Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The method section is where scientific writers explain the procedure of the experiment or research. In "Results," writers who follow the IMRaD format share, with neutrality, the experimental results, which in "Discussion," are compared with prior information to end with a conclusion about the research, which should be 3 to 5 paragraphs long and ...
Rhetoric of science is a body of scholarly literature exploring the notion that the practice of science is a rhetorical activity. It emerged after a number of similarly oriented topics of research and discussion during the late 20th century, including the sociology of scientific knowledge, history of science, and philosophy of science, but it is practiced most typically by rhetoricians in ...
In scientific writing, IMRAD or IMRaD (/ ˈ ɪ m r æ d /) (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) [1] is a common organizational structure for the format of a document. IMRaD is the most prominent norm for the structure of a scientific journal article of the original research type.
In 1990, Steven Hilgartner, a scholar in science and technology studies, criticized some academic research in public understanding of science. [49] Hilgartner argued that what he called "the dominant view" of science popularization tends to imply a tight boundary around those who can articulate true, reliable knowledge. [49]
Scholarly communication involves the creation, publication, dissemination and discovery of academic research, primarily in peer-reviewed journals and books. [1] It is “the system through which research and other scholarly writings are created, evaluated for quality, disseminated to the scholarly community, and preserved for future use."
Research is often conducted using the hourglass model structure of research. [30] The hourglass model starts with a broad spectrum for research, focusing in on the required information through the method of the project (like the neck of the hourglass), then expands the research in the form of discussion and results.
There are many philosophical and historical theories as to how scientific consensus changes over time. Because the history of scientific change is extremely complicated, and because there is a tendency to project "winners" and "losers" onto the past in relation to the current scientific consensus, it is very difficult to come up with accurate and rigorous models for scientific change. [17]
The results and discussion section describes the outcome and implications of the research, and the conclusion section places the research in context and describes avenues for further exploration. In addition to the above, some scientific journals such as Science will include a news section where scientific developments (often involving ...