IMRaD and the Scientific Discourse
The Discourse of Science: The Texts That Explain its Connections to the World of Discourses
Within the Discourse
The difficulty to understand the depth of the Discourse stems from the many connections within it, including multiple identities, and intertextual correlations. These relationships show how parts of a Discourse can be applied to the field of science.
Through the analysis of James Gee’s article “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistic: Introduction”, where he defines a Discourse as a “saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations” (6), in comparison to other relevant texts, a reader can become aware of the pieces making up the Discourse of science.
The ability to see the connections between texts shows that the apprentice in the Discourse of science is moving toward a rhetorical frame of reading, which not only contributes to a more hands-on learning experience, but also allows for the growth of the scientific field. The way that scientific articles explain results of conducted studies show how experimental work and scientific writing can be interconverted between one another.
The Scientific Paper
James Gee’s Seven Building Tasks, as discussed in Darcy Fiano’s article, “Primary Discourse in a Kindergarten Student” show that a Discourse is made up of different components. There are also specific components that make up the Discourse of science, as explained in Meadows’s text.
A typical scientific paper can be broken down into four components; introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Each of these subheadings represents different information, just as the different building tasks relate to different topics. The Seven Building Tasks are Gee’s way of explaining the different components of a Discourse, which Darcy Finao breaks down in her article.
The IMRaD formula is a commonly used tool for setting up a scientific paper, published by Carnegie Mellon University.
https://www.cmu.edu/gcc/handouts/IMRD.pdf
Both of these artifacts are directly connected with one another. Each artifact breaks up an entire Discourse into smaller sections, which help to illustrate how aspects of this Discourse can
“interfere with one another, like two languages; aspects of one Discourse can be transferred to another Discourse…” (Gee 9).
The idea that these two “pieces of language” are related shows that there are connections within a specific Discourse. The strength of these connections involves looking at the text as rhetorical, as opposed to autonomous.
To go from being an outsider of a Discourse to an actual member typically requires an apprenticeship of some sort. Apprenticeship is something that Gee refers to as
“…scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already mastered the Discourse,” (7).
This notion relates to Meadows’s text, which mentions how the changes in scientific writing have affected the Discourse as a whole. He states
“All these changes can be interpreted in terms of developments in the scientific community,” (28),
furthering his idea. These developments he refers to represent the material within the Discourse. The changes are important to the scientific field, as they show the growth of the Discourse. The changes over time show how someone can become more immersed in a Discourse. As time progresses, the indicating factors of being in the Discourse of science change, and require apprenticeships to learn the ropes of the ever changing style of scientific writing.
The relationship between these two texts also represents a correlation between scientific writing, and the Discourse of science.
Rhetorical Vs. Autonomous Reading
In Haas’s study of Eliza’s academic progression from a college freshman to senior, she makes strong advances in her reading and comprehension abilities. She transitions from reading to memorize facts, to being able to see how her work in her apprenticeship contributes to the field of biology. This relationship can be seen in Eliza’s development from a student of science to a science apprentice.
Gee’s concept of Discourse can be compared to Meadows’s contributions of scientific writing. When these two ideas are put together, Christina Haas’s idea of “rhetorical reading” can be inferred, which is shown in Eliza’s progression through her higher education career as she
“exhibited a greater awareness of the intertextual nature of discourse; texts were not isolated, but linked,” (66).
Someone mentally involved in the Discourse of scientific reading would be able to read a piece of writing rhetorically, as opposed to thinking of it as an autonomous text, the opposite of rhetorical reading.
Being able to relate specific details from one author or text to another and understanding the applications the writing has on other scientific areas exhibits habits of rhetorical reading. Outsiders, or as Gee would say, pretenders of the Discourse view the text as flat, and read for the sole purpose of retaining information to regurgitate it back on an exam, as an autonomous reader would.
This differentiation signifies that there is a clear line between being in or out of a Discourse, in this case, specifically the Discourse of science. In Haas’s text, moreover, her example of Eliza furthering her depth of understanding of the topic of biology is a perfect representation of how the aspect of Discourse and rhetorical reading relate. Eliza earns an apprenticeship in her biology lab, where she learned how to evolve her reading habits, and is able to apply the knowledge she is gaining to her own learning experience. She begins to think of herself as a scientist, marking her true entrance into the Discourse of science.
Identities in the Science Discourse
In this Discourse, there are specific roles assigned to those who choose to participate. This active participation Haas refers to as an aspect of the rhetorical frame includes “…authors, readers, motives, and contexts.” (Haas 66). As Eliza progressed through her college career, she develops an ability to view the authors as scientists. She also begins to recognize her contributions to the world of science, and acknowledges herself as a scientist.
The author is an identity, which is explained in Darcy Fiano’s interpretation of Gee’s Seven Building Tasks as “what identities is this piece of language being used to enact…” (Fiano 82). The identity of an author means that there is a greater level of knowledge and participation in the Discourse. The author and the scientist are often seen as two separate identities, though after understanding how a scientist actively engages with learning and writing, they can be seen as a joined identity.
The researcher, or scientist, is another identity predominantly found in the Discourse of science. Their work can be described as “…the simplest way of communicating research” (Meadows 27). This research is then interpreted by the reader, another identity. Eliza goes from being a reader of scientific research to identifying as a true scientist, as she works her way into the Discourse.
Becoming a Scientist
In her junior year of college, Eliza works in a biology laboratory carrying out research projects created by one of her professors. She is working alongside another student, who is older and more experienced with hands-on laboratory work. This apprenticeship helps her to understand the relationship between what she is learning in the texts and scholarly articles from her science classes and how that information is translated and used in a real scientific setting. She is learning both from her professor and from the graduate student that she works closely with, who are physical representations of the connection between scientists and authors. Eliza
“seemed much more sophisticated. In contrast to the methodical, linear reading she engaged in earlier, Eliza now exhibited a range of reading strategies-skimming, reading selectively, moving back and forth through texts, reading for different purposes at different times.” (Haas 64),
showing that Eliza’s apprenticeship also helped her further develop her rhetorical frame.
Her enhancement in many academic areas all interrelated to one another show how the Discourse of science is connected to the many aspects of a Discourse. The example of an apprenticeship helped Eliza to see herself doing the kind of work she had read about in her science courses.
Important Aspects Pertaining to the Discourse of Science
In other areas of academic study, the proper use of citations is crucial, due to the fraudulent act of plagiarism. Typically in the academic setting, citations are used to signify that an idea belongs to someone else. Although this is true for science, there is also great significance in the date within the citation. Time is especially important in the Discourse of science, since experimental advancements depend on initial studies previously conducted.
The credibility is dependent on accurate dates of publication. Two of Gee’s Building Tasks, politics,
“what perspective on social goods is this piece of language communication…”
and sign systems,
“how does this piece of language privilege/disprivileged specific sign systems or different ways of knowing and believing” (Fiano 82),
are depicted by this issue from Meadows’s text. He states that
“This standardization is aided by the systematic imposition of refereeing on submitted papers. The date of receipt of a paper beings to be added to supplement the date of reading…All these scientific changes can be interpreted in terms of developments in the scientific community. For example, one of the key questions in science has always been-who has priority for a particular advance?” (Meadows 27–28).
Both a political standpoint and a systematic approach have been taken to support the use of citations, which elaborates on the interconnectedness of the components of a Discourse, in the context of science. The correct use of citations are a clear indication of being in the Discourse of science.
Building a Foundation of Science
The building of a rhetorical frame involves the structure and incorporation of the Building Tasks of a Discourse. The seven different Building Tasks all entail different portions of a topic that are all tied together under the more specific reading approach and rhetorical frame.
If texts are read as autonomous substances, full understanding of the Discourse is not possible. One of the most common approaches to gaining entrance into a Discourse is through an apprenticeship, which also indirectly helps to build a rhetorical frame. Once a rhetorical frame is structured, scientific knowledge will be presented in a more involved way, where the reader can actively participate in the context of the writing or research.
This furthering of education shows that the apprentice can evolve into the identity of the researcher and/or the author. The relationships built within the context of the Discourse of science are interchangeable. Once the rhetorical frame is formed, texts are viewed not as autonomous, but as imploring, and connections are seen within various studies pertaining to the Discourse of science.
It is essential to be able to make the academic leap from these two types of reading in order to move completely into the science Discourse. Without the skills and knowledge of a rhetorical frame, the student is only engaging with the texts at the surface-level, and cannot uphold the identity of a true scientist. There is a clear pathway and multiple identities one can take within the Discourse, showing the relationship between Gee’s theorem and the field of science in an academic setting.
Works Cited
Fiano, Darcy. “Primary Discourse and Expressive Oral Language in a Kindergarten Student.” Reading Research Quarterly 49.1 (2013): 61–84. Print.
Gee, James. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Journal of Education 171.1 (1989): 5–17. Print.
Haas, C. “Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College.” Written Communication 11.1 (1994): 43–48. Print.
“IMRaD Cheat Sheet.” Global Communication Center. Carnegie Mellon University, 3 Aug. 2015.
Meadows, A.J. “The Scientific Paper as an Archaeological Artefact.” Journal of Information. Science 11.1 (1985): 27–30.
