Module 3: Scientific Discourse
Objectives: Research papers need to be more than just informative; they need to be convincing. Strong conventions have emerged for story-telling in science, and the paradigm for this is the pattern of introduction, methods, results and discussion (IMRAD). In this workshop we will delve deeper into the art of story-telling, and examine the finer moves and steps often encountered in biomedical and health research papers.
Practicum: In this workshop, students will analyze a research article of their choice, and identify the moves and steps by which the authors have constructed their argument.
Most often, reading biomedical articles is a chore, even when we are reading within our speciality. Students and readers for whom English is a second language may assume that difficulty with reading is their fault – that either their knowledge of the subject matter or their knowledge of English is inadequate. Certainly this may be the case, but a research article represents an attempt by a researcher to communicate with an audience and so the author also bears a responsibility to write clearly. Of course, the job for both the reader and the author will be easier if we are both working off of the same road map; in other words if we share a common conception of the general architecture of a research article. That is what this presentation is about – how to find our way through the sometimes tangled sentences and paragraphs of the biomedical research article.
There are already all sorts of content guidelines, such as CONSORT, for research articles. These tell us what authors should be writing in different sections of their manuscript. That is not what we are concerned with here. In this presentation, we are more interested in how and why authors are saying particular things. This is because often when we read research we find that we can understand the individual words and even decipher the sentences, but we are often left wondering why the author bothered to write a particular phrase or sentence. When the importance of a particular phrase or sentence is lost on us, we want to know whether it is we who are lost, or whether it is the author. The purpose of this presentation is to reveal the map so that we can see if we (or the authors) are keeping to the path.
Interestingly, most of the information in this presentation doesn`t come from scientists. It comes from linguists; people who may know next to nothing about the scientific content of a paper, but who can take an objective look at the language and tell us how it is being used – or misused. Here is what they have to tell us:
First, we can sketch out four grand sections, like continents on a map of the world. These sections are the introduction, methods (also called methods and materials), results and discussion sections. Long before journals became sufficiently well organized to publish guidelines, it had already emerged that virtually all research articles used these four divisions in that order. There is no law saying that authors have to use this design; it has emerged as the successful design because it is the one which most often serves the purpose of clear communication.
Furthermore, within each of these four sections there are commonly certain subdivisions which, again, appear in a certain order. Most biomedical writers don`t even recognize this because the patterns are so ingrained and natural, but linguists can point them out and explain why we use them. Linguists refer to these subdivisions as “moves”, perhaps by analogy to moves in a game such as chess. These, of course, are strategic moves in logic.
We need to keep these strategic “moves” in mind when we are reading articles, because the pattern of “moves” helps us to make sense of successive sentences and paragraphs. When we find ourselves tangled up in a thorny sentence, we can stop and look at the map. We can ask ourselves questions such as: “What move are we in?” “What purpose does this sentence serve in this move?” Or even “Does this sentence serve any purpose in this move or has the author dropped a sentence in the wrong place?” As often as not, we will find that it is the author who has gotten lost. Then we just have to make our way back to the main path, and pick up the author when they find their way out of the underbrush.
Key point: Most research articles follow the pattern of introduction, methods, results and discussion. Within each of these sections, there ought to be (and usually is) a sequence of moves that guides us through the story that the author wants to tell.
Let`s take a look at each of the sections and their moves, so that we can recognize them from now on and so properly orient ourselves when we are reading.
Introduction:
The introduction normally contains three moves in the following sequence:
Presenting background information,
Reviewing related research, and
Presenting new research
Another writer has described these moves as “defining the territory”, “defining the niche” and “claiming the niche”. In concrete terms, here is what these moves look like:
In broad strokes, move 1 tells us what general field we are working in. Move 2 takes us into a consideration of experimentation by introducing previous work; perhaps previous work of the present author and almost certainly that of others. This move consists of two steps: the specific reference to previous work, and comments on the limitations of that previous work. Move 3 involves clearly stating the purpose of the current research.
Methods:
The methods section of our paper describes how the work was performed. A widely accepted benchmark for an adequate methods section is that another investigator familiar with the area of research in question should be able to duplicate the work based on the methods section of the paper. Of course a corollary of this rule would be that people who are not familiar with the area of research will not be able to duplicate, and probably cannot critique, the methods.
In practice, across genre, and even prior to the recent emergence of content guidelines, successful writers have characteristically incorporated into their methods sections 3 “moves”:
Identifying the source of data and the method adopted in collecting them,
Describing the experimental procedures and methods adopted in the processing of data, and
Describing the procedures adopted in the analysis, including statistical analysis, of data.
Move 1 of the methods section identifies the nature and source of the cells, animals or people we are studying. In move 2 of the methods section, we introduce the actual experimental methods, including gathering and processing of data. This move therefore represents the main substance of the methods section. Move 3 details the analysis of data, and so is not present in those observational papers which rely purely on raw data.
Results:
Normally, the results section consists of only one or two moves:
The ubiquitous move is the presentation of observations which were consistent with the author`s expectations or hypothesis.
Additionally, some papers include a second move which presents inconsistent or unexpected observations.
The first move of the results section often has an introductory statement which summarizes the observations or orients the reader to the text to follow. Then the results of each section of the methods are presented.
Discussion:
In general, the discussion section consists of 3 moves:
Highlighting the overall research outcome,
Explaining specific research outcomes, and
Stating research conclusions.
Move 1 of the discussion is often an explicit affirmation that the researchers performed the experiments that they set out to perform, or answered their research question. Move 2 of the discussion is much more extensive, reviewing and explaining the results in detail. Move 3 states the author`s conclusions. This is done quite explicitly and is frequently signaled by the use of words such as “conclusion” and “summary”.
In summary, we have looked at the four sections of the biomedical research paper, and the moves which normally make up each section. When trying to navigate a paper, we should keep in mind where we are in this progression of logic. Each sentence that the author has written should contribute to our easy progression along this path. There will be times when authors need to diverge from this pattern. However, that should be by design, not accident.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
