Adapting the IMRAD Reflection
IMRAD is an organizational structure used in scientific research papers in both physical and social sciences. The IMRAD method targets specific disciplines, audiences and research methods. It requires the writer to have a specific question in mind and explores the methods used to answer the question along with the research’s significance and broader implications. Thus, IMRAD’s organizational structure serves a purpose of exploration by featuring four main elements: introduction, methods, results and discussion.
Contrary to popular opinion, the purpose of the Introduction in a research setting is not to provide a comprehensive literature review of the field of study. Rather, the introduction sets the scene for the rest of the paper by presenting a “problem” to be explored. Some relevant background information is needed to contextualize the problem, such as important key terms and concepts so that the reader will understand the experiment. Relevant background also provides a rationale for how the research question arose by presenting the conflicting or agreeable discourse in the field. However, the introduction’s main goal is to successfully engage the reader into a new perspective while prompting them to care about the research. In order to do so, there should be a clearly framed hypothesis and a brief hint at what was achieved through this exploration.
The next element in the IMRD structure is the methods section. It explains the general method used to conduct the research, including materials and procedures. The purpose of detailing the procedures used is to allow another capable researcher to accurately repeat the experiments describe. By emphasizing repetition, the author can solidify his paper’s accountability in the field. Because the paper assumes the audience has not conducted this specific experiment yet, the methods section guides the audience through the procedures and gives them a chance to view the project from an unbiased perspective.
Following methods is the most important section of the paper- results. The main findings of the research are presented either qualitatively or quantitatively in this section. The results are important because they determine how the introduction and discussion sections will be framed. In addition, it’s important to consider multiple types of evidence (numbers, visual aids, interviews) to support the hypothesis in order to create a stronger, more irrefutable conclusion. No discussion is made in the results section; rather, the author provides present empirical, unbiased evidence that lets the reader draw their own conclusions.
Discussion is an important section of the research paper because it gathers together the evidence presented in a broader context. This section examines the patterns and principles governing the hypothesis and explores how the hypothesis relates to other discourse in the field. Simply presenting results is not enough because it leaves the evidence open to interpretation and reduces the impact it could have had. A discussion section invites the reader to draw their own conclusions while providing a potential framework of thought. Thus, discussion is used to maximize the impact of the paper’s findings in a broader, more applicable context.
In addition to the four elements, an IMRAD paper also features a title page and short abstract. The title is concise and easy to search for in a database while the abstract summarizes the paper without specific details. With all of these qualities, the IMRAD method serves as a notable structure that effectively presents information in a logical, exploratory manner.
For Project 2, I adapted the scientific IMRAD structure for my scholarly research paper. Although my project did not generate an empirical scientific question, which is what IMRAD is typically used for, I adapted the IMRAD structure because it generated a logical outline to explore my research question.
To adapt the structure, I incorporated key headings such as Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion and also presented a title page and abstract. However, I incorporated my own personal interpretation of what information belongs in each section. Similar to the original IMRD structure, my introduction included a brief summary of shared context and uncontested facts that the audience should know about Swamp Gravy, such as the broader principle of localism and a narrative account of Swamp Gravy’s history. In the methods section, rather than using a general list of procedures like in a scientific experiment, I adapted the section to include the method (procedure) and materials used. In the case of expository writing, method is defined as the conceptual lens used to interpret my research question’s significance and the data used o generate my claims. This includes past discourse that draws on specific principles I use to define and explore my research boundaries. Materials in my paper is defined in a less literal sense than its scientific counterpart. Rather than objects, material includes sources such as archival data that I looked at to generate meaning. My results section also varied greatly from the typical IMRD format. Instead of reporting on numbers and statistics, I used a vast amount of description of buildings and programs that have been created because of Swamp Gravy. In the case of expository writing, the results section is defined by a great deal of quotes, interviews and personal statements that qualitatively illustrate my results. Finally, I define my discussion in terms of my project’s broader significance and implications in the world. I discuss how future organizations may follow my experiment to procure similar or even better findings but also explain the limitations of my research.
As opposed to the quantitative analysis and procedure of a scientific experiment, my research procedure was a lot more qualitative and explanatory. Rather than providing a step-by-step rulebook for how the experiment should be reproduced, the procedure in my expository essay focused much more on providing the audience with an unbiased basis of how I approached my research question. Although the conceptual lens seems to regurgitate past ideas, it is important that the audience is familiar with past discourse in order to generate their own opinions on the project. I admit that it was difficult at first to adapt the IMRD structure in a more qualitative sense because I was lost with which information should be included in which section. However, by thinking about each sections original purpose in the paper, I can better define boundaries of which information belongs where. For example, the purpose of the methods section is to provide enough details for reproducibility. Thus, the information I include in the methods section must introduce and synthesize the credible voices related to my research question so that future researchers may follow my procedure and arrive at a similar answer.
The adapted IMRD structure was extremely helpful in enhancing the audience’s understanding of my argument and purpose. As opposed to a five paragraph essay, the adapted IMRD structure organized my paper in a logical manner that guided the reader through a step-by-step process of how I generated and explored my research question. The IMRD structure also allows for broader implications, which encourages the reader to form their own opinion of the question rather than merely absorbing my answer. In past synthesis papers I’ve written, I’ve included numerous pieces of evidence (in the form of quotes) in all parts of the paper. Using the IMRD structure, however, has brought functionality for each section- I only used quotes in the results section as evidence. In addition, experimenting with the adapted structure was not only beneficial for my audience, but also for myself. I discovered that my research question was constantly evolving and the best way to refine my compelling question was through the IMRD structure. By purposefully creating a section for results, I could think logically about how my evidence was linked to other parts of my essay.