Original Paragraph:

I believe that within the science Discourse, certain parts of scientific articles have more importance than others with more value being given to the title and abstract than the methodology. Gee believes that politics within a Discourse is the acceptability, or lack thereof, of different behaviors and practices. The politics within a Discourse shift the practices of those within the Discourse. He discusses politics or the distribution of social goods by saying,  “social goods are potentially at stake anytime we speak or write in a way that states or implies that something or someone is ‘adequate,’ ‘normal,’ ‘good,’ or ‘acceptable’ (or the opposite) in some fashion important to some group in society or society as a whole”(Gee 34). The science Discourse values information that relates to their area of study or expertise. This political idea shapes the way that those within the science Discourse approach reading and writing scientific articles. “The prevailing trend is said that, on average, the number of readers from one section to the next [Title- Abstract – Results – Full Paper] decreases by a factor of ten … Thus, for every person who reads the full paper, 1,000 read the title” (Nair and Nair 14). In Nair and Nair’s quote, they discuss the importance of the title of an article. Even scientists view hundreds of titles before diving into the abstract to see if the full article is worth reading. This practice shows what parts of the article are truly valued. Going in the order that Nair and Nair suggest most readers follow, a lot of weight is put on the title. The title is supposed to give readers an inside view of what the paper is about. Then the abstract allows the readers to learn a little bit more. The abstract still holds more weight in a journal article than the results do, according to Nair and Nair. If the reader determines that all of these three pieces are “acceptable” then they are more likely to read the full article. I would argue that this reading norm puts less emphasis on the introduction, methods, and discussion sections. Those specific parts, in my experience, are important if one is trying to replicate or question the validity of a study.

Revision Process – Breaking it down

Within the scientific Discourse, you can see the practices that allow those belonging to the Discourse to function productively. Gee has looked at these practices and has defined them in a broad sense as a “socially recognized and institutionally or culturally supported endeavor that usually involves sequencing or combining actions in a certain specified way”( 32). These practices can be seen in the “IMRAD Cheat Sheet”. The cheat sheet is a simplified way to write a scientific article in a way that is deemed appropriate by most scientific journals. The practice of a paper format helps keep consistency between papers in terms of formatting and information to include. As an outside audience, we can interpret reliable and relevant information as a value within the Discourse. This political value shapes the way that those within the science Discourse approach reading and writing scientific articles. It would be frustrating to read several articles on one topic and have each contain different information in a different order. It makes the process of comparing and analyzing more difficult. If writers construct their scholarly articles using the IMRAD format, they enable their reader to utilize their work more efficiently.