class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide .title[ # Introductions & Abstracts ] .subtitle[ ## Why your specific problem is important and your paper offers a necessary and convincing contribution to solving it ] .author[ ### Merlin Schaeffer<br> Department of Sociology ] .date[ ### 2026-01-28 ] --- # Today's topics 1. **Purpose of Intros and the Funnel structure**: A specific problem is important and my paper offers a necessary and convincing contribution to solving it. - An argument, not a summary! 2. **The 5 ideal-typical structure**: Hook `\(\rightarrow\)` Problem/Gap `\(\rightarrow\)` Contribution `\(\rightarrow\)` Findings `\(\rightarrow\)` Roadmap. 3. **Chicago style paragraphs**: Claim `\(\rightarrow\)` Elaboration. 4. **Miniature intros**: Abstracts are simply miniature intros. --- class: inverse # Read the two Intros and please: (10 minutes) - Use "**O**", to indicate the spot at which you got hooked to (interested in) the topic(, if at all) - Use "**X**", to indicate the the spot at which you understood the specific problem/research question the article addresses. - Use "**|**", to indicate the the spot at which you understood the contribution of the article. --- # How to start .left-column[ Ideal-typical structure: 1. Hook 2. Problem/Gap 3. Contribution 4. (Findings) 5. (Roadmap) `\(\Rightarrow\)` What is/are the core statements in each of the above? Get going by using the most shitty language, wrong grammar, unclear/ convoluted way to put down roughly what you want to say under each in 1-3 sentences, each. ] -- .right-column[ 1. The success of parties that espouse a far-right ideology in recent elections across Europe and North America has raised widespread concern about their impact on democratic norms and, particularly, the treatment of ethnic and racial minorities. 2. Bridging the literatures on far-right politics and street-level bureaucracy, this study investigates whether political shifts towards the far-right increase discriminatory practices by street-level bureaucrats, thereby challenging the principle of impartial and equal treatment under the law for ethnic and racial minority groups. 3. Theoretically, we [...] argue that far-right electoral success, by signaling a shift in perceived social norms, creates a more permissive environment for taste-based discrimination. <br><br> Empirically, we [...] examine whether far-right electoral victories, identified through the discontinuity design, exacerbate discrimination by street-level bureaucrats in healthcare access, as measured by the field-experimental audit. ] --- # How to start .left-column[ Ideal-typical structure: 1. Hook 2. Problem/Gap 3. Contribution 4. (Findings) 5. (Roadmap) `\(\Rightarrow\)` What is/are the core statements in each of the above? Get going by using the most shitty language, wrong grammar, unclear/ convoluted way to put down roughly what you want to say under each in 1-3 sentences, each. ] .right-column[ 1. The **success of parties that espouse a far-right ideology** in recent elections across Europe and North America has raised widespread **concern about their impact on democratic norms** *and, particularly, the treatment of ethnic and racial minorities*. 2. Bridging the literatures on far-right politics and street-level bureaucracy, this study investigates **whether political shifts towards the far-right increase discriminatory practices by street-level bureaucrats**, thereby challenging the principle of impartial and equal treatment under the law for ethnic and racial minority groups. 3. *Theoretically, we* [...] argue that far-right electoral success, **by signaling a shift in perceived social norms, creates a more permissive environment for taste-based discrimination**. <br><br> *Empirically, we* [...] examine whether far-right electoral victories, **identified through the discontinuity design**, exacerbate discrimination by street-level bureaucrats in healthcare access, as **measured by the field-experimental audit**. ] --- class: clear # Purpose & Funnel: .font70[Why is this interesting, why do we care?] -- .push-left[.center[ Move from broad question of general interest <br> to your specific problem ] <img src="https://phdinahundredsteps.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/funnel-for-introductions.png?w=636&h=742" width="60%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ] -- .push-right[ .center[ **1 Hook `\(\rightarrow\)` 2 Problem/Gap** ] 1. Question of general interest - Establish the Territory; Alternatives?, Overused? - Formulation: Question, story, quote. BUT, standard is a statement "everyone" agrees to and considers important. 2. Your specific problem/question - Does it capture the essence of your research? 3. Deduction (funnel from 1 to 2) - Concise, logical, try to loose no-one's interest - .alert[These are strategic choices!] + Every article could be motivated with a different general question and framed as addressing a different problem/question. - This is the most difficult part! ] --- class: inverse # Alternatives (10 minutes) 1. Identify the hook. Suggest a different but plausible alternative. 2. Identify the specific problem. Suggest a different but plausible alternative. 3. For each version, who is the primary audience (e.g., specialists in field X, general sociologists, policymakers)? 4. Consider the pro's and cons of the two versions, including the deduction from 1 to 2. --- # Contribution .push-left[ Contributions can be: 1. Theoretical: + Apply `\(<\)` compare `\(<\)` synthesize `\(<\)` condition `\(<\)` extent `\(<\)` propose new + Static typology or definition `\(<\)` Dynamic process-based middle-range theory `\(<\)` counter-intuitive implication `\(<\)` fundamental social/action theory 2. Methodological: Combine `\(<\)` apply new & fancy `\(<\)` dismiss `\(<\)` improve `\(<\)` propose new 3. Empirical: New case for know result `\(<\)` better data `\(<\)` never shown `\(<\)` never shown & unexpected ] -- .push-right[ .center[ **Every good paper makes `\(\infty\)` contributions** ] - Choose between 1 to max. 3 contributions that: 1. *You* want to emphasize 2. *Strategically* increase the interest in and impact of your paper - Too many contributions: 1. Undermine the big contributions 2. Confuse readers ] --- class: inverse # Spørgsmål 1. What contributions does your intro currently emphasize? 2. What other contributions could it emphasize? --- # The Claim-First Paragraph .push-left[ Throughout your article, use the Claim-First style: 1. Core principle: One paragraph = One central idea 2. Start paragraph with claim/sentence/idea 3. Illustrate with an example or data. 4. Explain/elaborate. Ideally, you can read the whole article by only reading the first sentence of each paragraph. ] -- .push-right[ <img src="img/Screenshot.png" width="70%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ] --- class: inverse # Claim it (10 minutes) .content-box-blue[ Find what you consider the weakest or most confusing paragraph in your own introduction. Take 10 minutes to rewrite it following the Claim-First style ] --- # Abstracts .left-column[ 1. .red[1 Sentence: General statement that acts as the Hook] 2. .blue[1 Sentence: The specific problem] 3. .green[Contribution] 4. .purple[Findings] 5. (Implication) ] -- .right-column[ .center[ **A lazy copy-paste abstract skimmed from the intro** ] .red[The success of parties that espouse a far-right ideology in recent elections across Europe and North America has raised widespread concern about their impact on democratic norms and, particularly, the treatment of ethnic and racial minorities.] .blue[This study investigates whether political shifts towards the far-right increase discriminatory practices by street-level bureaucrats, thereby challenging the principle of impartial and equal treatment under the law for ethnic and racial minority groups.] .green[We argue that far-right electoral success, by signaling a shift in perceived social norms, creates a more permissive environment for taste-based discrimination. Empirically, we examine whether far-right electoral victories, identified through a discontinuity design, exacerbate discrimination by street-level bureaucrats in healthcare access, as measured by a field-experimental audit.] .purple[Our findings reveal that individuals with West-African accents, compared to native-Italian callers, experienced significantly higher rates of denial of service and heightened scrutiny when seeking to register for a general medical practitioner. The difference in denial rates and unjustified scrutiny was significantly larger in municipalities where far-right candidates narrowly won, compared to those where they narrowly lost.] ] --- # Abstracts .left-column[ 1. .red[1 Sentence: General statement that acts as the Hook] 2. .blue[1 Sentence: The specific problem] 3. .green[Contribution] 4. .purple[Findings] 5. (Implication) ] .right-column[ .center[ **The actual abstract** ] .red[Far-right political shifts have been linked to increased racism, raising concerns about their impact on minority access to public services.] .blue[This study investigates whether far-right electoral victories encourage discrimination by street-level bureaucrats, who are expected to act impartially.] .green[We conducted a nested research design in Italy, combining a field-experimental audit with a regression discontinuity design focused on municipalities near the electoral threshold for far-right mayors. Research assistants with native-Italian and West-African accents contacted municipal healthcare offices to request registration with a general medical practitioner.] .purple[Compared to native-Italian callers, those with West-African accents faced significantly higher rates of scrutiny and denials. Leveraging close elections, we find that this disparity was exacerbated in municipalities where far-right candidates narrowly won.] These findings demonstrate that far-right electoral success can undermine impartiality and equal access to essential services. ] --- class: inverse # The Quick Abstract Draft (10 minutes) 1. Use the simple copy-paste method to skim a draft of an abstract. 2. Copy that rough draft and start editing and polishing it to a 200 word abstract with a logical flow from: + hook `\(\rightarrow\)` problem `\(\rightarrow\)` contribution `\(\rightarrow\)` findings `\(\rightarrow\)` implication.