Download
1 / 16
160 likes | 166 Views
Discover the primary goal of good scientific writing, the importance of communication, and the key elements that distinguish scientific writing from other literature. Learn about the thinking process and writing process involved in scientific writing, including formulating a hypothesis and organizing the article.
E N D
ACADEMIC WRITING LectureIV The PerfectScientificArticle is Yet To Be Written
The PrimaryGoal of GoodScientificWriting is toCommunicateGoodScience • %99 of scientistsagreethatwriting is a integralpart of theirjob as scientists. • Fewerthan %5 have ever had anyformalinstruction in scientificwriting as part of theirscientifictraining. • Formost, theonlylearningexperiencetheyhave is theexampletheygetfromthescientificliteraturethattheyread. • About %10 enjoywriting; theother %90 consider it a necessarycore.
The PrimaryGoal of GoodScientificWriting is toCommunicateGoodScience • In science, regardless of thefield, there is a commonsaying, “If youhaven’twritten it, youhaven’t done it.” It can be developed by such an addition: “If youwrite it, but no onereads it, youstillhaven’t done it.” + If youwrite it upand it is read but not understoodyoustillhaven’t done it.
Written, read, understood. FirstStyle SecondStyle “Research is theseekinganddiscovery of informationthatwas not knownpreviously. I amwritingthisforyou, whohavebeentrained a scientisttoseekoutinformationandmakesomething of it. I amputtingthe data beforeyou, togetherwithsomeinterpretationand i expectyoutouseyourskillstoworkoutmuch of what it means”. • “I havejustbeenpart of an adventure of discovery in scienceand i havefoundsomethingthat i wanttosharewithyou, thereader. In thisarticle, i amgoingtotakeyou on thesameadventureandtellyouwhatmademeexcitedabout it. In doingso i hopeyouwillrecogniseandappreciatemyscientificcontribution.”
Written, read, understood. • Therearejustthreeimmutablecharacteristics of goodscientificwritingthatdistinguish it fromallotherliterature. It mustalways be • Precise • Clear • Brief. • If it is vague, it is not scientificwriting; if it is unclearorambiguous, it is not scientificwritingandif it is longwindedandunnecessarilydiscursive, it is poorscientificwriting.
Thinking Process / WritingProcess • Step 1: Youpredicttheresults of theresearchyouareplanningto do. • Step 2: Yousortoutwhyyouthinkthatyouwillgettheseresults. • Step 3: Youimaginehowyouwouldpresentthem. • Step 4: Youimaginehowyouwouldexplainthem.
Thinking Process / WritingProcess • It mayseem as iftheprediction in Step 1 is simply a piece of guesswork but Step 2 quicklydispenseswiththat idea because it requiresthatyousupportyourpredictionwith a logicallyreasonedcasebased on defensibleevidencefrompublishedandacceptableinformation.
Thinking Process / WritingProcess • Thispart, obviously, involvesyou in a lot of thinking, reading, interpretationandrethinking- andit takes time. • The rewardforthis is that, onceyouhavesubstantiatedyourprediction in thisway, it becomesyourhypothesisandyounowhave it as thecentralfocusfortheexperimentyouwill do andwriteabout. Additionalnote: Scientific writing principle: One idea per article.
Thinking Process / WritingProcess • The Hypothesis; it can be decribed as “a reasonablescientificproposal”. It is not a statement of fact but a statementthattakes us justbeyondknowninformationandanticipatesthenextlogical step in a sequance of supportableprecepts.
Thinking Process / WritingProcess • The Hypothesis has tohavetwoattributesto be useful in scientificinvestigation: • it must fit theknowninformationand • it must be testable. Tocomplywiththefirstattribute, you, thescientisthavetoreadandunderstandtheliterature. Tocomplywiththesecond, youhaveto do an experiment.
The Formation of a scientificarticle Expressingyourhypothesis in theIntroductionis themosteffectiveway of establishingthatfocusbecause it givesyourreaders a clear idea of whattoexpect in the rest of thescientificarticle.
The Formation of a scientificarticle The introductionconcists of justtwoparts: • The hypothesisorwhatyouexpectedtofind • The logicalreasoningthatmadethishypothesisthemostplausibleexpectationaboutthephenomenonyouwerestudying –andpracticallynothing else. Occasionally, these two essential elements may be backed by one or two sentences that put the work in context or emphasise its importance. (Why is themain problem of thearticleconsiderable, seriousandurgent?)
The Formation of a scientificarticle The results can be given priorities rather than appear as a homogeneous array of information. Resultswithhighprioritiesarethosethatrelatetothetesting of thehypothesisandthose of lowpriorityarethosethat do not.
The Formation of a scientificarticle The discussion can be organisedsimilarlyintocomponents of differentprioritiesbased on whetheror not theyareaboutresultsthatsupportorrejectthehypothesis.
The Formation of a scientificarticle The Introduction: It explainedwhythishypothesiswasthemostpleusibleexpectationaboutthesubjectbeingexplored. The Results It backedthisup. The Discussion It exploredtheconsequences in relationtothework of otherresearchersand, possibly, forbroaderapplication, eitherpracticalortheoretical.
The Formation of a scientificarticle Whataboutthestructure of an article in whichtheproposedhypothesisturnedoutto be wrongwhen it wastested? The Introduction: It explainedwhythishypothesiswasthemostpleusibleexpectationaboutthesubjectbeingexplored… beforeyoucomeupwiththesenewreasults. The Results It blews a hole in thatplausibility. The Discussion It exploredwhythelogicthatmadetheoriginalhypothesisseemplausiblewaswrong, howwehavetorethinkourconceptsaboutthework of othersand, possibly, whatweshould do differently in applyingthisinformationpracticallyor in theory.
