Entering the Social and Natural Science Discourse
Social and Natural sciences involve the in-depth study of topics including, but not limited to, biology, chemistry, and physics.
The social and natural sciences require the in-depth study and the ability to write a concise and relevant report based off of experiments. The development of scientific ideas relies on the help of “building tasks” that are laid forth by the author James Gee. Gee delves into the descriptive nature of what it takes to be in an exclusive “Discourse” or have an “identity kit” (Gee 7).
A Discourse is described as an ever-changing membership that is earned through social practices, these are important because of their ability to define groups of people.
The building tasks are social practices required in order to identify with a specific Discourse, these are: significance, practices, identities, relationships, politics, connections and sign systems and knowledge. Building tasks are essential because embodying them shows a mastery of that Discourses area of study. A characteristic of a Discourse membership is that it is constantly changing and evolving and in order to gain membership, an immense amount of learning is required. A student’s transition into college mimics this process, a specific case that is the case of Eliza, is told by the Author Christina Haas. Haas discusses the in-depth rhetorical frame required for someone who would like to obtain a
“metaunderstanding of the motives of science and scientists and the history of scientific concepts” (Haas 45).
A rhetorical frame is important in-depth and inquisitive analysis method of reading scholarly writing in order to comprehend and make connections to the text.
With a guaranteed structure, the dating and publication of scientific articles becomes highly valuable, as pointed out by A.J. Meadows in his publication of The Scientific Paper as an Archaeological Artefact.
He emphasizes the importance of dating reports in order to establish priority to scientists who were in the forefront of a discovery.
The dating of work also relies on the reliability of the source which can be determined by the structure.
The IMRaD structure provides a template for scientific papers to follow, it includes: introduction, methods, results and discussion sections. With the structure, building tasks, and intense knowledge of the subject, one can begin the transition into the scientific Discourse. The in depth Discourse of scientific writing is brought together through the concise nature of those who embody it.
For scientists, one fundamental aspect is the execution of experiments and the ability to record the findings of these experiments through the composition of a research text, better known as a lab report. Lab reports depend heavily on a specific format which is commonly known as the IMRaD Cheat Sheet. This IMRaD Cheat Sheet is an essential tool in the scientific community because it enables the reader to select the information that they find most important. It is essential for publications that all journal reports follow this structure to keep consistency and increase the accessibility of the article for interpretation.
Meadows represents the true importance of the structure of a report when he talks about how the sequential dating provides proof of who originally completed an experiment.
This structure is also important because the reader who may an “outsider” (Meadows 27) will be able to navigate the information present regardless of the fact that they may not be in the Discourse. The IMRaD structure has also contributed to the development of the printed journal. Because the IMRaD contains specific sections, the opportunity for the information to be concise is present. The more concise a report the easier it is to navigate and
“As the years pass they simplify, and the amount of information is abbreviated to essential elements only.” (Meadows 27)
There are numerous Discourses that are available to certain groups of people.
One of these being the scientific writing Discourse, which is examined by Haas in Written Communication: Learning to Read Biology and further explained by the IMRaD cheat sheet. In addition, The Scientific paper as an archaeological artefact identifies the way in which progress is made through deep examination and connections. This connection is based off of the principle that any Discourse, no matter the definition, is a dynamic environment.
In this environment there are new and different ways that those within the Discourse must adapt and change.
A rhetoric frame can be useful while reading and taking into consideration a dynamic piece of writing. Good scientific readers possess rhetorical frame as a fundamental tool that that demands a deeper understanding from the reader as well as the drawing of connections. This rhetoric frame is the method in with which Haas recognizes the ever-changing Discourse, provoking the reader to interact with, and analyze the text thoroughly. Written in an intriguing way, it
“helps the readers account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes” (Haas 48).
The rhetoric frame lays down the foundation for the scientific community to make advancements based off of publications. Within these publications, the IMRaD structure provides an adaptive nature to the latest discoveries. The IMRaD cheat sheet favors the idea of rhetoric with its structure that is easily subject to adapting to new scientific methods. Due to the nature of the IMRaD wherein 35% of the paper is dedicated to results (IMRAD Cheatsheet), there is a large amount of room for what has occurred in the experiment to be interpreted by those who understand what the paper is in it’s entirety.
There is also little that sets a requirement for how the results must be viewed, this is important because it opens a window for new ideas and experiments to branch off of the first one.
After the results, the discussion section is meant for connection making, where the ability to adapt to current beliefs in the scientific community can be expressed and discussed. These connections lead to the evolution of ideas where
“Studies over a period of time can tell us whether the community’s view of science changes with time” (Meadows 27).
This shows the belief that scientific writing is a dynamic, and ever changing Discourse is shown over time.
The IMRaD cheat sheet places a certain amount of significance on the introduction of the paper.
This is where you prove that you are in the Discourse of what you are about to describe. It holds a certain importance because here is where you must show you have the “appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk and often write” (Gee 7) The introduction proves to be a time where you prove your deeper knowledge of the subject (discourse) involved. Introducing the subject effectively can also be extremely helpful because it
“ensures that they [old experiments pertaining to this one] can be taken into account when planning new developments” (Meadows 27).
Being able to briefly introduce the previous experiments that pertain to the current one is essential because it removes the opportunity for your work to be challenged by those who also make the connection. Appropriately introducing a piece of work shows “a representation of the motives of the participants” (Haas 48) because it is necessary for the readers to understand the motivation for this experiment.
With an appropriate introduction one not only develops their background knowledge, but they can understand where the fundamental curiosity originated to develop the experiment.
For “insiders” of the Discourse, the claim is what the reader is looking to challenge, advance, or even disprove. However for someone who identifies as an “outsider”, the claim is what the reader takes for fact and believes to be true as they read the article.
The connections that are drawn between two experiments can also place the current experiment chronologically.
Ordering and dating experiments expresses the “permit priority” (Meadows 28) so, it is known who was the true establishing scientist behind a discovery. Without proper dating, publishing, and emphasis on related studies, one may not be as highly valued in the Discourse, or appreciated for a discovery they made with first priority. When two scientists have a priority dispute, it can also cause a fundamental issue with the scientist who feels that they have been deprived of their due credit. This is an incredibly pertinent issue as many prestigious awards and publications are based off of who was the first to complete a scientific discovery. As the short-changed scientist works to understand why they may not have received due credit, they lose ground in the Discourse they were so invested in originally. A priority conflict can translate to a Discourse conflict where
“such conflict of tension exists, it can deter acquisition of one or the other or both of the conflicting Discourses” (Gee 8)
While the application of this concept by Gee may not be as he intended it, there is a strong connection between priority disputes and Discourse conflicts.
These two concur where the fall in one area of a Discourse can cause a disruption in the second, leading to the destruction or disestablishment of one or both Discourses.
Essentially, as the scientist searches for the reason that they did not receive their due credit, they lose their place in the scientific Discourse, and they lose their sense of self because they feel they have been discredited.
Additionally, the IMRaD cheat sheet formatting attempts to withhold the dating and publishing standard so scientists do receive the credit they are due.
The IMRaD format also helps to organize the findings so that they can easily be moved through by researching scientists and referred to in a manner that is easily recoverable. Organization and dating of scientific findings is essential to withhold a reputable place in the scientific Discourse.
Well composed scientific writing is held to a high standard of in depth analysis and concise dating.
Advancement of this Discourse requires a compilation of efforts from all over the world, which is why the structure of scientific writing is so tedious and strict. However, without precise dates, and elaborate reports, it would be difficult to determine “whether the community’s view of science changes with time” (Meadows 27).
As a result of the IMRaD structure, the changing nature of the scientific Discourse can be compared on a fairly equal scale.
The Discourse of scientific writing is one that pertains to those who do not partake in it, and fascinates those who do. Whether one is in the Discourse or not, the findings are progressive and relevant to not only the lab, but everyday life. Encompassing such a vast amount of the scientific world with writing would be nearly irrelevant without a widely accepted structure. The scientific writing Discourses dynamic nature proves it to be a well structured and constantly evolving.
Works Cited
Gee, James Paul. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Journal of Education
171. (1989): 5–17. Print.
Haas, Christina. “Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College.”
Written Communication 11.43 (1994): 43–70. Print.
“IMRAD Cheat Sheet.” Carnegie Mellon University. N.p., n.d. Web.
<https://www.cmu.edu/gcc/handouts/IMRD.pdf>.
Meadows, A.J. “The Scientific Paper as an Archaeological Artefact.” Journal of Informational
Sciences 11. (1985): 27–30. Print.
