Abstract and introduction form the core entry point to any academic text. They often determine whether a manuscript is perceived as well‑structured, convincing, and worth reading, or whether key ideas lose impact right from the start (see also Scientific Writing and Theses - Outline).
1. Role of the abstract and the introduction
The abstract is a stand‑alone, concise text block that summarises the study in just a few sentences. Ideally, it answers the following questions: What is the paper about? Why does it matter? How was the study conducted? What are the main findings? What is the contribution to theory and/or practice? The abstract should be intelligible on its own, without requiring readers to consult the full text.
The introduction serves a different purpose. It gradually leads into the topic, outlines the context and relevance, highlights the research gap, formulates the research question, and specifies the study’s objectives. Typically, it closes with a brief overview of the structure of the thesis or article. While the abstract compresses content to the essentials, the introduction sets up the conceptual frame and embeds the work in the existing literature (see Research Question and Research Gap in Information Systems).
2. Key components of an effective abstract
A strong abstract follows a clear macro‑structure. Common components include:
- Context and topic: one or two sentences describing the broader field and the specific context of the study.
- Problem and purpose: a brief statement of the research problem and the purpose or central research question.
- Methodology: indication of the methodological approach (e.g. qualitative case study, online survey, experiment, design‑science artefact; see Research Methods).
- Main findings: a compact summary of the most important results or key characteristics of the artefact.
- Contribution: a short statement about how the study contributes to theory and/or practice.
The required length of the abstract is usually specified in the relevant guidelines (often between 150 and 250 words). As a rule of thumb, it should avoid unexplained abbreviations, specialised jargon that is not briefly clarified, and references to the literature. Elements mentioned in the abstract should appear in the main text; conversely, the main pillars of the work should be visible, at least in outline, in the abstract.
In Information Systems, it is often helpful to name the methodological setting explicitly, for example by using phrases such as „an online survey among…“, „a multiple case study in…“, or „a design‑science approach including the development and evaluation of…“. This helps readers assess the fit between research question and research design (see also Research Methods).
3. Structuring the introduction: from context to research question
A widely used framework for structuring introductions is the CARS model (Create a Research Space). It distinguishes three core moves that are highly relevant for Information Systems [1]:
- Establishing a territory (context and relevance).
- Establishing a niche (research gap).
- Occupying the niche (positioning the present study).
3.1 Context and relevance
The introduction begins by outlining the broader topic and motivating why it matters – in practice, in research, or both. This may involve references to technological developments, regulatory changes, or current challenges in organisations. The key is to narrow down relatively quickly from this broader context to the specific focus of the study.
Typical elements include:
- a concise description of relevant technological or organisational developments,
- initial indications of practical problems or opportunities,
- brief references to the importance of the topic in the academic literature.
3.2 Research gap and problem statement
The next step is to articulate the research gap. Here, the introduction connects to existing literature and outlines which aspects have been under‑researched, where contradictory findings exist, or which perspectives are missing. The specific problem addressed and the rationale for a more in‑depth investigation are briefly explained.
This part should not turn into a full literature review – that is the task of the theory chapter – but should sketch the main lines of research to the extent needed to make the gap intelligible. It should also be clear how the present study builds on existing work and where exactly it intends to add value (see Research Question and Research Gap in Information Systems and Theoretischer Rahmen und Argumentation).
3.3 Research question, objectives, and structure of the thesis
Subsequently, the research question(s) and the objectives of the study are presented explicitly. A brief outline of the chapter structure often follows.
Typical elements are:
- a clearly formulated research question,
- additional sub‑questions if these help to structure the enquiry,
- a description of the objective (e. g. „This thesis aims to investigate…“, „The objective is to develop and evaluate…“),
- a short overview of the structure of the thesis („Chapter 2 provides an overview of…, Chapter 3 describes…, Chapter 4 presents the results…“).
This part should be concise yet specific, enabling readers to understand what the study sets out to do and how it is organised (see Theses - Outline).
4. Example structure for abstract and introduction in Information Systems
In common IS research settings (surveys, case studies, experiments, design‑science studies), abstracts and introductions frequently follow recurring patterns.
Abstract (illustrative logic)
- One sentence on the overall topic and context.
- One to two sentences on the specific problem and the research gap.
- One sentence on the methodological approach.
- One to two sentences summarising the main findings.
- One sentence outlining the contribution.
Introduction (illustrative logic)
- Paragraph: introduce the topic and practical relevance.
- Paragraph: situate the study in the academic discourse and summarise key lines of research.
- Paragraph: carve out the research gap addressed by the study.
- Paragraph: present the research question(s) and the study’s objectives.
- Paragraph: outline the structure of the thesis or article.
This structure can be adapted to different methodological designs by adjusting the emphasis (e. g. highlighting the design aspect in design‑science studies or the process perspective in qualitative case studies; see Research Methods).
5. Phrase banks for abstracts and introductions
Phrase banks can support the drafting process without turning the text into a collection of clichés. They should always be tailored to the specific topic and institutional requirements.
5.1 Possible phrases for abstracts (English)
- „This thesis investigates …“
- „Against the backdrop of …, X has become increasingly important in …“
- „The aim of this study is to …“
- „To address this research question, a … was conducted.“
- „The findings indicate that …“
- „The study contributes by …“
5.2 Possible phrases for introductions (English)
- „In recent years, … has emerged as an important topic in the context of …“
- „Previous research has demonstrated that …, yet little is known about …“
- „Against this background, the following research question arises: …“
- „The objective of this thesis is to …“
- „To address this objective, the remainder of this thesis is structured as follows: …“
6. Common pitfalls in abstracts and introductions
Typical issues observed in practice include:
- The abstract merely restates the general topic, without mentioning method, findings, or contribution.
- The introduction remains at a high level of generality and does not clearly lead to a specific research question.
- Abstract and introduction are not aligned because the research question or objectives evolved during the project and the opening sections were not updated.
- Too many details (e. g. extensive model descriptions or literature reviews) are front‑loaded into the abstract or introduction instead of being placed in the main chapters.
- The introduction engages in detailed theoretical discussion before the topic and research question are clearly defined.
A pragmatic strategy is to revise abstract and introduction jointly towards the end of the writing process, once the overall argument and findings are clear.
7. Short checklist for abstract and introduction
The following questions can guide the final quality check (see also Theses - Outline):
Abstract
- Is the topic and context of the study clearly identifiable?
- Are the research problem and purpose addressed, at least briefly?
- Is the methodological approach recognisable?
- Are the main findings explicitly stated, rather than vaguely hinted at?
- Is a contribution to theory and/or practice visible?
- Does the abstract comply with the required word limit?
Introduction
- Does the text move from general context to the specific topic in a focused way?
- Is the research gap clearly articulated and plausible?
- Is the research question clearly formulated and easy to locate?
- Are the study’s objectives described in a transparent manner?
- Is the structure of the thesis briefly and clearly outlined?
- Are abstract and introduction consistent in terms of research question, objectives, and emphasis?
If these questions can largely be answered in the affirmative, the opening sections of the thesis are usually in a solid state – both for Information Systems projects and for work in related fields.
References
[1] Claremont Graduate University - Center for Writing & Rhetoric: Creating A Research Space [CARS] Model, https://my.cgu.edu/writing-rhetoric/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2021/11/CGU-CWR-CARS-Model-Visual.pdf, zugegriffen am 08.03.2026