The general introduction of a PhD thesis sets up everything the conclusion will be measured against: the problem, the gap, the research questions and the place of each chapter. It is usually drafted in the first year and finished in the last, after the research has changed shape. Many problems in an introduction come from that gap in time.
No one sees their own blind spots, with or without AI help. Esmond points them out in your draft from within your field, along with factual errors and inconsistencies.
At master's level the introduction leads into one study. In a PhD thesis it frames several chapters or articles that may have been planned at different times, with different data. It has to name the shared problem that justifies treating them as one piece of research, and it sets the terms the conclusion will answer in. For the master's version, see the master's thesis introduction.
In a thesis by publication the introduction often merges with the summarizing part. NTNU's guidance describes a second form as well: “In the sandwich model the articles are framed by an introductory and a concluding chapter.” Either way, the introduction carries what a journal article cannot: the full background, the theory, and the reasoning that links the studies.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour introduction lists three research questions, but the general discussion answers four, and the fourth is worded differently. Which version should the reader hold you to?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewThe order and the names vary by field. The functions below come back in most theses.
| Element | Its function | Check in your draft |
|---|---|---|
| Problem and relevance | Why the topic matters, for the field and beyond it | Is the relevance argued, or only asserted? |
| State of research | What is known, and where it is contested | Does it end in an open question your thesis takes on? |
| Gap | What earlier work leaves open | Do your later chapters cite studies that already fill part of it? |
| Aim and research questions | What the thesis as a whole will answer | Are they worded as the general discussion answers them? |
| Theory and concepts | The lens and the key terms | Is each key term defined once, and used that way throughout? |
| Overview of chapters or articles | Which chapter answers which question, and why in this order | Does each chapter's role fit what the chapter actually does now? |
The research questions in the introduction are a promise. The committee will read the general discussion against them. If the project changed direction, as most do, the introduction has to follow: a question that was dropped should not still be listed, and a question that emerged during the work should be introduced with a word on how it arose.
A quick test: put your research questions and the first paragraph of each section in the general discussion side by side. If you cannot match them one to one, either the introduction or the discussion needs to change. See the general discussion chapter for the other side of that test.
When the thesis consists of articles, the introduction usually also lists them, with their publication status: published, accepted, submitted or in preparation. Many universities expect a statement of who did what for each co-authored article, in a separate declaration or in the thesis itself. Norwegian rules require that the candidate's own contribution can be identified; Helsinki asks candidates to show their contribution to each co-authored article clearly.
A list is not enough on its own. A reader should be able to say, after the introduction, which overall question each article answers and how it builds on the one before. One or two sentences per article do this.
There is no general rule for length, and faculties differ. Check your own program's guidance. A common problem in PhD introductions is a long survey of the field that never arrives at a position. The literature in the introduction should lead to the gap and the questions; a full review, if your field expects one, can sit in its own chapter.
This example is made up. A candidate in environmental economics drafted the introduction in the first year around two questions about carbon taxes and households. By the fourth year, the third study had shifted to small firms, and the second question had been narrowed. The introduction still described a household focus and listed the original questions. In the final revision the candidate rewords the aim to cover both households and firms, narrows the second question to match Chapter 3, explains in two sentences why firms were added, and updates the chapter overview.
Points that follow from the sections above.
Esmond evaluates every assignment before you submit. It never writes it.
Esmond is an AI tool that doesn't write for you. If your course doesn't allow any AI tools, don't use Esmond for that work. If you're unsure, ask your instructor or advisor.
Esmond reads the introduction from within your field and flags factual errors, inconsistencies and blind spots: a gap that the introduction's own sources already address, a key term defined in two ways, a chapter overview that does not match the research questions stated a few pages earlier. It reads only the part you upload, so a method or conclusion that sits in another file is not flagged as missing.
It adds no text. Your supervisor and committee judge whether the frame fits the thesis. The other parts are covered in PhD thesis feedback.
Usually a focused overview that leads to the gap and the research questions. Whether a separate, fuller review is expected depends on your field and faculty.
Draft it early to give the project direction, and revise it last, once the general discussion is done. Check that the questions, terms and chapter overview still match the thesis.
In a thesis by publication, many universities expect a list of the included articles with their status. Check your faculty's rules for where it goes.
Read on November 7, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit