Due Monday, 10/16 -- IMRaD Reflection
The IMRaD report is different from the normal, persuasive papers I often write for English classes. In those persuasive papers, I am often trying to make an argument, relying on facts, data, and authoritative sources to support the argument. Often, I rely on emotional appeals, trying to convince an audience through feelings, as well as facts. I also structure my papers in a way that requires readers to read my argument all the way through, hoping to draw them into the argument, and leave them persauded. The IMRaD report differs from all of my tendencies.
First of all, I am not necessarily trying to make an argument in an IMRaD report; I am just trying to explain the facts. The structure of the report shows this. Tables and graphs are encouraged, and the most emphasized section of the report is the data, which displays all the facts, and the discussion, which explains the facts. Ultimately, this is a very factually-centered style of paper.
I also cannot use emotional appeals in this report, not only because I'm not making an argument, but because emotion has little use here. Facts are the main focus in this report, as aforementioned, and they speak for themselves. Certain facts may have heavy connotations, but ultimately, those connotations are left for readers to unearth themselves. The IMRaD report clings to objectivity.
Finally, the structure of the IMRaD report is completely different than a regular, persuasive paper. The report implements an abstract, which summarizes the report reveals the reports' findings before one can even read the introduction. From there, the report is divided into different sections, with headings marking the way. Smooth transitions are not mandatory for these reports. On the other hand, an author never wants to reveal all of his or her point at the beginning of the paper; he or she wants to present each point when the time is right and the point will be most emotionally persuasive and effective. In traditional papers, an author also mirrors this desire for emotional effectiveness by refraining from using headings in his or her paper. Instead, he or she hopes to sweep the reader along within an argument, implementing smooth transitions so the reader does not often stop and question a finding or conclusion.
First of all, I am not necessarily trying to make an argument in an IMRaD report; I am just trying to explain the facts. The structure of the report shows this. Tables and graphs are encouraged, and the most emphasized section of the report is the data, which displays all the facts, and the discussion, which explains the facts. Ultimately, this is a very factually-centered style of paper.
I also cannot use emotional appeals in this report, not only because I'm not making an argument, but because emotion has little use here. Facts are the main focus in this report, as aforementioned, and they speak for themselves. Certain facts may have heavy connotations, but ultimately, those connotations are left for readers to unearth themselves. The IMRaD report clings to objectivity.
Finally, the structure of the IMRaD report is completely different than a regular, persuasive paper. The report implements an abstract, which summarizes the report reveals the reports' findings before one can even read the introduction. From there, the report is divided into different sections, with headings marking the way. Smooth transitions are not mandatory for these reports. On the other hand, an author never wants to reveal all of his or her point at the beginning of the paper; he or she wants to present each point when the time is right and the point will be most emotionally persuasive and effective. In traditional papers, an author also mirrors this desire for emotional effectiveness by refraining from using headings in his or her paper. Instead, he or she hopes to sweep the reader along within an argument, implementing smooth transitions so the reader does not often stop and question a finding or conclusion.
Comments
Post a Comment