Social and Natural Sciences
IMRaD as an Artifact
Throughout our lives, we determine what we like and what we don’t like through first-hand experience. We experiment almost like in the scientific world to figure out what is right and what is wrong for ourselves. Things that we choose to pursue are grown and developed until we know them without hesitation. These things, whatever they may be, are defined as Discourses by James Paul Gee in his article “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction”. He thinks of them as
“ways of being in the world” and “forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities” (Gee 6–7).
In other words, they make us who we are, or who we want to become. A Discourse that I am interested in, along with many of my college peers, is the Discourse of the social and natural sciences. Although I am not fully emerged in this Discourse, I am taking the first steps at getting there.
The Discourse
This specific Discourse is mentioned by Christina Haas in her article “Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College”. She explores how one student can develop over time in the ways of scientific reading, writing, and understanding.
She follows this student in her four years of undergraduate school and gains useful information about how people advance throughout their college experience, and more importantly here, how they enter the Discourse of social and natural sciences. These texts help me to explain the importance of certain aspects in the Discourse of social and natural sciences throughout this project. One of the most important aspects being the IMRaD structure of writing.
Importance of the IMRaD
To be considered a member of the Discourse of the social and natural sciences, one must be able to correctly note their scientific findings. These members do so by following the IMRaD (introduction, methods, results, and discussion) outline. This format is a condensed and to-the-point way of exhibiting the work being done along with the findings and importance of the particular trial.
The distinct way that the writing is displayed in this style helps in showing that scientific reading and writing would be a Discourse in Gee’s eyes. Some of his building tasks of Discourse analysis can also be helpful when thinking of the importance of the IMRaD format in the Discourse of social and natural sciences. For example, Gee’s building task of significance correlates with the IMRaD cheat sheet because certain pieces of language in the IMRaD outline are more crucial than other parts.
In my opinion, the results and discussion sections of the IMRaD cheat sheet are more significant pieces of language than the introduction or methods section. In fact, the abstract portion of the IMRaD cheat sheet states that the paper should show “35% of their space on what you found, this is the most important part of the abstract” (IMRaD). This shows that this section is a large portion of the entire project.
The question posed by the results section states, “What did you find?”(IMRaD). This section is meant to tell the reader what exactly was uncovered throughout the research. Without it, the lab would be pointless with no findings. On the other hand the discussion section asks, “What does it mean?”(IMRaD). This section helps to give the reader an understanding of the results and what they mean as well as why they’re important.
I find that these parts of the IMRaD structure are far more useful than the other sections because they contain information that could potentially lead to new findings in science or lead to another lab which could lead to a finding. A large piece of being considered part of the scientific Discourse is knowing the importance of trial and error.
Relationships
A second one of Gee’s seven building tasks of Discourse analysis can be considered when thinking about the importance of the IMRaD structure in the Discourse of social and natural sciences. The building task of relationships can be associated with the outline because of how it brings people of the science community together. Scientists are always competing for the same goal of publishing their findings. They are essentially competing to make themselves known.
The IMRaD structure is an important tool for scientists because they need to be able to see what other scientists are doing and communicate with each other. Specifically, the discussion section of the IMRaD cheat sheet can be useful in building relationships between scientists. This section is said to “connect these findings to other research” and “discuss flaws in the current study” (IMRaD).
It is essential that scientist use their studies to connect with others and discuss the importance of what they are doing and how they are doing it. After reading another scientist’s work, one scientist may want to collaborate or disagree with another scientist. This is why the discussion section becomes so vital.
As Gee says, “It is not just what you say, but how you say it.” (5). This format distinguishes the certain ways that scientist should discuss their findings. Without knowing the appropriate way to document scientific findings, one can’t be considered part of the Discourse.
Eliza’s Development
In studying Eliza’s advancements in writing and reading scientific texts, Haas documents her ways of doing so in each of her four years of undergraduate school. During her freshman year, Eliza focuses primarily on reading texts linearly. Her goals were to learn, understand, and memorize from her textbooks. She read these texts as autonomous. “In general, the belief in autonomous texts views written academic texts as discrete, highly explicit, even “timeless” entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture.” (Haas 45). She is simply reading and memorizing the texts she is given rather than engaging with them and forming opinions.
She continues with the same habits of reading until her previously described job shadow of her junior year. With this type of reading, it would be impossible to master the Discourse of science. This type of reading just doesn’t cut it in the science world. Scientists are expected to have a better understanding of what the underlying messages are of texts they read. They also should know how to interact with and form opinions on the text, not just read it and be done with it.
Although this Discourse isn’t primarily based on reading and writing, these skills need to be mastered in a way that is specific to science. As Gee says, “Not all Discourses involve writing or reading, though many do. However, all writing and reading is embedded in some Discourse” (11). This shows that even if you think the Discourse you’re in involves slim to no reading or writing skills, you are probably wrong. There are most likely some aspects of the Discourse that involve these techniques.
Once Eliza received her work study job, she began to use new reading strategies such as skimming, reading selectively, and reading for different purposes. Without these strategies, one can’t focus on the underlying concepts of the texts being read. She now exhibited awareness of the contexts and no longer saw texts as autonomous but as
“manifestations of scientific action and human choices.” (Haas 65).
Here is where she began to read rhetorically with the use of the rhetorical frame. Rhetorical reading is far more in depth than what Eliza had been doing during her freshman and sophomore years of college. According to Haas, a rhetorical frame “helps readers account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes.” (48)
The rhetorical frame is meant to help readers unfold the text and interact with it in more ways than just comprehended and memorizing.
“Elements of the rhetorical frame include participants, their relationships and motives, and several layers of context.” (Haas 48).
When readers go into a text with some “metaunderstanding” as Haas calls it, they can use the rhetorical frame to have a better understanding of the deeper meaning of the texts.
When Eliza began to use this type of reading, she became more sophisticated in the science world and had more insight of how the Discourse works. It was a very effective year for Eliza in terms of scientific reading and writing. Rhetorical reading is an important factor of entering the scientific Discourse.
As I previously stated, Eliza didn’t show much change or development in her reading and writing skills until her junior year when she received her work study job. She worked side by side with her supervisor in the lab who was a graduate student and became a great mentor for her. Eliza said,
“they gave me a project and when I need help or have problems, she guides me through it. Like an apprentice I guess…” (Haas 64).
This job allowed her to work without the fear of error and with the guidance of someone who has already been through the same thing she is going through. She was able to use the skills that she gained from her work study job in her classes and became more involved as she did so. Eliza’s guidance from her mentor Shelly can be comparable to Gee’s concept of apprenticeship into a Discourse.
Instead of trying to enter the Discourse on her own, which can become a frustrating or confusing process, Eliza was able to follow and learn from someone who is already a master of that Discourse. As Gee says,
“while you can overtly teach someone linguistics, a body of knowledge, you can’t teach them to be a linguist” (7).
The same idea can work with science as well. Eliza could read and memorize all of the science books in the world but still not necessarily know how to be a scientist. All of the small aspects of science such as being able to carry out an experiment and record the results of the trials are things that define a person as a scientist.
The Discourse of the social and natural sciences like any other Discourse contains so many specialized elements that are used by people in that field. One of the more important elements is the IMRaD format of scientific writing. This format is a way that scientists can record their findings, discuss the importance of those findings, explain the steps they took to get there, and connect with other scientists in their field of study by comparing and discussing their research.
As examined in Haas’ study, once Eliza started to become more emerged in the Discourse, she was able to read rhetorically and have more thoughts about science in general. She grew as a scientific reader and writer over her four years of college through practice and more importantly through an apprenticeship with someone who guided her in the appropriate ways of carrying out scientific studies.
There are so many small components to consider when classifying someone as a member or nonmember of the Discourse of social and natural sciences, but the understanding of the IMRaD format is a sure way tell if one is emerged in the Discourse.
