How to tell the story of your research?
Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences
January 1, 2022
When developing or revising the structure for your own paper, remember that a good option is always to follow as closely as possible the standard paper structure instead of inventing new structures. Innovative structures are not always well received in the academic community because the novel structure makes reading the paper more difficult. Recker (2021b, 178)
Regarding you master thesis, there are basically two approaches you can take: behavioral science or design science.
The structure proposed here fits to behavioral science research.
Following table contrasts the approaches
Behavioral science | Design science | |
---|---|---|
Ontological temporality | Existing reality | New reality |
Basic aim | Truth | Utility |
Study focus | Behavior | Designed artifacts |
Basic procedure | Data collection | Creation through design |
Basic epistemic types | Explanation & description | Prescription through design principles and design theory |
Type of conjecture | Causality hypothesis | Design idea & design hypothesis |
Have a look at approx. two handful papers you have read lately.
What commonalities in structure do you see?
Science is about new ideas in old formats.
Reviewers and readers are accustomed to certain ways of reading an article—the so-called “script” (Grover and Lyytinen 2015).
Innovative structures are not always well received by scholars because the novel structure makes the paper difficult to read.
An innovative structure distracts from the content, forces readers to focus more on the structure, which gives them less capacity to focus on the content (Recker 2021b).
Thus, a good advice is to follow the script and make only mindful variations.
Section | Content |
---|---|
Introduction | Problem statement, research gap, research question, approach, contributions |
Background | Literature on the topic, research gap, general theory |
Theory | Assumptions, propositions, hypotheses |
Methodology | Sampling, data collection and analysis methods, etc. |
Findings | Descriptive results of the data analysis |
Discussion | Findings, theoretical and practical contributions, limitations, further research, conclusion |
Conclusion | Closing frame |
Generic structure | Quantitative study: H. Li, Zhang, and Kettinger (2022) |
Qualitative study: Wang et al. (2022) |
Design Science: Recker (2021a) |
---|---|---|---|
Introduction | Introduction | Intro | Introduction |
Background | Literature review Theoretical background |
Literature review | Research context |
Theory | Research model and hypotheses | Theoretical foundation | - |
Methodology | Methodology | Research method | Research approach |
Findings | Results | Toptech’s digital… Meaning-making… |
Analysis Solution objectives Evaluation |
Discussion | Discussion | Theoretical integration… Implications Boundary conditions… |
Discussion |
Conclusion | - | Concluding remarks | Conclusion |
Capture the reader’s curiosity and set the right frame (Kane 2022).
Here are the reader’s expectations set.
Motivate your research with a hook, not a gap
The gap is usually the argument that something hasn’t been done yet. Necessary, but not sufficient as some things shouldn’t be done (Grant and Pollock 2011).
The hook is a strategy to find a problem that someone cares about (Grant and Pollock 2011).
Based on Baird (2021) and Recker (2021b) following “script” can be derived:
Read the introduction of a paper you like or of Strich, Mayer, and Fiedler (2021) (search for it at Google Scholar) and decompose it.
Does it follow the “script”? Is the introduction persuasive? Why?
This section provides everything needed to understand your research processes and results.
Here you lay the foundation of your theory
The background is not a recapitulation, listing, or critique of all other work in this area, nor is it a list of concepts, it introduces and synthesizes the theoretical underpinnings you will rely on (Baird 2021):
Read the background section of a paper you like or of Strich, Mayer, and Fiedler (2021) and decompose it.
This is not where existing theory is discussed, but where the magic happens (Recker 2021b):
Here you develop new theory.
Have a look at the theory section of a quantitative paper you like or of Wang et al. (2022) and read it.
This section provides the first part of your resolution.
Here you show how the research was carried out.
This section describes the second part of the resolution—the evidence gathered (Baird 2021).
Here you show what you found out.
This section is all about the contributions and implications.
Here the paper becomes most interesting
Start with reminding the reader of the area of focus and the tension (Baird 2021).
Implications for research (theoretical contributions)
Implications for practice (practical contributions)
Limitations and future research
Have a look at the discussion section of one of the papers analyzed so far and mark the summary, explanations, abstractions, theorizing, and implications (if applicable)
This section is optional and provides the closing frame to a paper (Recker 2021b).
Here you synthesize what you set out to do and accomplished
Please read the hypothetical AoM micro submission “Responses to Transformational Leadership: Are Some Followers Immune?” and reflect on the quality of this submission based on your learings in IS research and this module.
Say only what the reader needs to know to understand the work at hand
Introductions in articles should be no longer than 2.5 pages (Baird 2021)