More intro help. (1 Viewer)

[soulshine]

Doing this for a mate. This is her intro. Any comments and criticisms greatly appreciated. Its 650 ish words so that needs to be revised... And do you think the whole second paragraph should be at the beginning of the first chapter?

INTRODUCTION

The date is now currently 2005 – and it’s almost even impossible, to escape the flooding advertisements, news, and over flowing television images the media feeds, that’s exposed so publicly. With so much publicity with world issues concerning terrorism, war, war victims, famine, disease, hunger and third world countries, these images are everywhere we look.

We receive these images through our most important medium today – the television. The television is our window to the world, and it’s incredibly hard to imagine our world without it. Not to mention, the television is one of the most efficient sources of media, showing its audiences programs and news programmes that may be happening at that very moment, live on the other side of the world. The majority of audiences rely on television to know what’s going on in the world. However some people may even believe these images are even now used as a marketing ploy. Due to popularity causes, suspicion, fear and even possibly terror, my first question I would like to put to you is, has this all just become popular culture in our modern world? – Images of poverty and suffering just another scene in our everyday lives that we should just put up with or shrug off because it’s always just there? Does seeing really mean believing?

My PIP and research is based on the concept of desensitisation. Desensitisation – with the constant flow of images through the television, through advertisements and the use of continual and regular news programs/updates proposes the idea that we are developing immunity to compassion. Are our hearts becoming harder, and ignoring the fact that there are those in desperate need in other countries? Have we just seen too much to care? Are we being dehumanised by the exposure of media? Or are we just victims of popular culture? Through conducting this PIP I put forward this concept and to attempt to prove it either right or wrong. However I acknowledge the fact that this is an extremely broad and vast topic and is practically impossible to find out in reality whether or not this is happening. Also to make such a generalisation if people are becoming desensitised would clearly be unfair. By exploring this concept it should aim for a better understanding of society and culture as television is clearly apart of anybody’s micro and macro world.

I have chosen this topic because I have always had a great interest for global issues, aid, media, and the effects it can and does have on the large majority of audiences. With this being said the television in my opinion is the most influential source of media and this is why I have chosen to explore this medium especially and the concept of desensitisation. And so in my PIP, hoping to explore how people react to these issues and the exposure of television in their everyday lives, which incorporates the key concepts of environment, technology and persons.

The methodologies which will be incorporated include surveys and questionnaires, to inform me on whom and how frequently the two age groups watch television and how they perceive this medium; interviews on specific individuals to find out specific answers; secondary research to back up theories and to obtain statistical analysis which show specific statistics and evidence; utilising observation for further specific research and personal reflection to draw links with my own experiences. With the wide range of different methodologies used it provides solid information, facts and evidence to support my PIP.

The cross-cultural component which will be included is age. The usage of two different age groups, adolescences and adults will show perhaps the effect of each on the other and will also allow more comparisons to be made. Thus, age may also suggest change over time, allowing comparisons to be made between two generations.

 

[Kulazzi]

Introduction

First Paragraph

• What is your PIP about and why did you choose the area of enquiry?


Second Paragraph

• What is your central hypothesis? ie what are you setting out to prove via this research?


Third Paragraph

• What methodologies have you employed in this research and why?

• Justify your selection of research tools - what are their advantages and why are they best suited to your research topic?


Fourth Paragraph

• Explain how your PIP ivestigation will address the cross cultural component

• Remember to explain how this cross-cultural perspective will allow you (the reasearcher), to empathise (identify) with the "other"

• Also remember to explain how this cross cultural study presents you with a view that is beyond your normal realm of experience


Fifth Paragraph


• This paragraph should allow you to round off the introduction.

• It should also explain how this PIP "journey" will enhance both your investigative skills and your socio-cultural literacy

I think the first two paragraphs are not really necessary - maybe move them to CM and address the fifth paragraph outcomes above to replace it. According to MS word, I did a quick check and without the first two paragraphs, the word limit is 418, so use an extra 80 words rounding off your intro and explaining how this PIP will help you in the long-run

Edit: Your friend's PIP sounds really fantastic from just the introduction!

 

[Sweets]

- The start doesn't seem to flow. Perhaps- 'In the year 2005'- I mean everyone knows it is 2005

Through conducting this PIP I put forward this concept and to attempt to prove it either right or wrong. However I acknowledge the fact that this is an extremely broad and vast topic and is practically impossible to find out in reality whether or not this is happening.
- Its good to acknowledge that the area is vast but it the pip is supposed to be refined and have a micro focus. So you should say while recoginsing the global nature of such a topic, it is hoped through the use of the micro focus that the research can attempt to avoid vast generalisations. Also 'practically impossible'- sounds too colloquial.

I wouldn't try to not have so many rhetorical questions

The intro isn't really wrapped up well. U need to sort of make some concluding statement on what will result from this research- ie it is hoped through conducting this social inquiry that the research will emerge with a greater understanding of 'yadayada'.

It is important to talk more about the positive/negative aspects of the methogologies more. Too much time is spent on the topic which does seem too vast. It is really important to be clear and concise and the intro lacks that. I think it would be a good idea to write it in 3rd person because its much easier to write concisely, only very good writers are able to write clearly in 2nd/lst person.

Hope that helps