Evolution of the IMRaD Structure in the Biology Discourse
“Science is a way of thinking.” -C. Sagan
Introduction —
The field of social and natural sciences is a growing field today that is constantly expanding and improving with the modern age. Biology, specifically, is a scientific Discourse that can be entered through a saying, doing, being, valuing, believing combination presented by James Paul Gee, a literacy researcher from Southern California.
A Discourse is a form of life that integrates these characteristics together. Being in the biology Discourse requires applying knowledge learned from previous natural sciences and using it to further educational and biological tasks.
A case study presented by Christina Haas on behalf of the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism analyzes a student’s reading processes and development through all eight semesters of college. Haas focuses on Eliza’s (the student) beliefs about literatures, changes she makes in how she reads certain texts and her development of understanding different relationships within the Biology Discourse. Eliza’s process can also be put into the seven building tasks presented by Darcy A. Fiano, of University of Connecticut. In order to be in the Biology Discourse, one must understand what each building task means and demonstrate tangible evidence of being in the Discourse.
What is IMRaD? —
Haas’s outcomes can also be seen in the IMRaD structure which is a format used specifically for science purposes. This structure consists of introduction/importance, methods, results and discussion found from Carnegie Mellon University. The IMRaD format is useful when analyzing studies because of the important breakdown of information, and should be analyzed for the social and natural sciences. Each section holds significance to the report as a whole and all parts should be included for a maximum development of the topic. The IMRaD paper format plays a significant role in the analysis of the Biology Discourse through Haas’s case study of a college student’s rhetorical development.
Analyzing texts through the lense of a rhetorical frame paves the way for entrance into a Discourse according to Haas and Gee’s concepts.
Gee says that being in a Discourse is having a saying, doing, being valuing and believing combination. “A Discourse is a sort of “identity kit” which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write…to take on a particular role that others will recognize” (Gee 7).
This combination or role allows readers to analyze Discourses as a whole and incorporate all parts so there aren’t any set aside. Haas’s rhetorical frame is a way to deeper understand the analysis of a discourse and get more information from the certain subject. This helps the reader make deeper connections and relates context, motives and relationships within the studied discourse.
Rhetorical Frame —
“Acknowledging or attempting to understand these elements of discourse — constructing a rhetorical frame which includes authors, readers, motives, relationships and contexts — is what I call the process of rhetorical reading” (Haas 48). This concept of rhetorical frame allows readers to view texts as a whole instead of looking at them autonomously or independently. Readers can make deeper connections with what the author is relaying and the motives behind each text. Looking at texts and pieces of literature together withdraws the importance and main points so that the bigger picture ideas can be drawn.
The IMRaD structure was designed to open a window into what it means to be a biologist in the social and natural field of science. Haas’s study and analysis of Eliza’s reading development throughout college touches on many of Fiano’s building tasks. The building tasks which are significance, practices, identities, relationships, politics, connections, and sign systems have correlations to Eliza’s college experience through her rhetorical development.
Fiano’s Building Tasks —
For example, the building task of practices can relate to the methods in a lab report. The methods are important to someone who wants to carry out the lab again to get the same results or critique them to find flaws. It’s a scientific procedure that allows others to recognize what the practices are. The discussion section of the IMRaD cheat sheet structure relate to Fiano’s building tasks by asking what the significance is, what the practices are, etc.
“They connect these findings to other research. They discuss flaws in the current study. They use these flaws as reasons to suggest additional, future research” (IMRaD Cheat Sheet).
It analyzes why the lab is important in the first place. Why do scientists care in the first place? This section also allows others to skip to the main outcome of the experiment. This is extremely significant, which Fiano stresses through her building tasks. In Haas’s case study, Eliza doesn’t see these outside connections during her first few years. As she matures as a reader in her later years at college they become more evident through her work.
Eliza grew significantly during her last year especially as she developed rhetorically in the biology Discourse. The IMRaD discussion section is significant for the main findings of the lab, which Eliza could identify as she grew rhetorically.
Apprenticeship —
To grow her rhetorical development, Eliza enters an apprenticeship which helps her expand her knowledge greatly. This apprenticeship helps to build on the IMRAD structure and connects to Gee’s idea of how an individual enters a Discourse through watching another person who has already mastered it.
“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” (Gee 7).
Gee’s theories of Discourse state explicitly that an individual needs have an apprenticeship in order to fully be in the Discourse. Haas discusses this aspect of Eliza’s rhetorical development because it is a key factor into her entering the Biology Discourse.
Her mentor, Shelly, works with Eliza day after day in the science field to solidify her entrance into the Discourse. Eliza states “It [the lab job] gives me a lot of individual attention because I work side by side with Shelly who’s a graduate student in the lab, and like she’s — well they gave me a project and when I need help or have problems, she guides me through it” (Haas 64). Eliza’s mentor helped her see certain parts of the Discourse that she otherwise would have not been able to correct and learn from. Eliza brought in certain skills like using lab tools or understanding parts of the experiment from earlier years.
Her mentor helps her realize that she is bringing meta knowledge from previous knowledge learned in freshman and sophomore year to help make bigger outside connections. This apprenticeship helped Eliza “begin to recognize a historical, situational context surrounding and supporting the texts she read” (Haas 65). Her junior year was a big change with her development and how she saw texts. She started to demonstrate her understanding of how authors worked together to prove their point based on different texts.
Credit Where Credit is Due —
Scientific papers, especially in the IMRaD format, draw on archaeological artifacts which help scientists get the credit they deserve. In this case, Fiano’s building task of practices focuses on social goods that communicate different perspectives. These social goods are credibility and recency in a research project which is highly valued in a science Discourse.
A.J. Meadows, from the University of Leicester, comments on the evolution of the IMRaD structure and the importance of dating experiments so credit is given where it is due. “Initially, when scientific papers were essentially letters, the date of writing would do to establish priority. However, this lays itself open to obvious possibilities for abuse; so, as the scientific community developed…this date was then attached to the printed paper” (Meadows 28).
Meadows calls this an issue in science today. The scientific community is trying to control arguments over who published what first to insure scientist’s rights to their experiments. This is an important significance in today’s society because scientists want the recognition. In the introduction section of the IMRaD paper format, there is a space for uncertainty. This allows scientists to add their own methods to improve the study to the best of their ability. Once the experiment is perfected, other scientists can replicate it to improve human society. Giving scientists the credit they deserve is a way the IMRaD structure has helped transform the scientific system.
In Conclusion —
The IMRaD format has transformed and changed over time. Haas’s case study of Eliza’s rhetorical frame correlates with how the IMRaD structure is improving to make science easier to interpret. “But she had also become somewhat more of a connected knower, seeing connections between her own uncertainty about scientific methods and findings and the uncertainty of the researcher/authors whose research she read” (Haas 68). As Eliza progressed in her college years, she became more aware that texts aren’t always just facts, and there are some controversies as to whether they are true or not.
The IMRaD paper format plays an important role in the analysis of the Biology Discourse. Haas’s study of Eliza shows how an analysis of a rhetorical frame can be performed throughout a student’s college career. The IMRaD structure has a significant breakdown of the sections of a biological paper in order for an analysis to take place. Through the changes with the IMRaD format, science has been improved to better the human population. Scientists are now worked with to receive props for their work and experiments are manipulated and changed to near perfection. The social and natural science Discourse can be analyzed through the IMRaD sheet; it is shown through Haas’s rhetorical frame on a student’s development.
