct more data-driven models of what these distant objects look like in three dimensions.

These advancements in astronomy have paralleled the explosion of opportunities in virtual, extended, and augmented reality. Such technologies provide virtual digital experiences, which now extend beyond Earth and into the cosmos. This new set of Chandra Instagram experiences was made possible by a collaboration including NASA, the Smithsonian Institution, and students and researchers at Brown University.

These Instagram experiences also include data sonifications of the celestial objects. Sonification is the process of translating data into sounds and notes so users can hear representations of the data, an accessibility project the Chandra team has led for the past four years.

“These Chandra Instagram experiences are another way to share these cosmic data with the public,” said Arcand. “We are hoping this helps reach new audiences, especially those who like to get their information through social media.”

The objects in the new Chandra Instagram experience collection include the Tycho supernova remnant, the Vela Pulsar, the Helix Nebula, the Cat’s Eye Nebula, and the Chandra spacecraft. The 3D models of the first three objects were done in conjunction with Sal Orlando, an astrophysicist at Italy’s National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF) in Palmero. The Cat’s Eye Nebula was created with data from Ryan Clairmont, physics researcher and undergraduate at Stanford University. Arcand worked with Brown’s Tom Sgouros and his team, research assistant Alexander Dupuis and undergraduate Healey Koch, on the Chandra Instagram filters.

The experiences include text that explains what users are looking at. The effects are free and available on Instagram on mobile devices for at least six months, and some will remain viewable in perpetuity on the Smithsonian’s Voyager 3D website.

“There is a lot of rich and beautiful data associated with these models that Healey and I looked to bring in, which we did by creating the textures on the models as well as programming visual effects for displaying them in AR,” said Dupuis.

NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center manages the Chandra program. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory’s Chandra X-ray Center controls science from Cambridge Massachusetts and flight operations from Burlington, Massachusetts. The Chandra X-ray Center is headquartered at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, which is part of the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian.

Read more from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory.

For more Chandra images, multimedia and related materials, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission/chandra-x-ray-observatory/

News Media Contact

Megan Watzke Chandra X-ray Center Cambridge, Mass. 617-496-7998

Jonathan Deal Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Ala. 256-544-0034