Significance In the Scientific Community
an article by Zane Getman
What Can We Use to Aid Our Analyses?
The study of science has been one that has always fascinated us and continues to amaze us. New discoveries concerning all forms of life are exciting to learn about, and are also the pride of those scientists that conduct the actual research to reach these proven theories. To record their findings and successfully confirm new discoveries, scientists publish their studies for the public or for others in their fields of work to read. Those in similar fields of work are considered to be part of the scientific Discourse. Linguist James Gee introduces the concept of Discourse in his work “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction” by referring to them as ways of being in the world” (6) and “forms of life that integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, and social identities” (6–7). That being stated, the scientific community can be perceived as a constantly evolving Discourse, complete with people invested in their search for knowledge and information to help benefit humanity. Their findings and publications are based off of trial and error experimentation, endless research, and detailed analyses. In order to establish a thorough analysis of anything, the analyzer must have an organized basis to prepare the study.
With this approach of pre-planning, they will have already narrowed down their evaluation and will be able to focus on specific aspects in the subject of analysis. The one making an analysis does not even need to create their own format to base their research on. Instead, they can consult the methodical IMRaD format that helps write and review scientific reports, James Gee’s seven building tasks that help examine Discourses, or Pennsylvania State University professor Christina Haas’s rhetorical frame that helps readers interact fully with texts. What all of these resources have in common is their purpose in serving as general foundations for analyses and their assistance in developing reinforced understandings of what is being analyzed.
What is the Actual Breakdown of IMRaD?
When referring to the IMRaD setup for scientific analysis, one can immediately deduce from the acronym the critical parts of a study. This includes the introduction of the experiment, the methods used to execute the experiment, the results found from the experiment, and the concluding overall discussion of the experiment. So when looking into a scientific journal to review a certain experiment, the IMRaD layout encourages readers to do selective reading in order to identify what is relevant to their own purpose for reading the report.
This is very helpful in how it excludes the unnecessary and often overburdening task of reading through material that is not related to the purpose of reading the text, and helps easily pinpoint where the significant information is recorded. The idea of clarifying relevance based off of following IMRaD’s format is similar to Christina Haas’s use of the rhetoric frame to connect better with a text. A strong understanding of not only what is being stated, but why and how it is being stated can help a reader advance their grasp on the text beyond just simply reading the words and failing to recognize “why the author wrote the piece, why she or he chose the form that was chosen, [and] why she or he used a particular structure or chose certain words” (48). As stated in her published article “Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College,” a rhetorical frame “helps readers account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes” (48), which implies that readers that employ it correctly will make a deeper connection with what they are reading.
One can use the frame to determine why they are reading the source they are consulting and also keep track of the text’s key points. Haas’s concept of how the rhetorical frame offers readers a more thorough approach to making solid connections with the text and their reason for reading it is identical to how IMRaD helps readers in the scientific community locate what is important to their own research.
Shortcuts to More Effective Reading
The IMRaD format guides potentially struggling readers and writers in the scientific community in locating important aspects of a report similarly to how a master guides a beginner to successfully learn how to do something they are not familiar with. One in the scientific Discourse having trouble with structuring their report will consult the IMRaD format for correction, as an apprentice having difficulty with what they are trying to do will refer to their master for assistance. An example of such a teacher-learner relationship is displayed in Haas’s study of a student’s development in reading. When studying college student Eliza’s progression of correctly interacting with and analyzing texts throughout her freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior years, Christina Haas notes that a key factor that “may account for Eliza’s expanding notions of authors and texts” (43) was her “mentoring in an internship situation” (43). Haas relates Eliza’s growth as a reader to her experience in her work study job of growing protein mutants in a lab while supervised by a college graduate named Shelly. After becoming accustomed to the job, Eliza admits that back “when [she] started [she] was clueless” (67), but she gradually gained the knowledge of the scientific work due to Shelly mentoring her “like an apprentice” (64) in the lab. Eliza’s association with Shelly directly relates to a concept of James Gee’s. When introducing readers to analyzing Discourses, Gee emphasizes that a “master-apprentice relationship in a social practice” (11) is a critical way of guiding an outsider into a new Discourse. In Haas’s study Eliza is initially the outsider, but due to Shelly adopting her as her apprentice, Eliza learns how to adjust to elements within the scientific Discourse of their lab work. Like a mentor for those aspiring to successfully join a foreign Discourse, IMRaD format is support for those in the scientific community to correctly analyze an experiment.
The Difference Between Insiders & Outsiders
Eliza is the main focus of Haas’s study of her transformation from an outsider to an insider, but it is also interesting to consider those in the scientific community that share Shelly’s position as an initial insider and how they are able to perceive scientific work fluently enough to teach others to as well. Member of the department of science at University of Leicester A.J. Meadows indicates in his document “The scientific paper as an archaeological artifact” that the scientific Discourse is distinct because of how outsiders cannot understand the related information. He states that “to an outsider, the contents of [scientific research] appear to be mystic and wonderful” (27). Coming from an experienced member of the scientific community, it is clear that those unfamiliar with the Discourse will struggle with what the scientific Discourse entails. Meadows continues to inform readers that when reviewing reports published by scientists, “to an insider, they convey rapidly and efficiently information about the research that has been done” (27). This barrier of understanding and attempting to understand research defines the depth of the scientific Discourse.
When those in the scientific community analyze this information they most likely consult the layout of IMRaD to ensure that their end result is exact and correct. Those that are not part of the scientific community struggly to search through a report, they may also refer to IMRaD format to determine the important aspects of the report, but they must have an insider’s knowledge to fully understand what is being related.
IMRaD’s Fundamentality in Science
In order to definitively call oneself part of the scientific Discourse, one must be familiar with IMRaD and understand how to employ its guidance correctly. With this knowledge, one will have a similar perception that many within the scientific community share when it comes to studying research or reports. To gain this knowledge and be presented with the opportunity to become part of the scientific community, a teacher-learner relationship is beneficial. This was proven through Haas’s study of Eliza’s development in comfortability and experience due to Shelly’s supervision. James Gee’s concept of becoming an apprentice to a master in order to advance one’s own understanding of a Discourse is prevalent in Haas’s study. This notion is also present within the world of science, in which IMRaD is the ultimate reference to correct scientific analysis.
Works Cited
Carnegie Mellon University. “IMRAD Cheat Sheet.” Global Communications Center. Carnegie Mellon University. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.
Haas, Christina. “Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College.” Written Communication 11.43 1994: 43–48. Print.
Gee, James. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Journal of Education 171.1 1989: 6–17. Print.
Meadows, AJ. “The scientific paper as an archaeological artefact.” Journal of Information Science 11 1985: 27. Print.
