This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by THOMPSON, D. K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Arguing for Experimental "Facts" in Science

A Study of Research Article Results Sections in Biochemistry

Pennsylvania State University

Rhetorical studies on experimental research articles in science have focused predominantly on introductions and discussions. The contextual nature of Results sections—the empirical heart of a scientific article—remains largely unexplored, however. What is known about the content of these sections comes from prescriptive style guides, which define Results as purely expository, leaving the argumentation to other sections of the article. This study examines one eminent biochemist's publications over time and a sampling of current articles authored by other biochemists. Six rhetorical moves were identified: (a) justifications for methodological selections, (b) interpretations of experimental results, (c) evaluative comments on experimental data, (d) statements citing agreement with preestablished studies, (e) statements disclosing experimental discrepancies, and (f) statements admitting interpretive perplexities. This investigation demonstrates that biochemists explicitly argue for the validity of their experimental data by employing certain rhetorical moves. Moreover, the findings challenge the traditional lore that Results sections engage in only simple, factual reporting.

Written Communication, Vol. 10, No. 1, 106-128 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0741088393010001004


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. A. RIER The Versatile "Caveat" Section of an Epidemiology Paper: Managing Public and Private Risk Science Communication, September 1, 1999; 21(1): 3 - 37. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. A. WINSOR Rhetorical Practices in Technical Work Journal of Business and Technical Communication, July 1, 1998; 12(3): 343 - 370. [Abstract]

				K. HYLAND Talking to the Academy: Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles Written Communication, April 1, 1996; 13(2): 251 - 281. [Abstract]

				B. THACKER and J. F. STRATMAN Transmuting Common Substances: The Cold Fusion Controversy and the Rhetoric of Science Journal of Business and Technical Communication, October 1, 1995; 9(4): 389 - 424. [Abstract]