Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [209]
—Keri Colabroy, Professor of Biochemistry
How to Write—and Read—Scientific Formats: Three Professors Speak
Note that the observations in the following Voices from Across the Curriculum apply to much but certainly not all of the writing that goes on in the sciences. Writing in physics, for example, where research is more theoretical, oft en takes a different form. There are other exceptions. Writing in psychology can appear in the form of the case study rather than in reports on experiments.
It is necessary, a biology professor asserts, to recognize the need for flexibility when using the scientific format. Although the format has a clear defining logic, the distinctions among the various parts are not always as clear-cut as some students may think they are. (For examples of science writing, see Chapter 16, Introductions and Conclusions Across the Curriculum.)
Voices from Across the Curriculum
In writing in the social sciences, there is a standard plot with three alternative endings. The “Introduction” (a standard section of APA style) sets forth the problem, which the “Methods” section promises to address. The “Results” section “factually” reports the outcome of the study, with the “Discussion” section interpreting the results. “The data” are given the starring role in determining which ending is discussed in the “Discussion” section: hypothesis confirmed, hypothesis rejected, or hard to say. (I would say “which ending the author chooses” versus “which ending is discussed,” but the data are supposed to be determinative, and the role of the author/investigator neutral.) Analytical thinking comes in setting up the problem and making sense of the results in conjunction with existing literature on the subject.
—Alan Tjeltveit, Professor of Psychology
Experimental Psychology uses a very rigid format. I explain to the students the functions of the different sections for the reader. Once students start to read journal articles themselves, the functions of the sections become clear. Readers do not always want to read or reread the whole article. If I want to replicate someone’s research, I may read just the “Methods” section to get the technical details I need. I may read just the “Results” section to get a sense of the numerical results I might expect. On the other hand, I may not care about the details of how the experiment was run. I might just want to know if it worked, in which case I would read the first few sentences of the “Discussion” section. The format lets me know exactly where to find whatever I might be looking for, without having to read through the whole article.
—Laura Edelman, Professor of Psychology
Scientific format appears highly formulaic at first glance. Papers are generally broken into four sections: “Introduction” (What is this all about, what do we already know, why do we care?), “Experimental Procedures” (What did you actually do?), “Results” (What happened in your experiments?), and “Discussion” (What do you think it means, what are the remaining questions?). This breakdown is useful because it emphasizes the process of argument (introduction and results), providing evidence (results), and analysis (discussion). However, although this may seem different from writing in other disciplines, I think of it as a codification of basic analytical writing that is common in most disciplines.
A common mistake made by beginning and intermediate students is taking this breakdown too literally. In order to be comprehensible, the rules must be broken periodically. For example, results frequently must be referred to in the “Experimental Procedures” section in order to understand why the next procedure was performed. Similarly, the “Results” section frequently must include some discussion, so that the reader understands the immediate