In the process of drafting a new research article, which structure is most effective? Should one follow the order of Introduction, Materials and Methods, Data Analysis, Results, and Discussion, or is it better to write the Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion first and leave the Introduction for the end? What is the commonly adopted approach by other scholars/researcher around the world?
In my point of view, it would be better to follow the IMRAD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, Analysis and Discussion). Additionally, I must admit that I have utilized this format in all of my research papers.
I believe meta-analysis and mixed method (qualitative and quantitative) analysis should be determined first.
As mentioned by Qalandarov, If we add Q ( question) which makes IMQRAD, for meta-analysis, it is perfectly fine.
For mixed method analysis, objectives should be added, which means the introduction (context), objectives, literature review, methods, analysis, results, and discussion ( I or COLMARD) would be fine.
In terms of the writing process, I prefer to begin with the Results section because it is usually the most concrete, and the Methods section follows more or less automatically from that. Once I have those completed, I have a better idea of what the Introduction and Background sections should look like, which then leads me to the most appropriate Discussion and Conclusions.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Human-Computer Interaction
- Collaboration