Kako napisati uvod koji ostavlja dojam

The introduction is the first few pages your mentor and the examination committee will read carefully. If you fail to show in the introduction that you know what you're writing about and why it matters, the rest of the paper will be read with an already-formed skeptical attitude. A poor introduction doesn't necessarily mean a poor paper — but it means a paper that has to prove itself against the first impression.

A good introduction is both short and rich. As a rule it takes up 5-10% of the paper, but contains more informational density than any other part. In this guide we walk through the structure that has proven most effective in an academic context.

1. Open with a broader context

The weakest opening sentence is one that looks like it's from Wikipedia: "Marketing is the process of planning..." Your mentor has read a thousand such introductions. Look for a different entry point.

Good openers include:

• Aktualnu situaciju koja kontekstualizira temu
• A statistic that surprises or intrigues the reader
• A specific real-world example that illustrates the problem
• A paradox or tension in the field that you'll resolve later

The goal of the first sentence isn't to summarize the paper — it's to make the reader read the second sentence. And then the third.

2. Narrow to a specific problem

After a broad opening, you gradually move toward your specific topic. This is the "funnel technique" — start wide, narrow toward the question.

Example:

"Digital transformation is changing the way we work across all sectors. It is especially interesting in education, where traditional teaching models increasingly meet online environments. In Croatia, where by 2020 only 12% of teachers regularly used digital tools, the pandemic changed this picture within a few months. But how sustainable was that change? Some studies show that after the pandemic..."

See how the topic narrows: digital transformation → education → Croatia → a concrete question about sustainability.

3. Identify the research gap

This is the moment when you show why your paper is needed. The existing literature leaves something undefined, unexplored, or controversial — and you fill that gap.

Typical phrasings:

• "Although there is extensive literature on X, less attention has been paid to..."
• "Previous research has focused mainly on A and B; research on C remains rare..."
• "In the Croatian context, phenomenon X has not yet been systematically studied..."
• "Existing explanations often go in two directions; this paper proposes a third..."

4. State the research question clearly

The research question is the heart of the introduction. It must be:

• Specific — not too broad, not too narrow
• Empirically answerable — you can collect data that resolves it
• Interesting — the answer has value beyond your paper
• Realistic — you can address it within the given time and resources

A bad question: "What affects employee satisfaction?" — too general, no focus.

A better question: "How do mentoring programs in mid-sized IT companies in Croatia affect the satisfaction levels of young programmers in their first 18 months of employment?"

5. Announce your contribution

Briefly explain what new your paper brings. This can be:

• New data on an under-researched context
• Applying a theory to a new case
• A critique or development of an existing approach
• Practical guidelines for a specific sector

6. Present the paper's structure

The last paragraph of the introduction usually gives an overview of what awaits the reader:

"The paper is structured into five chapters. The second chapter reviews the relevant literature and establishes the theoretical framework. The third describes the methodology. The fourth presents the results. The fifth offers the discussion and interpretation of findings, while the sixth draws conclusions and suggests directions for future research."

Common mistakes in the introduction

1. Writing the introduction at the start. The best introduction is written at the end, when you know what you actually researched. Write a first draft at the start, but revise it last.
2. Overly long definitions of terms. Definitions belong in the literature review, not the introduction. In the introduction, mention key terms only as much as needed to make the question clear.
3. Technical methodology details. In the introduction, only hint at the method — leave the details for the methodology chapter.
4. An overly long introduction. If the introduction is more than 10% of the paper, there's a risk you've started writing the literature review instead of the introduction. Go back and trim.
5. A generic opening sentence. "Since the dawn of civilization, people have wondered..." — avoid this.

In conclusion

A good introduction gives the reader three things: context, problem, and promise. The context says where we are. The problem says why we stopped. The promise says where we're going.

Don't write the introduction to sound clever — write it so the reader wants to continue.