Intro Mad Libs: It’s About Problems and Solutions

In last week’s post, I mused about how Methods is typically the best-written manuscript section because it has a fill-in-the-blank, Mad Libs type of structure. That structure makes it comparatively easy to convey the information a reader needs and expects.

Can we improve the writing of other manuscript sections by using a Mad Libs format? I say, yes!

Let’s turn to the first section of a typical scientific manuscript. Call it an Introduction, Background, or Literature Review. Here’s what it might look like to Mad Lib* a solid Intro:

PARAGRAPH 1

1. [Problem] is a problem.

To capture a reader’s attention, manuscripts need to be grounded in a compelling problem.

The problem is NOT a lack of knowledge. Not knowing how sun exposure affects people is not THE problem, even if there are things we don’t know about this.

The problem is NOT human action, or lack thereof. Not using sunscreen is not THE problem, even if that contributes to the problem.

The problem is that people are dying or, at the very least, being made miserable.** In 2013, I was diagnosed with (thankfully, a fully treatable and survivable form of) skin cancer, in the area between my nose and right eye. I had two surgeries (involving two days of missed work and two co-pays), I will forever have a weird patch of nose-skin where eye-skin usually grows, and I could’ve gone blind in that eye if the cancer had not been removed when it was.*** THOSE are the problems.

People care about the lives, and quality of life, of themselves and loved ones. This includes health, happiness, and financial stability. Don’t make the mistake on focusing on something upstream of the real problem.

Here are some other, non-medical-overshare examples of problems that research could address:

Not the problem: We don’t know what types of building designs are most resistant to earthquakes.
Not the problem: Architects don’t use earthquake-resistant building designs.
The problem: Earthquakes damage property and hurt people.

Not the problem: We don’t know how COVID-19 impacted kids’ reading ability.
Not the problem: Many teachers have quit since COVID-19.
The problem: Some students have low reading proficiency.

2. [Problem] is terrible because of [magnitude, severity, consequences].

Let’s be honest: Very few people are going to notice or care if I’m blind in one eye. For a problem to be compelling, it needs to be widespread, catastrophic, or have harmful consequences:

Problem: Skin cancer harms people.
Big problem: XXX,XXX people die from skin cancer each year.

Problem: Earthquakes damage property.
Big problem: Earthquakes cause $XXX billion in property damage annually.

Problem: Some students have low reading proficiency.
Big problem: Children with low reading proficiency in 3rd grade are less likely to graduate from high school, which in turn threatens their economic stability as adults.

I’m not saying to be dramatic or hyperbolic. Just tell the reader why, objectively, the problem is significant. (Here’s a nice book about that.)

PARAGRAPH 2

3. [Solution(s)] could help with [problem].

Now’s the time to leverage some of the upstream, not-THE-problems mentioned earlier (i.e., lack of knowledge; action or inaction) :

Problem: XXX,XXX people die from skin cancer each year.
Potential Solution: Improve sunscreen so that people will want to use it.

Problem: Earthquakes cause $XXX billion in property damage annually.
Potential Solution: Design buildings that are more earthquake-resistant.

Sometimes, if it’s particularly exciting, your study may focus on a solution to a nested series of problems:

Problem 1: Some students have low reading proficiency.
Potential Solution 1: Have these students work with a reading specialist.
Problem 2: Reading specialists have been leaving the profession since COVID-19.
Potential Solution 2: Offer retention bonuses to reading specialists.

4. But, [solution(s)] haven’t been [used/effective] before because [reasons]. This study is going to change this by [how your study is filling critical knowledge gaps].

This should be a super-brief version of Items #6 and #7 (below).

PARAGRAPHS 3 to SECOND-TO-LAST

5. We already know some things about how [solution(s)] relate to [problem]. [Explain.]

We know that sunscreen can prevent skin cancer. Unfortunately, some people don’t use sunscreen because they don’t like the white residue.

We know that there are some building designs that are less susceptible to earthquake damage. These include shorter height or cornerless (i.e., round) shape.

We know that, for general education teachers, $100,000 retention incentives are effective and $5 retention incentives are not.

6. But there are some things that we don’t yet know about [solution] and [problem]. [List and describe knowledge gaps.]

We don’t know whether spray-on, minimal-residue sunscreens are as effective as creams at preventing skin cancer.

We don’t know whether nonagon-shaped buildings are more susceptible to earthquake damage than traditional square buildings.

We don’t know whether retention bonuses are effective for reading specialists.

LAST PARAGRAPH

7. Our study will attempt to fill in knowledge gaps about [problem] and [solution(s)] by [methodology].

This should flow directly from Item #6 above.

8. We hypothesize that [solution(s)] will reduce [rates/severity/consequences] of [problem]. -OR- Our research questions are: [research questions].

Sure, let’s pretend that you didn’t analyze your data before writing your Intro and have *no idea* what the results of your study will be. (Wink, wink.)

9. If [hypothesis] is supported -OR- [research questions] are answered, it may [benefit to individuals/society].

Again, as with problems, be sure you’re focusing on the REAL potential benefits of your research. It’s not that people will know something or do something. It’s that people may live longer, better, healthier, happier, or cheaper.**

What do YOU think of this Mad Libs approach to an Intro? (I’m still mulling it over myself.) Would it work in your area of research? Comment below!

* If “Mad Lib” wasn’t already a verb, it is now.

**In research on humans, at least.

** Or if either surgeon had violently sneezed at an inopportune moment.