An additional component of Project 2 was an IMRAD reflection. This assignment was to reflect on my use of the IMRAD structure, which is usually used in experimental contexts, and take note of how I adapted it to fit my interpretive and argumentative purpose with Project 2. The reflection is found below: 

The IMRAD document structure was initially created to format reports of experimental research, often in scientific fields. The acronym stands for the five sections of an IMRAD report: Introduction, Methods, Results, Abstract, and Discussion. The IMRAD structure is especially useful in scientific fields because it allows readers to easily find the information they are looking for within in the document. Furthermore, because experiments are legitimized through replication, IMRAD documents concisely present the steps conducted and the results of the experiment so other can test it out themselves. The majority of the sections are quite rigid in their function. The introduction broadly describes the topic under consideration and also presents the question. It can also briefly preview the experiment and process. The methods section usually has two subheadings: materials and procedures. The materials portion outlines the necessary tools and apparatuses for the experiment while the procedure is often presented as a detailed, step by step list of the entire experiment. The results section is very standard. It presents the raw data as concisely as possible, without any interpretation. The abstract is the most fluid aspect in the IMRAD structure. The abstract section usually comes first in the document, despite its position in the acronym, and its purpose is to provide a summary of the entire document and experiment- from the initial question to the derived conclusions after the experiment is over. Finally, the discussion section is where the author interprets the results and draws conclusions from them. Also, they often take note of possible sources of error in the experiment and attempt to apply the significance of the results in a broader context in this section. Overall, the purposes of the sections of the IMRAD structure are very well suited for experimental reporting, which is a far cry from interpretive writing.

In my IMRAD essay, I had to adapt this structure greatly to have the desired effect on my interpretive and argumentative purpose. Specifically, the methods, results, and discussion section required a lot of creativity and adaptation. Because this essay had two interacting components, the critical lens and evidence, I substituted the procedures subheading under methods with introducing my critical lens and the materials section with information about the evidence for my argument. My paper made an argument that interpreted Emma Sulkowicz’s “Mattress Performance” with two seemingly dissimilar critical lenses, the Occupy movement and Endurance Performance Art. I made the critical lenses the procedures because they were doing the heavy-lifting, analytical part of the essay, just like the actual action of going through the procedure is in an experimental context, and the evidence the materials because that was what was being acted upon. The results in the experimental context serve to report what happened when you combine the prescribed materials with the steps in the procedure so I did just that with my interpretive results section. Every paragraph in my results section describes an interaction between some evidence from my materials and one of the critical lenses from the procedures. I tried my best to avoid drawing conclusions in this section but because it was an argumentative essay, some of my diction was argumentative and hinted at my thesis. Finally, the discussion is where I really drew conclusions. The IMRAD structure is similar to a thesis last essay structure, with the question in the introduction and the conclusion in the discussion, so I modeled my discussion section similarly. In one paragraph I expressly stated my thesis and briefly cited the results from the previous section to back it up. I also had another paragraph that emphasized the significance of this analysis and the conclusions that I drew from it. I think this adaptation was appropriate for my purpose of writing an interpretive essay without losing the essence of the IMRAD structure.

I have already briefly touched on my research process when discussing the methods section, but there are significant differences between my process and that of scientists who would use this format for their lab reports. In scientific contexts, the researchers prepare a lot but don’t really know what will come of their experiments and what the results will mean until it is all over. In my process, on the other hand, because I was reading critical lens articles and evidentiary articles simultaneously, I was already able to make connections in my head without expressly coming to a final conclusion and thesis. This stark difference definitely changed the way I used the IMRAD model and I think the most obvious example of this is the order in which I wrote the sections. I have written IMRAD documents in a scientific context before and under those circumstances it was obvious to follow straight down the linear path of which sections to write when. However, when I was writing this interpretive essay, I skipped around much more. Throughout the research process I was already making connections that manifested themselves as results and from there making extensions and connections which ended up being elements of my discussion. Eventually, while I was formally writing the essay, I wrote my entire methods section first to ensure that the elements I would be referring to later in the essay were present but then I would write a paragraph of my results section and then skip down to the discussion section and write a few sentences interpreting those results. This strategy would be very difficult to implement in a scientific context but with the interpretive essay it worked really well.

Although I don’t think I would elect to write an interpretive essay in an IMRAD structure, I can appreciate the added insight it provided for my audience. Although the intended audience were my peers, who were already familiar with my topic, I think that by providing them with information about the evidence and lens concepts I would be using first, without beginning the argumentative piece of the essay, it made my claims clearer later on in the essay. Furthermore, even though it is highly unlikely that a reader would want to totally replicate my research and writing process, by giving them the information I drew my results and conclusions from first, the reader could begin to draw their own conclusions before they even knew what my thesis was. I think that this relationship between author and reader allows for a sort of dialogue that isn’t present in traditional, thesis-first essay formats and this can be especially valuable for interpretive, argumentative essays. Overall, while adapting an experimental writing format to fit an essay context was initially daunting, there was definitely value in it for both me and my audience and I am quite pleased with the product.