INTRODUCTION – CARS MODEL

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.

THE MODEL

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]

WRITING TIPS

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.
 Contrast Quantity Verbs Adjectives
albeit few challenge difficult
although handful deter dubious
but less disregard elusive
howbeit little exclude inadequate
however no fail incomplete
nevertheless none hinder inconclusive
notwithstanding not ignore inefficacious
unfortunately lack ineffective
whereas limit inefficient
yet misinterpret questionable
neglect scarce
obviate uncertain
omit unclear
overlook unconvincing
prevent unproductive
question unreliable
restrict unsatisfactory

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...