Swales’ CARS Model: Move 3 (Occupying the Niche)
This final session of Module 3 completes the CARS framework with Move 3. You will learn to announce research contributions, state study goals and hypotheses, preview principal findings, highlight theoretical and practical value, and provide a structural roadmap.
By the end of this session, you will be able to:
- Explain the rhetorical purpose of Move 3 as the transition from identifying a gap (Move 2) to delivering the author’s original solution.
- Deploy Step 1 (Announcing Present Research) tactics to state research questions, goals, or hypotheses with precision.
- Determine when to incorporate Step 2 (Summarizing Principal Findings) based on disciplinary conventions.
- Apply Step 3 (Signposting Paper Structure) to provide a clear, functional roadmap for the reader.
- Combine Moves 1, 2, and 3 into a seamless, publication-ready research paper introduction.
The Rhetorical Purpose of Move 3
Completing the CARS arc
After establishing why the general topic matters (Move 1) and identifying what is missing, incomplete, or flawed in existing literature (Move 2), Move 3 completes the introduction by explicitly declaring how the present paper occupies that niche.
Fulfilling reader expectations
Move 3 resolves the tension created in Move 2. It shifts the primary focus from other scholars’ work to the author’s own contribution — the moment the introduction stops describing the field and starts describing this specific paper.
The “so what?” factor, revisited
Without Move 3, a reader who finishes Move 2 is left with an unresolved gap and no indication of how the current paper addresses it. Move 3 is where the paper finally answers “so what am I about to read?”
Step-by-Step Breakdown of Move 3 Tactics
Move 3 has four possible steps. Two are mandatory in most fields; two are optional or discipline-dependent.
Step 1 — Announcing present research / outlining purposes (mandatory)
Action: Explicitly stating the main aim, research questions, or hypotheses of the current study.
| Approach | Focus | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Purposive | Goal-focused | “The purpose of this study is to investigate…” |
| Descriptive | Paper-focused | “This paper examines the relationship between…” |
“To address this gap, the present study evaluates…”
“The primary objective of this paper is to determine whether…”
“We test the hypothesis that [Variable A] influences [Variable B] under…”
Step 2 — Summarizing principal findings (discipline-dependent / optional)
Action: Presenting a brief preview of primary results or conclusions before diving into the body of the paper.
Disciplinary context: Standard practice in STEM, economics, and biomedical fields, where readers expect upfront findings; less common in traditional humanities prose, where arguments unfold progressively.
“Our findings indicate that [Key Result 1], which contradicts…”
“The experimental results reveal a 25% increase in…”
Step 3 — Signposting paper structure (mandatory in most fields)
Action: Providing a clear, sequential roadmap of how the rest of the manuscript is organized.
“The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the theoretical framework and methodology; Section 3 presents the empirical results; Section 4 discusses…”
“This paper is organized into five main sections…”
Step 4 — Stating research value / contributions (optional / recommended)
Action: Explicitly highlighting the practical, methodological, or theoretical contributions of the study.
“This research contributes to the literature by offering the first longitudinal analysis of…”
“From a policy perspective, these insights provide practical guidelines for…”
Grammatical and Stylistic Precision in Move 3
Tense selection
| Tense | Used for | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Simple present | Referring to the paper or document itself | “This article argues that…” / “Section 3 presents…” |
| Simple past | Describing completed research procedures or actions | “We conducted 30 semi-structured interviews…” / “Data were gathered from…” |
Agentivity and voice
Active with inanimate subjects: highly accepted across disciplines. “This study investigates…” / “The data suggest…”
Disciplined first person: modern style guides (APA 7th, CMOS 18) permit “We examine…” or “I argue…” when stating active research choices, consistent with what you learned in Session 2 on point of view.
Integrating Moves 1, 2, and 3
Checking structural alignment
Ensure that the research aim announced in Move 3 directly matches and fills the specific gap identified in Move 2. If the gap and the stated purpose do not line up, the introduction breaks down logically, even if each Move is individually well written.
Proportionality
An effective introduction typically allocates roughly this much space to each Move:
Full CARS Introduction Synthesis
Assemble a complete 3-Move CARS introduction paragraph using the provided sentence prompts.
Sample student synthesis
Move 1Automated language assessment tools play a central role in modern higher education admissions, offering scalable evaluation for global student cohorts.
Move 2However, existing evaluation models have focused almost exclusively on lexical diversity, leaving the impact of syntactic complexity under-researched.
Move 3To address this limitation, the present study evaluates how syntactic embedding predicts human grader scores across 500 academic essays. Our findings indicate that clausal subordination strongly correlates with high writing performance. The remainder of this paper outlines our corpus methodology, presents the statistical model, and discusses pedagogical implications.
Sample answer: peer feedback in university seminars
[Move 1: Territory] Peer feedback has become a widely used method for developing students’ critical thinking in university seminars, and researchers have examined its effects across many disciplines.
[Move 2: Niche] However, few studies have investigated how students respond to peer comments in online seminars, and it remains unclear whether the benefits observed in face-to-face settings apply.
[Move 3: Occupying the Niche] To address this gap, the present study examines how students in online seminars use peer feedback when revising short written responses. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the methods, Section 3 presents the results, and Section 4 discusses the implications.
Complete Research Introduction Draft
Draft a complete, 250 to 350 word research paper introduction for a real or proposed study in your field, integrating everything from this module: the IMRaD hourglass logic, and all three CARS Moves.
Requirements: Clearly mark and label [Move 1: Step 1/2/3], [Move 2: Gap], and [Move 3: Step 1/2/3] throughout your draft. Ensure proper tense usage (simple present for the paper itself, simple past for completed procedures, present perfect for Move 1/2 generalizations) and clear macro-signposting in your Move 3 roadmap. Check that your Move 3 purpose directly addresses the gap you named in Move 2.
Model answer: complete research introduction (225 words)
[Move 1: Step 1] Supporting first-year students’ development of academic writing has become a priority for universities seeking to improve retention and equitable participation.
[Move 1: Step 2] Researchers have investigated formative feedback across many disciplines, and it is generally agreed that feedback is most useful when students understand the assessment criteria and act on guidance in later work.
[Move 1: Step 3] Carless and Boud (2018) demonstrated that students’ ability to judge their own work influenced how effectively they used feedback, and Winstone et al. (2022) found that structured discussion of comments increased students’ willingness to revise.
[Move 2: Gap] However, few studies have compared how first-year students use written and audio feedback when revising, and it remains unclear whether the two modes support different aspects of revision.
[Move 3: Step 1] To address this gap, the present study investigates how first-year students perceive and use written versus audio feedback on short academic assignments.
[Move 3: Step 2] We collected questionnaire and open-ended responses from 48 students in one academic-writing course. Our findings indicate that students rated audio feedback higher for clarity of priorities, whereas they rated written feedback as easier to revisit during editing.
[Move 3: Step 3] This study contributes practical guidance for instructors who wish to combine feedback modes and offers an empirical basis for further research on feedback and revision.
[Move 3: Step 4] The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the methods, Section 3 presents the results, and Section 4 discusses the implications and limitations.
Why this works: The introduction narrows like the top of an IMRaD hourglass, from a broad priority to a specific gap and then to this study. Present perfect (“has become,” “have investigated”) frames the Move 1 and Move 2 generalisations; simple past reports specific studies and completed procedures (“demonstrated,” “collected”); simple present describes the paper itself (“investigates,” “contributes”). The Move 3 purpose answers the exact gap named in Move 2 (written versus audio feedback), and the roadmap uses macro-signposting. Citations and results are illustrative placeholders for a hypothetical study; use accurate sources and real findings in your own work.
Submit your complete introduction draft using the form below.
Session 12 Summary Sheet
Download a one-page PDF summarising Move 3’s four steps, tense selection rules, and the full CARS proportionality guide from this session.
Session 12: Swales’ CARS Model – Move 3
Move 3 steps · tense selection · full CARS proportionality · worked example
Module 3 complete
You have now completed all four sessions of Module 3: the IMRaD framework, and all three Moves of Swales’ CARS model for research introductions. You can now construct a complete, publication-ready introduction from scratch. Download your takeaway summary any time from the previous step.