The genre of research articles

This post is devoted to the genre of research articles. (If you need a brief introduction to what I
mean by genre, read Pros have contextualized knowledge.) The ultimate proving ground for
researchers outside the humanities, where books and essays may still be king, is publication
of articles in peer-reviewed journals or conference collections. Im teaching a course on
scholarly communication to doctoral students this semester. And we are spending the bulk of our
time on writing research articles. So I thought Id share what Ive learned about this genre.
You may find it odd that I would tackle this genre on Pros Write. But I intend no April Fools
Day joke. Let me briefly explain why research articles can count as professional writing. As
Ive said many times, Im not a fan of academic writing because it normally involves asking
students to write for teachers, with no real NEED to communicate a message. So its really the
lack of authentic rhetorical context I object to not the fact that the writing is done in school.
(I do teach writing myself after all.) That means I am interested in authentic writing. Nearly all
academics in higher ed have to demonstrate their ability to write about research to be recognized
as a pro in their specific discipline and in higher ed, more generally. Thus, research articles are
arguably the most important genre researchers must master.
So what do we know about the genre of research articles (RAs from now on)? RA content and its
arrangement are often described by the acronym, IMRAD, or less frequently, IMRD.

Introduction

Methods

Results and

Discussion

Research
ers, especially in the hard sciences, have used these terms to describe the pattern of
information in research articles since early in the 20th century, but their use became more
prevalent in the 1970s.
In some disciplines, and in some journals, its common to use headings in an article that are
identical to those terms which gave rise to the acronym. But there is quite a lot of variation. Lets
see how this pattern applies to the sample RA shown below.
The table lists the headings in the sample RA and how they correspond to those in IMRAD.
Click on the links in the table to see my guidance for each section of an RA.
IMRAD

Sample
Article

Introduction (Introduction)

Research Rhetorical Function

Establish research topic and
justify need for more research

Understanding
Demonstrate
current
(Literature (In)justice
knowledge of research and
Review)
Rapport
Management develop research questions
Behavior
Describe
approach
to
Methods
Method
answering research questions
Describe data gathered via
Results
Interpretations
of approach
Rapport
Management Provide answers to research
Discussion and (In)justice
questions based on data
gathered
(Conclusions Conclusions
Evaluate research and make

deductions for the future

There are four apparent discrepancies.

1. The sample RA doesnt include the actual heading Introduction. But there is a section
after the abstract that functions like an introduction (establishing the topic and justifying
the research).
2. The sample RA includes two headings that arent easily matched against the IMRAD
descriptors. Researchers in the social sciences would call these two sections the
Literature Review. Its so commonplace Ive added it in parentheses within the IMRAD
column of the table. In the hard sciences, the literature is reviewed within the
Introduction because there is generally less previous research to consider. But more
extensive literature reviews are the norm in other fields. (I can explain this but wont
subject you to it right now.)
3. The sample RA combines the Results and Discussion sections in IMRAD. This is
commonplace in social science research that does not generate quantitative data for
analysis with statistics sometimes called qualitative research. But the functions of
both sections are achieved by describing data and discussing its relevance for answering
questions in an integrated way.
4. The sample RA includes a Conclusion section, which is not named in IMRAD. While
most RAs include a Conclusion, the length of that section varies widely. It tends to be
very short a single paragraph in much hard science, which is why I suspect it is
omitted from IMRAD.
Despite the wide range of disciplines producing research journals, most of their articles follow
the IM(LR)RAD pattern. Thats because they accept, at least in part, the scientific method. The
same rhetorical functions must be achieved by the RA even if researchers can be more or less
inventive with the wording of their section headings.
Because the rhetorical function of each section of the RA is different, the textual elements most
commonly used within those sections also differ. Building from information in John
Swales Create-A-Research-Space (CARS) model, ), I provide the table below.
RA
Sections

Tense

Passive

present
is
Introduction high & past is Low
mid
present
is
(Literature
high & past is Mid
Review)
mid
Methods
present is low High

Citation

Hedgin Commentar
g
y

High

Mid

High

High

Mid

Mid

Low

Low

Low

& past is high

present is low
No
Results
No pattern
& past is high
pattern
Discussion present
is
(Conclusions high & past is No pattern High
)
mid

Mid

No pattern

High

High

Theres much more to say about the genre of research articles. But this post is already pretty
long. Ill do a series of posts on each of the sections of the RA in the future. For now, youve
learned about the overall structure of RA sections and their rhetorical functions. Thats enough
for today!

Related Research
Swales & Feak (1994). Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.