The Social Chemistry of Science
IMRAD Cheat Sheet and the Natural Scientific Discourse
Instructions are always welcomed when it comes to giving informative advice on how to complete an assignment. They enforce proper formatting and allow participants to easily follow in the right direction. Informative instructions are especially important in the field of science. One example is the IMRAD Cheat Sheet. However, hidden within the cheat sheet are remnants of something .0more than basic writing instructions. Mixed in are glimpses of the values and procedures in the scientific field.
These values and procedures can be argued as a Discourse. In,linguist Gee states in “LITERACY, DISCOURSE, AND LINGUISTICS: INTRODUCTION” that, “Discourses are ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities” (6–7). The IMRAD Cheat Sheet provides a base in which scientists and researchers convey their data. It also shows the appropriate practices which follows, including additional research for the future. Christina Haas further uncovers the scientific Discourse in “Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College,” through her student study of Eliza as she progressed through college. After Eliza’s college experience, she was able to join and make her own contributions to the scientific community. But how can one begin to integrate into the Discourse? The scientific discourse begins with a series of apprenticeships.
Getting into the Scientific Discourse
First things first; Learning the basics
An individual must first acquire basic knowledge to advance towards the Discourse. This is expressed in Haas’ student study. During Eliza’s first year of college she was observed to exclusively read her biology textbook in order to absorb information. Her objective was to memorize and regurgitate the information during exams. Haas observed that,“If she had trouble comprehending, her strategy was usually to reread, and she made extensive use of the highlighter, sometimes marking whole paragraphs with it” (59).
This form of linear reading is described as autonomous reading. Although this is not the correct way to read texts in the scientific community, it is a necessary stage before entering the Discourse. Haas states that,
“knowledge of contexts will aid a reader’s interpretation, and indeed, knowing something about cultural and historical contexts can reveal a great deal about discourse participants, and vice versa” (48).
Once an individual has spent enough time to acquire the base knowledge, he or she can begin to look at scientific texts in a different perspective. The individual can focus less on the raw information and look for underlying factors within the text. These factors are described as the rhetorical frame. Haas states that,
“Elements of the rhetorical frame include participants, their relationships and motives, and several layers of context” (48).
This way of reading texts is described as rhetorical reading. From understanding the rhetorical frames of texts, the reader can begin to see the writer’s purpose in writing. Such practices are honored in the scientific Discourse. Being able to see beyond the facts and towards the author’s intents is the first step into the Discourse.
However, the autonomous reading procedure prevents the student from looking beyond the text. In order to learn how to objectively read for the rhetorical frame, or read rhetorically one must involve himself in an apprenticeship.
The next step; Apprenticeships
Outsiders of the science Discourse must participate in academic apprenticeships in order to transition from reading texts autonomically to rhetorically. Because students have a habit of reading what, “The book says” (Haas 59), additional help is needed for this transition. That help is found in apprenticeships. Gee claims that,
“Discourses are not mastered by overt instruction (even less so than languages, and hardly anyone ever fluently acquired a second language sitting in a classroom), but by enculturation (“apprenticeship”) into social practices through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already mastered the Discourse” (7).
Gee continues by saying that, “classrooms must be active apprenticeships in “academic” social practices” (13). To grasp the scientific Discourse, one must first learn how to read rhetorically. Classrooms provide effective environments where students can learn new “academic social practices” which is in this case reading rhetorically. During her first year, Eliza was exposed to these apprenticeships. In her English class, Eliza was challenged with new reading objectives;
“In the reading for her English class, Eliza’s goal was slightly different, stated most frequently as “to figure out what they’re saying.” The curriculum in her English class was built upon a recognition of authors and their claims and positions” (Haas 60).
Eliza not only read to understand the text, but to also to find the author’s intents and opinions. Her apprenticeship in her english class taught her how to read rhetorically. Equipped with sufficient scientific knowledge and now the ability to read rhetorically, Eliza was at the doorstep of entering the scientific Discourse.
The Final step; Discourse Practices revealed through Application
Eliza’s practices in her work study shows IMRAD’s significance to the scientific Discourse. For her first years Eliza honed her base of knowledge and rhetorical reading abilities. Her next task was to apply herself to the field. She was able to do so under the work study of one of her professors. The practices of the scientific Discourse are seen through her work ethic. It is said that practices are, “The practice (activity) or practices (activities) that are relevant in the context and how they are being enacted” (Fiano 67). Practices are actions by those that reflects the doing, being, valuing aspects of the Discourse.
Working beside graduate students, Eliza was responsible for growing cultures and completing projects. As she worked, Eliza began to adopt practices shared by the scientific community.
“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).
Eliza now read scientific articles objectively to find relevant information for her own research. Eliza reflected, “I’m reading this to get an idea on how to set up my own report” (Haas 64). The practice of utilizing texts to further one’s research is also honored in the IMRaD Cheat Sheet. The Discussion section of the cheat sheet emphasizes the importance of the scientific paper’s ability to, “connect these findings to other research.” After research, the scientist writes his or her own papers along IMRaD’s guidelines. Therefore, those in the scientific Discourse must be able to read rhetorically and produce articles that can also be properly read by others. This imperative feat divides those who have and haven’t fully mastered the Discourse.
Sign Systems
Who’s in and who’s out
The IMRaD sheet along with rhetorical reading presents a sign system that divides those who are and aren’t in the Discourse. Darcy Fiano claims that sign systems are,
“The relevant sign systems (e.g., languages, social languages) and forms of knowledge (ways of knowing) that are relevant in a context and how they are used and privileged or disprivilege” (67).
The IMRaD cheat sheet reveals that there are two main identities in the scientific community, the reader and writer. In the introduction section, the IMRaD paper states that the paper should, “Convince readers that it is important that they continue to read.” For both the writer and especially the reader, their mastery of rhetorical concepts acts as the sign system. Haas states that,
“Rhetorical reading -that is, recognizing the rhetorical frame that surrounds a text, or constructing one in spite of conventions which attempt to obscure it-is often crucial for understanding argument and other sophisticated forms of discourse” (49).
The scientific Discourse requires its members to read texts on a more personal level. The objective is not solely to learn new information, but also to reflect on the author’s and one’s own research. Therefore, those that cannot read rhetorically cannot be considered in the Discourse. Readers of the Discourse are able to pick up the rhetorical frames in papers. However, some readers do not know the proper practices in order to become a scientific writer.
Hierarchy in the Scientific Discourse; Reader vs. Writer
The ability for those to connect scientific papers to enhance their own work presents a sign system between those who have and haven’t mastered the Discourse. In Haas, when Eliza writes her papers she refers to a variety of texts for information. According to the IMRaD sheet, she was able to successfully, “summarize the main findings of the study” due to her mastery in reading. In addition, she builds a sense on how those texts are linked to one another as well as to her own research. Haas observed that as Eliza developed as a scientific writer;
“She also exhibited a greater awareness of the inter textual nature of discourse; texts were not isolated, but linked. She still used citations to uncover relevant articles, but rather than skimming the citation lists as she did the year before, she now examined how particular sets of articles used and represented the claims of their sources” (66).
This upgraded ability of referring to texts on a higher level enables writers to produce more elaborate works. It is a feature which separates those who have and haven’t mastered the scientific Discourse. The most exceptional research papers are incorporated into updated textbooks. However, papers must undergo a citation test before allowed into scientific history.
Credibility
When it comes to anything, everyone involved deserves proper credibility. A.J. Meadows’ citation procedure and credibility distribution are supported by Gee’s politics. Meadows claim that, “One of the key questions in science has always been-who has priority for a particular advance?” (28). As the scientific community grows, there is increasing competition for credit. Therefore, a stringent citation analysis procedure is necessary in order to most fairly distribute credibility. Gee enforces the Discourse within his politics of a Discourse. Fiano describes Gee’s politics as,
“The social goods that are relevant and at stake in a context and how they are being distributed or how their distribution is being viewed” (67).
In this case the public goods at stake is credibility for a Discovery along with its benefits, (money, fame, etc.). In order for a scientist to attain credibility for his or her work, they must follow the standard way of citation. The standard of citation is honored by the scientific community; failure to abide may result unfavorably. Gee states that,
“Social groups will not, usually, give their social goods-whether these are status or solidarity or both-to those who are not “natives” or “fluent users” (10).
Those that fail to follow the values of the scientific Discourse may not be rewarded its potential goods. Those that do may claim fame, money, and a spot in the next generation in new editions of textbooks.
Putting it all together; Exposing the Success Scientific Discourse
The scientific community is set on self advancement. The IMRaD format provides the Discourse’s guidelines for members to extract and present their research. When discoveries are made, the advancements are acknowledged in textbooks which are used to convey raw data to scholars. Once knowledgable of the material, apprenticeships equip students with the ability to rhetorically analyze texts. When practiced sufficiently, the new members of the Discourse can use their new tools to begin writing their own papers. Greenhorn scientists skim through articles, applying its contents with their work as well as others to sharpen their own research. Such scientific practices lead to new outstanding discoveries which are used in the next edition of textbooks. The continual cycle between research, textbook knowledge, and apprenticeships propels the scientific community, as well as science exponentially.
