In the course Writing for the Sciences, we explored important genres of scientific writing, focusing in depth on the genres of researched op-ed and IMRaD. For each genre, we studied well-written examples and investigated how the author of each one considered important rhetorical aspects of science writing, such as who the intended audience is, the overall purpose of the piece, the tone used throughout, and other standard conventions that help the writer clearly communicate the main ideas. 

With the researched op-ed response, it was essential to consider the intended audience of the piece. Since this writing is intended for a general audience, we had to make sure that the message could be understood by someone in the general public who did not necessarily have an extensive scientific background. That meant refraining from using scientific jargon that the average person would not understand, while still getting the important science across.

While the purpose of some scientific writing is conveying information in an unbiased way, the purpose of the scientific op-ed can be more persuasive than simply informative. When I claim in my researched op-ed response that “We must address these [gender] disparities [in STEM] at a young age, beginning in early elementary school,” I am making a value judgment that I then have to support and argue for, rather than an objective statement that can be shown to be true with empirical data. In supporting my claim and trying to get the reader to see the issue as I do, my op-ed incorporates rhetorical appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos. In an appeal to logos, data such as “52 percent of kids believing that boys are better at engineering and only 10 percent thinking that girls are better” help the reader to logically grasp the scope of the issue. Quoting experts throughout the op-ed is an appeal to ethos that lends credence to the argument being made. I was not sure at first whether referencing my one-year-old daughter would be appropriate in a scientific op-ed response, but I was ultimately convinced that it would be a strong appeal to pathos and would make for a more persuasive argument. After completing the researched op-ed response, I have a much more complete understanding of how the three rhetorical appeals can work together to make for writing that will be most likely to convince the reader of the author’s point. 

For the IMRaD paper, the audience is more specialized than the general audience of a scientific op-ed. Because IMRaD articles are usually published in scientific journals, the audience is other scientists who have a much deeper background in science than the general public. With that well-informed audience in mind, the writing in IMRaD papers can rely on scientific jargon, as it can be assumed that the reader will have the requisite knowledge to understand it. 

The purpose of IMRaD papers is to present the findings of primary research done by the authors. It communicates those findings in a very structured format consisting of an introduction detailing the current state of research on the topic, a methodology section outlining the procedure, a results section with the gathered data, and a discussion section that puts those results into context. The tone throughout the whole IMRaD is formal, and it is conventional to describe the methods in passive voice, which has the effect of making the author seem more invisible in that section and gives a feeling of unbiasedness. For example, when I begin my IMRaD methods section with “An online survey was used to measure respondents’ growth mindset levels and happiness levels,” the passive voice acts to hide me from the process and give the survey more of an air of impartiality. Figuring out the tone in each section was one of the biggest areas of net growth for me, as an improper or unconventional tone in a genre as standardized as the IMRaD paper will very likely cause the reader to dismiss the paper, regardless of its other merits. 

Finally, I also experienced net growth in my understanding that even negative results (such as the lack of correlation found in my primary research data) are worthy of being analyzed and discussed in an IMRaD paper, as there is still a lot to glean from such studies.