What it really means to be a Scientist
An evaluation of the Scientific Discourse
Ask any middle school aged child who “Bill Nye the Science Guy” is. They will tell you that he is a scientist that wears a big white lab coat and does experiments in his huge laboratory. They call him a scientist because not only does he call himself “the science guy”, but he looks, talks, and even acts as what a kid would imagine a typical scientist would be. Little did the children know, the title “scientist” that they use to categorize Bill Nye with is more complicated than a big white coat and some funny science jokes. It takes a lot of hard work to become known as a “scientist”.
What Is A Discourse?
Science is known as a “Discourse”, which is a word defined by James Paul Gee, author of Literacy and Linguistics. He defines it as “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 other will recognize” (Gee 7). This means that a scientist is a part of a big group; this big group composed of those who practice science. Darcy A Fiano’s theory of “building tasks”in her article“Primary Discourse and Expressive Oral Language in a Kindergarten Student” helps analyze a discourse by defining qualities that identify to a Discourse.
Evaluating the scientific Discourse using helpful artifacts, such as an IMRAD cheat sheet, AJ Meadow’s “Scientific Paper as an Archeological Artifact”, and Christina Haas’s Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College, can help those who are not scientists understand what it takes to be one. Being a scientist means being able to recognize connections in other scientific works. However, the process of being able to identify these connections between works and formulating individual connections takes experience and practice.
Why is Science important?
Science and its Relationship to Society
The scientific Discourse can be categorized as secondary and dominant. Secondary, as opposed to a primary Discourse, is a Discourse that is not home-grown; it is not a foundation as to who someone may be. However, it is a Discourse that a person may pick up upon anytime in their life after successful membership. This Discourse is also dominant because it “brings with it the (potential) acquisition of social “goods” (money, prestige, status, etc…)” (Gee 8). Science brings exponential social goods to the world, such as medicine.
The importance of any Discourse lies in its standing in the community; if it is beneficial to the society or not. The most valued Discourses will be those who are able to bring the most social goods. The connections between science and society makes science such an important Discourse. The ideas that scientists put forth are valued highly among members of society because science can be beneficial for a community in so many ways; whether if it’s for medical, environmental, or technological reasons.
The Structure of Written Communication: IMRAD
Science is all about conveying information from experiments to the community of science, so when evaluating this Discourse, looking at the way members communicate their works is essential. Scientists share their works through scientific papers formatted in the IMRaD structure. The IMRaD structure includes intro, methods, results, and discussion.
This structure is a significant quality of scientific writing because it able to convey information to the community of scientists in an efficient manner. Fiano claims that looking at “significance” in a Discourse can help one understand the important concepts in the Discourse. Meadows explains in his evaluation of the evolution of scientific articles that “the construction of an acceptable research paper reflects the agreed view of the scientific community on what constitutes science” (27). The construction of a paper can reveal a lot about the scientific Discourse. For example, the title of an article has evolved from being short to becoming longer and more informative. A descriptive title reveals a lot to a reader before they even read the article; this saves time when trying to do research. Science is all about effective and quick information written in a format that is most easy for others to view. The evolution of the IMRaD paper leans toward the most effective way scientific works can be communicated between each other.
What Defines Science?
Connections between scientists and their works is the defining quality of science. Darcy A Fiano delivers a “building task” called “connections” which are defined as interactions seen between members of a certain Discourse. To an outsider, analyzing these connections help define a Discourse. Science has it own individual connections within the Discourse; scientists connect their research and works among those of others through writing. On the IMRAD cheat sheet, the “Introduction” section of the sheet claims that it is important to include the works of others:
“Discuss the current state of research in your field, expose a “gap” or problem in the field, then explain why your present research is a timely and necessary solution to that gap” (Carnegie Mellon 1).
A “gap” is a flaw in another article of scientific work seen by a scientist who aims their current research to override this gap. This connection between past science to the current science that is being introduced in the writing is the reason why this experiment is important. The importance to any pursuit of scientific work is it’s connection to the outside world.
What Defines a “Scientist”
The ability to understand these connections
There is only a single main identity within the Scientific Discourse, which is being a “scientist”. Darcy A Fiano illustrates how important “identities” are when defining a Discourse. She asks in her writing “what identity or identities…[is] being used to enact (i.e. get others to recognize as operative” (Fiano 7). The identity in science can be shown through how one reacts or responds to information. Information, mostly being scientific articles of other scientists. In The Scientific Paper as an Archaeological Artefact, Meadows says that “To an outsider, the contents of these papers [scientific articles] appear to be mystic and wonderful; to an insider, they convey rapidly and efficiently information about the research that has been done” (27). Meadows believes there are two types of readers of scientific works: Scientists who will branch off from the work and create their own ideas from the writing, and non-scientific people who read the articles for fascination.The way someone reads and reacts to a scientific article can be a sign weather or not they are a member of the Scientific Discourse. Haas believes that the correct way of reading and reacting to an article falls under a concept called a “rhetorical frame.”
“[A] rhetorical frame…helps readers account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes. Elements…include participants, their relationships, and motive, and several layers of context” (Haas 48).
Haas’s rhetorical frame explains that a reader must read with knowledge around the context of the reading, and the connections between texts. According to Haas, readers must lack the idea of “autonomous texts” which is seen when readers read scientific articles while ignoring the motives and goals of the writing and lacking the ability to branch off to form new ideas.
Becoming a Scientitst
The Theory of “Filtering”
In her article, Haas evaluates Eliza, a college student, and her road to becoming a scientist which was viewed through her ability to respond to scientific writing using the rhetorical frame. Haas noted factors that led Eliza membership; one of which was “Increased Domain Knowledge”. This theory states that Eliza’s basic knowledge of conceptual scientific terms and her basic scientific background helped her better understand scientific writing. This idea is identical to Gee’s theory of filtering. Gee’s writing explains that “”Filtering” represents the transfer of features…”(15). Eliza filters knowledge from previous science classes she has been to better understand the writing of scientists.
More towards the end of her college career, Eliza enters articles already having the basic knowledge of the concepts the scientist will talk about and all the terms they use. This gives her an advantage to understanding the motives of the scientists and have the ability to connect different works together. Understanding the writing can also help her formulate her own individual ideas, so then she could possibly create her own hypothesis and experiment.
Practice, Practice, and more Practice
Eliza’s college career involved gaining a more conceptual, complex understanding as she progressed from freshman to senior year. This gave her an advantage in science and an advantage in understanding scientific texts over others who did not study science in the college level. Gee mentions that “It [filtering] is a key device in the creation of a group of elites who appear to demonstrate quick and effortless mastery of dominant secondary Discourses [the Discourse of Science] by “talent” or “native ability”, when, infact, they have simply practiced aspects of them longer” (15). This concept by Gee explains why there is such a difference between the understanding of text between her sophomore and senior year. Eliza (as a senior) notes that “I understood a lot more than if I had been a sophomore reading it, [because] I’ve been exposed to a lot of terms” (75). The more classes she takes throughout her college career, the more science she will learn. Therefore, there is more of an understanding between scientific articles as her college career escalates.
Teamwork makes the Dreamwork
One of the most important factors of Eliza’s membership that Haas included in her writing identified with Gee’s concept of apprenticeship. This concept is based upon the idea that “If you have no access to the social practice, you don’t get in” (Gee 7).
Haas calls this concept “Mentoring in the sociocultural setting” (77). In her evaluation with Eliza, she had observed that Eliza’s writing and view of scientific works had become more established after her junior year. One main event in her junior year was her involvement in a lab for her work study and her close connection with an older coworker, Shelly. Eliza says “when I need help or have problems, she guides me through it. Like an apprentice” (Haas 64). Eliza was able to grasp the full concept of scientific writing by observing how Shelly worked and responded to projects or homeworks that Eliza came to her with. Using guidance, Eliza’s view of scientific writing strayed away from autonomous texts. She observed Shelly and began making connections with scientific articles. She saw authors as scientists with a motive, and she started making connections between texts.
It took four years of college for Eliza to learn how to properly react to scientific articles. Once she was able to efficiently respond to these articles using the rhetorical frame, she became closer to gaining the title of becoming a “scientist”. The scientific Discourse consists of scientists who not only create individual hypothesis and experiments, but are able to connect their works within the Discourse and without.
Works Cited
Fiano, Darcy. A. “Primary Discourse and Expressive Oral Language in a Kindergarten
Student.” Online Library. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.
Gee, James Paul. “Literacy, Discourses, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Journal of
Education. Volume 171 Number 1, (1989); 5–17. Print.
Haas, Christina. “Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College.” Written Communication. (1994): 43–84. Print.
“IMRAD Cheat Sheet.” Carnegie Mellon University. (2015): 171–74. Web.
Meadows, A.J. “Scientific Paper as Archeological Artefact.” Journal of Information Science. 11 (1985): 5–17. Print.
