Genres of the Neuroscience Community
Links for the Following Discussion:
As an up-and-coming research scientist in the field of Neuroscience, I have spent many hours reading over the dense literature of this field. While arranging and conducting scientific studies is an important skill in the field, significant results are meaningless until they are communicated. Genevieve Bordet in her analysis of the genres of scientific discourse communities stressed the unimportance of science without discourse. “Science is created through language. To be considered as science, discoveries and theories have to be demonstrated and proved via the medium of language” (Bordet 235-236). Even at the undergraduate level this skill is stressed. My senior Biology capstone class, for example, is entirely centered on the skill of recognizing the form and creating the writings of scientific literature.
Few disciplines hold a higher responsibility of language than does science, neuroscience included. We live in an age where psychological disorders and diseases thrive. One in nine older Americans has Alzheimer’s disease and 44 million families worldwide suffer as the minds of their loved ones waste away to this devastating disease. In an age of multitasking and climbing corporate ladders, people are prescribed stress or depression medications, hoping for a quick fix to what are actually reasonable reactions from an overworked brain. Neuroscientists hold a responsibility to the general public and especially to the physicians that treat them. Neuroscientists must communicate through written language new findings about psychological diseases and educate the masses of the importance of a mental well-being and the reality that there is no “quick fix.”
In this essay, I discuss the genres of communication in the scientific community, specifically focusing on neuroscience research articles and literature reviews. While both are papers designed for the communication of information, research articles are more for the “closed door” discourse community of Neuroscience, while literature reviews are the means behind which the scientific findings are communicated to the public. In these examples, I will refer to the papers in the links listed above, both on the topic of prion proteins. As you will see, the methods of communication in each genre speak to a different audience and have different purposes.
Before I begin this discussion, I want to define a term that is unequivocally important, but that may be lesser known, especially to the scientists reading this article. This term is ‘discourse community.’ John Swales’ definition of this concept has undoubtedly become the most well known in the realm of rhetoric. He defines a discourse community as a network of people that communicate through written language in order to pursue a unified goal.
Besides a common goal, these discourse communities also embody other characteristics such as a specific lexis, different genres meant to achieve different goals, or intercommunication between masters and novices of the field (Swales). The characteristic of focus throughout this discussion is on the topic of genres. In Kerry Dirk’s discussion of genres, she emphasizes that “knowledge of genres goes far beyond a simple discussion of types.” The importance of genres in relation to discourse communities are not only the types of genres used by the community, but how each key feature of a genre works to serve a distinct purpose for the community. This discussion focuses on how the neuroscience community uses its genres to accomplish specific goals through written language, and the change of lexis that comes with each genre.
The Neuroscience community is a subfield of the larger scientific community. As with all science disciplines, scientific papers, also called research articles, are the means of communication that tie together the field into one large discourse community. The papers of this genre have a typically very strict, distinct form commonly referred to as the “IMRAD” structure. IMRAD is a label that stands for each of the sections that are discussed throughout the text: Introduction, Methods and Materials, Results, Analysis, and Discussion. Papers also begin with an Abstract that follow a similar layout. The IMRAD structure is such a core part of scientific literature that in many papers, not excluding the following image link to a screenshot from the research article. Each section is titled or bolded as somewhat of a signage of the section and information that is to follow. With each section comes certain expectations and “rules.”
The introduction lays out the background for the work. This includes similar studies in the field and research leading up to the current knowledge of the issue. These works are cited in the introduction above. Typically, the introduction is very broad and discusses the larger picture and importance for the study. Furthermore, the introduction states the hypothesis of the study, like a thesis for the paper. All of the work be discussed for the support, or sometimes the refutation, of the hypothesis. The materials and methods formulate how the study was set up. While the ‘Methods’ are usually underrated by outside readers as being “dry” or “dull,” any trained scientist knows that the methods determine how sound the study was; essentially, giving the information that determines whether the researchers used proper controls, variables, and instrumentation. The results and analysis sections discuss the significant results of the study as well as the implications for the work, such as the impact of the results that were found and what additional experiments can branch off from the study to further the understanding of the issue at hand.
As previously stated, there is little variation from the IMRAD structure in any field of science, however many Neuroscience studies tend to tweek this format ever so slightly in a way that makes the information more digestable. When looking at the paper provided above, it is evident that in the results section, the methods of each sub-experiment are explained briefly under each bolded heading. Furthermore, for such a behemoth study, the materials and methods section is pretty short. Because the breadth of many neuroscience studies are wide and can sometimes undertake several experiments under the umbrella of one large study, it is not uncommon to see these large bodies of work have a results section that incorporates methods and results broken down by experiment.
The IMRAD structure is anything but an arbitrary form, as explained by Bordet in her discussion on the genres of scientific discourse communities. The IMRAD structure is seen throughout any scientific article, despite country or language of origin. This carefully constructed form is followed so closely because the structure of the writing resembles the work of the scientific study and the logical processes that the scientists go through in order to obtain meaningful results.
The scientific method is an inherent part of any science discipline, something that simply cannot be removed from the field. Even children in grade school introductory science classes learn the scientific method immediately. Observations form a plethora of questions in the minds of scientists; for example, a discovery of a new protein may lead a scientist to ask about how it functions, or where it is found in the body. Once scientists settle upon a testable question, scientists begin their studies with a hypothesis, a belief of the outcome based off of their observations. The observation then is tested and the data is analyzed to insure significance that can then be published. Because each scientists goes through these steps, it in a sense forms a bond between scientists because they share a way of thinking that is inherently a part of the discourse community. It only makes sense that the writings that communicate the final results follow this formulaic way of thinking by means of the IMRAD structure. The IMRAD structure and its close alignment to the progression through the scientific method are an elegant example of the way the language of a discourse community can shape the logical processes of its members.
What distinguishes the neuroscience field from the larger scientific community is the dense lexis of the research articles. Though the scientific community at large has essentially the same types of documents and means of discourse, the lexis is the defining line between different fields of science. While a mathematician will recognize a research article for what it is, and can identify the IMRAD structural progression, the highly specific terms and methods may make the article unreadable without thorough background research. Rhetorician John Swales attributes the inability of an outsider to understand the texts as a defining characteristic of a discourse community.
The second genre of this discussion is the realm of literature reviews. While, literature reviews are also forms of information sharing, this interaction is less between peers and more of a communication line from the discourse community of scientists to the broader public arena. This is debatably the most important line of communication in the field as well as the most difficult, for the writer has to be somewhat of a double-agent: bouncing between the complex language of the field of neuroscience and everyday rhetoric to ensure the reader’s understanding. The communication of literature reviews can potentially have the power to argue for new public policy or warn against a new disease threat. The simpler the message of the review, the more power it may have to make an impact in society. An article in the Journal of Science Education puts the importance of learning this two-way style of writing eloquently: “The international calls for language literacy and science literacy that stress communications with various audiences and language communities, and promote involvement in the public debate about scientific, technological, societal, and environmental issues have put more attention on speaking, listening, reading, and writing in science classrooms…” (Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003). In order to communicate to a broader audience, literature reviews lean away from the IMRAD structure seen in research articles, and use a generalized vocabulary.
Although authors of literature reviews are from the scientific community, they typically abandon the IMRAD structure entirely in this genre. This is done for two reasons. The IMRAD structure works best when dealing with a single experiment with a core hypothesis. Many literature reviews take the approach of describing a certain issue or theory and support the author’s claims with key results from several experimental papers. Because the topic of many reviews are described in many sub-points, the IMRAD structure may be a messy way of organizing the information of the paper. Furthermore, the IMRAD structure is also not the best structure of choice due to the generalized audience that the author is writing for. Though many readers may still be a part of the larger scientific community, not solely neuroscience, some readers may come from different backgrounds entirely. As explained earlier, the IMRAD structure is great tool for research papers because its follows the train of thought of scientist through an experiment. The general public is not as experienced in this way of thinking and using a structure such as IMRAD may be a hindrance to understanding the information.
Instead, writers of literature reviews break down the larger issue into smaller pieces, usually with a bold heading of the topic that is to come. The literature review provided in the picture link above is on the topic of infectious proteins. To break this large issue down into smaller parts, it discusses the gene that codes the protein, the signs and symptoms of the diseases caused by the protein, and other varying topics that all are underlying issues related to prion protein diseases. Unlike journal articles which have a very narrow scope and only dive into a very specific piece of the larger issue, literature reviews talk broadly about a wide range of studies that could come from backgrounds such as neurochemistry, physical neuroscience, or neurobiology. Although the information may come from a variety of backgrounds, each study contributes information to the knowledge of the larger issue at hand.
A final easily identifiable difference between the genres of research articles and literature reviews is the language use of the writer. As explained previously, the vocabulary of the neuroscience community is incredibly complex to someone outside of the field. Because the purpose of literature reviews are to communicate to the broader public, the language of the genre must be kept simple and any specific terms must be explained thoroughly. The purpose of the literature review is to communicate knowledge, inspire change or stir a reaction. The writing will be highly ineffective in pursuing these goals if the reader is lost trying to understand the lexis.
The genres of research articles and literature reviews are modes of discourse that drive the intercommunication between scientists and the transfer of knowledge from scientists to the community. In the discourse community of neuroscience, journal articles are essential in progressing the knowledge of the field, yet without literature reviews this heightened knowledge would be isolated in the discourse community. The purpose of science is to better our world by bettering our understanding of it. Without both of these written lines of communication, science has little purpose or impact.
Sources
Alzheimer’s Association, 2014 Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures, Alzheimer’s & Dementia, Volume 10, Issue 2.
Bordet, Geneviève. “The Rhetorical Role Of ‘Collocational Chains’ And Their Implications In The Building Of Scientific Discourse Strategies.”European Journal Of English Studies 17.3 (2013): 235-250. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Oct. 2015.
Dirk, Kerry, “Navigating Genres.” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Eds. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Parlor Press, 2010. 249-262. Web.
Swales, John. “The Concept of Discourse Community.” Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990.
Yore, L., Florence, M., Pearson, T., & Weaver, A. (2006). Scientific Discourse Communities. Retrieved October 7, 2015, from http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/ClimateChangeWhiteboard/Resources/Uncertainty/Mac1/yore06PR.pdf
