What Does IMRaD Reveal About Science?
At the doctorate level, the greatest numbers of degrees were science degrees (Fast Facts). With that many scientists in the world they must have a way of communicating with each other. The IMRaD structure is a commonly accepted format for communicating in the scientific Discourse. Scientists talk through scientific journals in the IMRaD format. It is composed of an Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Each piece is dependent on the other for a scientific paper to have value. Paul James Gee’s Literacy, Discourse and Linguistics: Introduction, the IMRaD Cheat Sheet, Christina Haas’s Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College, and A.J. Meadows’s The Scientific Paper as an Archaeological Artefact are all useful tools in analyzing science as a Discourse, specifically, the IMRaD structure. If one breaks up each piece of IMRaD, one can see how scientists act, speak, write, and much more. The IMRaD formula allows scientists to have an even playing field through the way the paper is written and how information is shared amongst scientists.
Science is a Discourse
The Discourse of Science has been ever changing, but today, things like the IMRaD structure create a basic structure applicable to all scientific papers. These changes, discussed in A.J. Meadows’s paper, are important for the organization of the many scientific papers that are published. He says that,
”…the construction of an acceptable research paper reflects the agreed view of the scientific community at that time” (Meadows).
The title, citations, and body of research papers have been modified, for the better, over the years. Today, things such as, the information given in the titles allows outsiders and insiders navigate the huge network of science. Science includes the reading of articles, writing and publishing of research papers, doing of research, collaboration between scientists and much more. Compared to Gee’s identity kit- that is, “Saying-doing-being-valuing combinations”, Science is clearly a Discourse. The IMRaD structure allows us to see each of those components.
- The introduction reveals the values of scientists.
- The methods allow the scientists to prove their experiment.
- The results shed light on the language used by scientists.
- The discussion tells everyone why this findings is important.
Introduction: Politics (i.e. value system)
The introduction of any scientific paper is an opportunity for a scientist to showcase their value system. In the introduction, a scientist will make a case for their research paper. In fact, Carnegie Mellon University’s IMRAD Cheat sheet asks scientists to, “Discuss the current state of research in your field, expose a “gap” or problem in the field, and then explain why your present research is a timely and necessary solution to that gap.” The “gap” in and of itself is a value- that is, to value knowledge and research.
Just as one may introduce oneself with their job title, such as, “Hi. My name is Joseph, and I work for a construction company,” so the introduction of a scientific paper introduces the job title of a scientist.
In other words, the introduction of a scientific journal tells the public why they value this research topic. This opens up a huge window into the values, or “Politics” of any given scientist. Politics are the pieces of language that are communicated “to be “normal,” “right,” “good,” “correct,” “proper,” “appropriate,” “valuable,” “the way things are,” “the way things ought to be,” “high status or low status,” “like me or not like me,” and so forth” (Fiano 83). In essence, what are the values of a scientist. Through the research of Eliza, along with the IMRAD Cheat Sheet, and many other scientific papers, one can see the scientists value things like the well being of humans, time, legitimacy, integrity and so much more. In regards to time, Eliza learned during her Junior year that journals have an expiration date. In reference to journal articles“…she claimed that “some of them were really old, like in the 70s,” and were “getting me nowhere,” so “I set a limit of like, maybe, 1980 to the present.” (Haas 65). Unless she was learning about the history of science, articles before 1980 probably wouldn’t be helpful. It’s not that scientists didn’t make great strides in certain fields before the 1980s, but rather that there wasn’t as much technology, and knowledge in many areas before the 1980s compared to today. Scientists also value integrity, or fairness.
A.J. Meadows writes a great article about the changes that scientific journals have seen in their lifetime. Included in his paper is how scientists get the credit. The answer lies in something called, priority claim:
“One of the key questions in science has always been- who has priority for a particular advance? Initially, when scientific papers were essentially letters, the date of writing would do to establish priority. However…the feeling grew that it was actually necessary to publish first. Journals were therefore put under pressure to publish papers more quickly” (Meadows 28).
In essence, priority claim says that if two scientists have the same idea, only the first scientist to publish the idea gets the credit. The other scientist must be fair and let the rightful (first) scientist get the credit. Just as a singer values his fans, so a scientist values time and fairness. The introduction is where one can look into the values of a scientist.
Methods: Practices (i.e. actions, doings)
If there isn’t a methods section, it didn’t happen. Scientists do experiments to prove their point, or, close that “gap”. Recall that, “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, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize” (Gee 7). In defining “Discourse” this way, Gee requires that science, being a Discourse of itself, must “act” (or do), and “write” so that others will know the purpose of the research article.
However, scientists are not writing out the methods, that is- the actions taken during an experiment, in order to be analyzed by English students, or even for legitimacy (although that is important). Scientists write out the methods section so that other scientists can replicate the experiment in hopes that one scientist may make an advancement in the field of study. Eliza had that mindset when she explain why she kept a journal in the lab,
“It [her writing] is important because somebody who comes when I leave is going to want to work with my mutants and they are going to want to understand how it works, how it grows.” (Haas 67).
You see, Eliza may only be working in that particular lab for a few years until she moves on to another job. She wants the scientist after her to be able to continue where she left off. The methods section clearly outlines the scientist’s actions during an experiment with the hope of closing a “gap” in the field. The methods section, in simplest terms, provides the saying-doing piece of any experiment.
Results: Sign Systems and Knowledge (i.e. language, communication)
The results section contains tables, charts, and graphs which would all be considered sign systems that only insiders understand. According to the IMRAD Cheat Sheet,
“Results are where the findings and the outcomes go.”
Essentially, the results are the evidence for a scientist’s claim. Typically the results section contains many graphs, tables, and charts for easy-to-visualize data for the layperson.
With that in mind, the results section can sometimes be very confusing because it contains words that only scientists would understand. These words, and the ability from scientists to comprehend the words are called sign systems and knowledge. Gee defines sign systems and knowledge as “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 disprivileged.” Basically, Gee is saying that different Discourses use different words to communicate with each other. For example, a scientist may say something like, “natural eutrophication is the ecosystem’s response to the addition of natural nutrients, mainly phosphates, to an aquatic system.” Whereas a stereotypical 6th grader may say, “the pond is getting older and dirtier.” The use of scientific terms is not only a sign system but also a signal to others that you are in the Discourse of science. Meadows uses the term “insider” to describe someone in the Discourse of science, and “outsider” as someone who is not in the Discourse. He says,
“To an outsider, the contents of these papers appear to be mystic and wonderful: to an insider, they convey rapidly and efficiently information about the research that has been done.” (Meadows 27).
In other words, the charts might look nice to an outsider, but to a scientist they are a quick and easy way to acquire information about the experiment. Charts and graphs are sign systems used by scientists in the results section to communicate information with fellow scientists.
Discussion: Significance (i.e. importance, beliefs)
Although the discussion section may create new gaps in the field of study, it is the place to make sense of the entire research project. Without the discussion people would be given results, but no significant advance could be made.
Significance is defined by Gee as, “How the speaker or writer is trying to give significance to things.”
Basically, significance explains what scientists think is important. In regards to the Discourse of science, the discussion makes the entire experiment significant. For example, in Haas’s discussion she talks about Eliza being an example for many college students. Haas says that “longitudinal studies provide one rewarding way to read students stories of rhetorical development, reminding us that the stories of students learning are not simple ones, and neither will be the theories that account for those stories.” What Haas is trying to say here is that this focused study proved that college students improve their writing and reading skills. It also outlines possible problems with the study which is precisely what the discussion is suppose to do. According to the IMRAD Cheat Sheet, the discussion should hit four points: “1. Summarize the main findings… 2. They connect these findings to other research. 3. They discuss flaws in the current study. 4. They use these flaws as reasons to suggest additional research.” The discussion section is a good place to close the gap found in other research papers and opens up a new hole for future scientists to explore. The discussion section is a snapshot of what scientists believe to be significant.
Basically…
The IMRaD structure of scientific papers can give one insight into how the Discourse of Science does (practices), says (sign systems and knowledge), values (time and integrity), and believes (significance). Although not all scientists have face-to-face contact to discuss research papers, they are all on the same team. They build off each other’s research, and to do that they look at their published research papers. The IMRaD structure has changed over the years, as Meadows suggests, but that so clearly exemplifies science as a Discourse- that is, constantly changing and learning new things.
Works Cited
“Fast Facts.” Fast Facts. National Center for Education Statistics, 2014. Web. 2 Dec. 2015. <https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37>.
Gee, James Paul. Literacy, Discourses, and Linguistics: Introduction. London: Journal of Education 171.1 (1989): 5–17. Print
Haas, Christina. “Learning to Read Biology One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College.” Written Communication 11.1 (1994): 43–84. Print.
“IMRAD Cheat Sheet — Carnegie Mellon University.” Carnegie Mellon University Global Communications Center. Web. 20 Nov. 2015. Print.
Meadows, A. J. “The scientific paper as an archaeological artefact.” Journal of information science 11.1 (1985): 27–30. Print.
