Hello, this is Satu again. In this video I'm going to talk about the basic IMRaD structure. Some of you have probably seen the acronym IMRaD before. But if you haven't, you need to know what it means and what disciplines use IMRaD structure in essays and research papers. IMRaD is an acronym that stands for introduction, methods, results, and discussion. It's the most commonly used format for scientific papers or papers that are based on experimental studies. In fact, in some disciplines, medicine, for instance, the IMRaD structure is pretty much the only format used for writing up papers. If we think about it, the IMRaD structure bares much in common with a typical three part essay structure. It has an introduction; the methods and results make up the body, and the conclusion consists of the discussion part. So, let's now work through each of the component parts of an IMRaD paper in turn. Firstly of course, we have the introduction. If you want a neat formula for structuring the introductory part of your essay, I'd recommend turning to John Swales' CARS model. CARS is another acronym that stands for creating a research space, and the module maps out the moves that an introduction typically makes. According to Swales' ecological metaphor, we writers are like plants competing for space, water, and nutrients in an ecosystem. We need to find a place to grow, create a gap in this space, and then occupy the space. According to the CARS model, the first move in an introduction should be to establish your territory. This often means making some sort of claim to centrality which tells your reader why this area is interesting and worthy of research. Reviewing previous work that is of relevance and making general claims about your topic can also be considered part of staking out your territory. What you should aim to do at this stage is position yourself in relation to previous work. Move two, according to the CARS model, involves establishing your own niche. To do this, you might counter some claims that other researchers have made. Maybe you will raise some sort of problem that needs an answer, a problem that previous work has not been able to solve, or the solutions are somehow incomplete. Or they introduce a number of new problems that also need to be solved. Or perhaps you might indicate a gap where there is lack of research. It might also be valid to just claim that you are continuing or developing an existing tradition. Perhaps your goal is to apply someone else's ideas to new material. In the final move of the introduction, move three of the CARS model, you need to occupy the space that you've staked out. You need to plant yourself in the soil. Here you will present a statement of purpose, that is, the main claim that you will make in your paper. It's usual at this point to provide some sort of outline of the rest of the essay or research article, a sort of blueprint or mapping statement, and perhaps make a claim about the broader significance of your research. In other words, state how it will contribute to discussions of the topic more broadly speaking. Basically, you should be trying to convince your reader of the importance of your work. Because the introductory part of an IMRaD essay or research paper involves positioning and persuasion, the chances are you will find yourself using more of the active voice than when it comes to the method section for instance. This is because what you do in comparison to what other researchers have done is important. So as you can see, when it comes to the introduction, we have not deviated too far from the typical three part essay. The next two parts of the IMRaD essay, the method part and the results part, are in effect the main body of the paper. The main purpose of the method section is to convince your target audience that the way you've gone about collecting your results, the materials that you used to support your main claim and the possible subclaims is valid. What did you do? How did you do it, and what materials did you use? Did you have any problems? And if you did, how did you solve them? It's important to make sure that the materials that you use meet what rhetorician Richard Fulkerson calls, and yes we have another acronym coming up, the STAR criteria. STAR stands for sufficiency, typicality, accuracy, and relevance. The idea is that you should collect enough materials so that they truly support your claims. The materials should be representative and typical of what you're studying. The materials should be accurate and up-to-date. And finally, they should be relevant to the claims that you're making in your essay or research paper. Because you are reporting what you have done, it's common to use mostly the past tense in the passive voice. For instance, the experiment was conducted by doing X, Y, and Z, or the materials were collected in this way or that way. The results section, the R in the acronym IMRaD, is where you present the findings of your study. This is the most important section of your paper, as this is where you can show what it is that you've actually found. This is your contribution to the field. It might seem that reporting your findings is a simple task, but things are not always as simple as they may seem. As the author, it's up to you to decide what results you want to present and what the order in which you want to present them is. So that some of the results get foregrounded while others get backgrounded. Presenting your results in a particular way, or in a particular order is part of telling a bigger story of your research. Some things are more important than others, and some of your findings are more conclusive or novel than others. In your results section, you may find yourself having to use visuals, such as tables, figures, diagrams, charts, or drawings, to help tell the particular story that you want to tell. Here you have the added dilemma of how to comment on your data within the running text. You don't simply want to retell what any reader can decipher themselves from the visuals that you've included in this part of your essay. But you want to be showing the results to your audience in view of your particular stance. This leads us on neatly to the discussion part of your paper. And this is where you should, as the name suggests, discuss and interpret your findings and connect them to previous research on the topic that is of relevance. If you think about the shape of the introduction, the discussion section turns the funnel shape on its head. Instead of starting with a broad context and narrowing down to your specific purpose, the discussion section typically begins by restating your main findings. And then broadens out to discuss the significance of these results to the field at large. Just as it's possible to determine certain set moves in the introduction, a pattern of moves can also be determined in the case of the discussion. John Swales and Christine Feak have mapped these out into the following five stages. The first move appears in some, but not all papers, and this is the presentation of background information. Move 2 is the obligatory summarizing of key results. Move 3 is where the actual discussion of results takes place. And sometimes it might be necessary to mention the limitations of your study, which is move 4. And finally, move 5 is the place to suggest further research or broader implications. Whilst I was talking, you might have already asked yourself, but hang on, how can I possibly present my results without commenting on them there and then? If this was a thought that occurred to you, then yes, you're on to something here. Sometimes the essay guidelines you receive from your teacher will stipulate that you have to adhere strictly to the IMRaD structure. But you might also be allowed to use some variation of the structure. For instance, many disciplines tend to combine the results and discussion section to get around the problem of having rather brutally divide findings from interpretations of these findings. It's also common to see a conclusion as a separate section after the discussion part. Other common variations include the addition of a separate literature review or theory section after the introduction. It's important that you read the essay guidelines that you've received from your teacher carefully so that you know what applies to the essay that you are expected to write. So, why is the IMRaD structure so ubiquitous, and what does it offer you as a writer and/or as a reader? While following the IMRaD setup might initially seem very restrictive, there are still many choices that you need to make in terms of the presentation of your research. What the IMRaD structure does is supply you with a framework with which to write in an economical fashion, and in a way that will be instantly recognizable to your target readers. They are expecting you to do certain things in a certain way. And any deviations from the conventions will direct their attention away from the contents of your paper. By abiding by the rules of the game and sticking to conventions, you're not limiting yourself but rather making yourself convincing to your target reader. So that when you say something that maybe novel or challenging you will be taken seriously. [MUSIC]
