In light of Paul’s post below, I thought I’d share a paragraph that I strategically place somewhere near the end of the introduction [sorry, Introduction], and which I call roadmap to the roadmap.
In this section of the Introduction, I aim to explain the paper’s meta-structure. Parts II and III are called ‘exposition.’ Here, the paper exposes to its audience the material which I have read and thought about in composing this article. In order to allay fears that I am insufficiently well-read in an area as to which I am claiming expertise, the reader should expect these sections to include an impressive literature review. I also include sub-parts within these parts. These sub-parts are suggestions of categories of exposition which deserve discussion qua categories. I have affixed titles to the parts and subparts in order succinctly to indicate the subject of the category (or subcategory). Without the titles (and subtitles), I fear no one will understand, or be bothered to read, the content. What follows in Parts IV and V is “argument.” To the extent that this article says something valuable, the conventional wisdom is that it will appear here. That is because in the “argument” sections, one generally takes oneself to say something original to the piece, and originality is the most important part of scholarship. For the sake of my readers’ expectations, I aim to offer something — anything — original in these sections. As before, there will be sub-parts (with subtitles) to suggest the complexity and true originality of the argument. I then end with a conclusion. The conclusion generally says nothing that was not said before. That is why I simply mention it in the roadmap to the roadmap, rather than describing what I say in it, as I do not wish the reader to be surprised by the appearance of a “Conclusion” which was not previously announced.
The only disadvantage of my roadmap to the roadmap is that it leaves that part of the introduction which precedes it completely unmapped, and therefore liable to confuse and distress.
Posted by Marc DeGirolami on April 13, 2012 at 08:13 AM
Comments
I’d also add an introduction to the title, which always goes over well and helps me with offers and expedites. This structure introduces editors to the substance of the article even before they get the actual introduction. An intro to the introduction to the title is probably also advisable, but the word limit student editors place on us precludes that.
Posted by: AnonProf | Apr 13, 2012 2:24:00 PM
You joke, but I got a no-sh!t comment from a reader two articles ago that I needed to put a introductory paragraph at the top of my introduction to preface the introduction’s structure and argument.
Posted by: Joe (not that one) | Apr 13, 2012 12:17:32 PM
Needs a lot more footnotes.
Posted by: Joseph Slater | Apr 13, 2012 10:49:38 AM
Hilarious.
Posted by: Dan Markel | Apr 13, 2012 8:21:31 AM