Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill [206]
USING FORMATS HEURISTICALLY: AN EXAMPLE
To lose sight of the heuristic value of formats is to become preoccupied with formats merely as disciplinary etiquette. The solution to this problem probably sounds easier than it is: you need to find the spaces in a format that will allow it to work as a heuristic. Consider how you might go about using even a highly specified organizational scheme like the following:
State the problem.
Develop criteria of adequacy for a solution.
Explore at least two inadequate solutions.
Explicate the proposed solution.
Evaluate the proposed solution.
Reply to anticipated criticisms.
The best reason not to ignore any of the six steps in this problem/solution format is that the format does have a logic, although it leaves that logic unstated. The purpose of including at least two inadequate solutions (step 3), for example, is to protect the writer against moving to a conclusion too quickly on the basis of too little evidence. The requirements that the writer evaluate the solution and reply to criticisms (steps 5 and 6) press the writer toward complexity, preventing a one-sided and uncritical answer. In short, heuristic value in the format is there for a writer to use if he or she doesn’t allow a premature concern with matters of form to take precedence over thinking. It would be a mistake, in other words, to assume that one must move through the six steps consecutively; the writer would only need to arrange his or her thinking in that order when putting together the final product.
FORMS AND FORMATS ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: SOME COMMON ELEMENTS
As you read this chapter’s discussion of differences among disciplinary formats, also look for features they share. Differences in surface features—sentence style, organization—tend to obscure the fact that a common underlying structure and set of aims unites most kinds of academic writing across the curriculum.
You can train yourself to start seeing this underlying structure by first recognizing that academic writing in all disciplines is problem-oriented, which is to say that academic writing typically starts by noting something that is missing from previous writing and research. As you will see, disciplines differ in how overtly writers may single out problems in other writers’ thinking. And yet, in one way or another, most academic writing begins by locating something that needs to be done—why there is a need for more study—and why this new work might matter. The introductory sections of most kinds of academic writing tell readers what the writer found interesting, worth pursuing, and why.
Science Format (IMRAD) Compared with Other Academic Formats
Here is a quick overview of the organizational scheme prescribed in the natural sciences and for some kinds of papers in the social sciences, such as reports on research in psychology and political science. Although not all writing in these disciplines follows this format, most does—especially lab reports and articles based on the experimental method and quantitative research. The structure is commonly referred to as IMRAD:
I introduction
M methods
R results
A
D discussion
You can think of this format as two descriptions of the research (methods and results) framed by two sections (introduction and discussion) that locate it in the context of existing knowledge in the field. The introduction locates the new work in terms of what has already been done (which points to what still needs to be done). The discussion section considers how knowledge in the field might be changed by addition of the new results. (See LabWrite Program sponsored by NSF at www.ncsu.edu/labwrite. Also see advice from the Council of Science Editors—CSE.)
The IMRAD format, which we will define in more detail in a moment, lays out a sequence that you can locate as the underlying structure of much academic writing. Here is a restatement of the format that makes the common