Explain how the concept of the funnel applies to writing the Introduction and Discussion (an inverted funnel). What does it mean that the Introduction and Discussion should balance each other?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Ans: So much of writing in general follows a formula of some kind because many people who have come before us have learned what works. The research paper is no exception. The introduction works best when you follow the shape of a funnel—broad narrowing down to hypotheses—and the discussion follows the opposite pattern of an inverted funnel—narrow leading to broad implications. The introduction follows a funnel shape because it starts off with a broad statement of the topic. It really does not make sense to readers if you jump right into hypotheses without showing us how you got there. We start off with the broad topic, lead to our variables, describe the relevant literature on those variables, and lead to precise hypotheses. In a reflection of the Introduction, the Discussion section is written in the shape of an inverted funnel. Following the specificity of the results section, the Discussion section starts off with statements of support, or not, for the hypotheses. These are very specific. Then, the section broadens and refers back to the introduction with the reflection on where our results fit with past research. Broadening even more, the discussion includes problems with the whole study and then suggestions for future research—taking us beyond the specific research. Finally, the discussion draws conclusions about the topic as a whole. In other words, these two sections not only balance each other out as far as length, but also scope. There are sections dealing with the specific hypotheses and findings but also the topic as a whole.