How to Write the Background of the Study (Part 1)

A strong background of the study is treated as the foundation of a thesis or research paper because it turns a vague topic into a defensible research journey: it frames the research gap/problem, states a clear goal, and presents a thesis statement that justifies why the study must be done. The lecture stresses that this section is not written for style or “aesthetic” reasons. Instead, it establishes context, explains why the problem matters, and signals what readers and thesis committees should expect from the rest of the proposal.

The instructor positions the background as the first major section of the introduction—sometimes also labeled problem articulation, problem formulation, or rationale. Three core elements must appear: (1) the research gap or problem that needs addressing, (2) the research goal (with the reminder that there should be one major goal, not multiple competing ones), and (3) the thesis statement, framed as the main claim/argument and often expressed in an argumentative form. A fifth element is also emphasized: the significance or contribution of the study to the discipline—why the work adds something new to existing knowledge. In experimental studies, the hypothesis may also be included, but the lecture’s sample is qualitative, so hypotheses are not used.

To help students write this section without getting stuck, the lecture lays out a practical “rules of thumb” approach. It begins by warning against a common failure mode: writing the background like a literature review or producing a “conglomeration of random thoughts” by copying and pasting sources without first identifying the gap and goal. Reviewers, advisors, and panel members evaluate whether the narrative is logical, whether claims are grounded, and whether the study’s purpose is unmistakable.

The background is then broken into three parts—opening paragraphs, body, and concluding paragraph—using a “sitting card” analogy: the opening is the head, the body contains the supporting proof, and the conclusion is the tail that closes the loop. In the opening paragraphs, the lecture recommends starting with an overview of the topic and defining key terms when the concept is technical or discipline-specific. The sample topic is “mathematical anxiety,” where the opening defines the term, cites an authority for the definition, and describes its nature and dynamics.

Next comes the body, where the central technique is to write from the vantage point of the research gap/problem and provide “proof” for the big claim. The lecture argues that bold assertions remain assumptions until evidence is offered. That evidence can come from existing literature and, crucially, from preliminary primary data such as interviews and classroom observations. The sample body demonstrates how to use qualifying language like “according to records” and “based on the researcher’s first-hand experience” to show that observations were actually conducted. It also explains why citations matter: they corroborate interpretations and protect the researcher from criticism by grounding claims in established scholars.

Finally, the concluding paragraph rehashes the gap, goal, and thesis statement in a framed way, emphasizing what the study will achieve and why the problem demands attention. The lecture ends by reiterating that a well-structured background provides direction for what comes next—literature to search, methods to choose, and how to maintain a coherent argument throughout the proposal—while also noting that formatting rules should follow university guidelines and that the presented model is one of several possible styles.