Analyzing the Scientific Discourse
Using artifacts to look deeply into the Discourse of scientific research
Every aspect of life has its own set of rules and expectations that define what is normal and accepted. This includes the field of science and scientific research. In order for one to have a career in a scientific field and be successful in such a field, they must have a certain understanding and way of doing things. James Paul Gee would call this a Discourse, which is an “identity kit” (7). Gee explains the idea of Discourses in his paper Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.
Science consists of a myriad of specific things that may seem foreign to someone who is not truly in the Discourse. A large part of this Discourse is the production and analysis of scientific journal papers. The “IMRaD Cheat Sheet” from Carnegie Mellon University sets up the format in which scientists should present their papers about their findings. Along with that, Meadows writes about the history of the scientific paper format and how it has changed over time. Also, Darcy Fiano uses Gee’s work to come up with seven building tasks of a Discourse, which can be used to look at the scientific Discourse more closely. In order to understand how these journal papers work in the Discourse of science, and in order to get the most out of reading them, one must fully be part of the Discourse.
Using the IMRaD format is a crucial part of understanding the Discourse of science. The IMRaD format is a way of writing and reading scientific papers in order to communicate research with other people in the Discourse. This format contains many of Fiano’s building tasks, which connect it to Gee’s idea of what a Discourse is. As Fiano says, “These building tasks allow for analysis of the discourse situations” (66).
The IMRaD cheat sheet from Carnegie Mellon University lays out the format that the majority of scientific papers follow. This consistency in the format allows for researchers to get their information out and make it as easily accessible for readers as possible. It is organized in a way that makes sense, and that one can easily follow along with. Scientific papers have developed over time to be more efficient and helpful for readers who are looking for a specific thing. Meadows mentions “the abstract at the beginning, the detailed references at the end, the reprint reference at the head of the paper” (28) as examples of texts becoming more user friendly. Many aspects make up a scientific research paper and all contribute to the Discourse of science and furthering the scientific community.
Relationships are one of the most important parts of the Discourse of science. Fiano’s building task of relationships can be used in the scientific Discourse to understand how texts interact and are intertwined. As Fiano defines this building task, it is
“Relationships that are relevant in a context and how are they being enacted, recruited, and used” (67).
Relationships
One of the way relationships are established according to the IMRaD cheat sheet is through the introduction and discussion sections of a scientific article. In the introduction, the authors will usually talk about past research that has been done on the same topic that they are researching. The IMRaD cheat sheet suggests that the author “expose a ‘gap’ or problem in the field”. They will explain why they want to do further research and how it will contribute to the scientific community. In the conclusion, the authors usually suggest ways that their findings can be useful, as well as ideas for further research on the topic. In IMRaD format, “They connect these findings to other research”. This therefore establishes relationships between texts and scientists can use past data to predict future outcomes. All of this establishes connections in the Discourse of science by relating texts to each other and showing that they are not autonomous, but rather all connected.
Apprenticeship
Sometimes there is no better way to learn something than being immersed directly into it. An apprenticeship is one of the most effective methods to enter a Discourse. It is a way for someone to be introduced to a Discourse before they fully know everything about it. Gee says that
“Discourses are not mastered by overt instruction…but by enculturation (‘apprenticeship’) into social practices through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already mastered the Discourse” (7).
Learning in the environment with people who already know the Discourse give someone context and make it easier for them to pick up on the accepted ways of doing things. In Haas’ paper, she shows the development of a student named Eliza over her four years of college. These four years could be considered an apprenticeship.
Eliza learned about the Discourse of science before actually being in the Discourse. She learned the norms, how to read and write in the Discourse, and what it is like in general to be “in science”. She learned to create what Haas calls a rhetorical frame, which is a “model or representation of discourse situations” (47). A rhetorical frame includes “participants, their relationships and motives, and several layers of context” (Haas 48). It is a way to organize one’s thoughts while reading a scientific paper in order to better be able to understand it and relate it to other papers.
Eliza progressed greatly in her reading skills throughout her apprenticeship of college. Her freshman and sophomore year, her reading focused on learning, understanding, and memorizing “what the book says” (Haas 60).
When she was a junior, she got a work study which gave her the opportunity to work in a lab with scientists. The same year, her reading strategies seemed to expand and become more specialized based on what she was reading, including “skimming, reading selectively, moving back and forth through texts, reading for different purposes at different times” (Haas 64). She was more aware of the contexts and no longer thought of texts as autonomous and not relating to anything else. As a senior, Eliza “exhibited a greater awareness of the intertextual nature of discourse” (Haas 66). She paid more attention to the motives and contexts of texts and was no longer reading just to learn the information.
The four year apprenticeship of college gave Eliza the experience needed to understand how to read and write scientific papers so that she would be able to enter the Discourse of science and pursue a career in the field. Apprenticeships can be a very helpful way for someone to enter a Discourse because they are almost being forced into it and have no other option but to learn it.
Sign systems can be used as another form of communication in the Discourse of science. Fiano describes these as
“The relevant sign systems (e.g., languages, social languages) and forms of knowledge (ways of knowing) that are relevant in a context and how they are used and privileged or disprivileged” (7).
One example of the use of sign systems is in the use of citations. Citations are used to both give authors credit for their work, and to provide readers with a reference so that they can look into past research on a topic. According to Meadows,
“citation analysis has developed to the stage where it is actually used as an aid in considering the allocation of funding to researchers or facilities” (29).
Not only do citations give credit, but that credit can influence the funding that one can receive based on their research. If one is not in the Discourse, and is reading a scientific paper, they will most likely not know what the in text citations are or how to read them. If one is in the Discourse, they will understand that they do not have to read them but they are there to give credit after a statement that states information that someone else has discovered and written about.
Identity
The main identities that are present in the scientific Discourse are that of the researcher and that of the reader. According to the IMRaD cheat sheet, in the introduction of a scientific article, the author should “discuss the current state of research in your field”. The researcher is the one to do the research and write the paper in order to present it to the rest of the scientific community. An important part of the identity of researcher is the ability to read and write scientific papers in the IMRaD format. If one does not understand this format, it is clear that they are not part of the Discourse of science.
The other identity present in the Discourse is that of the reader. In the IMRaD cheat sheet, under the introduction section, the author should “begin by explaining to your readers what problem you researched…”. It is important for the readers to understand the article in order to be able to learn from it or use it for their own future research. If a reader does not understand the article then it would not be possible for them to use it as a reference for their own paper. This would make it more difficult to further the research field. The readers are crucial to the Discourse because if there was no one to read the published papers, there would be no point in writing them, and no way to use them for further research.
The Discourse and field of science, in particular scientific research, is extremely complex and takes someone a lot of time and effort to fully become a part of. According to Gee,
“someone cannot engage in a Discourse in a less than fully fluent manner. You are either in it or you’re not” (9).
Using Gee, Haas, Meadows, and the IMRaD cheat sheet, one can understand what it is like to enter the Discourse of science and the amount of work that must be put into it. One should be able to use the IMRaD cheat sheet to learn the accepted format of a scientific paper and how to read one. Someone in the Discourse also needs to be able to grasp and understand the concept of texts not being autonomous, and that all texts are interrelated. One should also possess rhetorical reading skills which help them to interpret scientific papers and therefore be a fully functioning part of the scientific Discourse.
A scientist is someone who can make connections and find relationships between data and texts and information, as well as know the sign systems such as citations, and how to read and write and interpret them. The analysis of this Discourse through the lens of the aforementioned artifacts is in some senses limiting. If we were to view the Discourse through the lens of pure observation, such as watching a lab take place, or watching scientists converse about their findings, we may draw different conclusions. This analysis can show what a Discourse is like in depth and what it takes to become fully immersed in one.
