Hello! I hope you guys are keeping well. In this latest post, I
wish to share with you, albeit briefly, an IMRAD model globally accepted as a
blueprint to scholarly article writing.
If you aspire to publish in highly esteemed journals (i.e
beginners like myself), this should serve as a starting mark.
This model was developed in the 1940s and began to be appreciated
by the 1970s and has gained traction over the years to be accepted by most
journals and editors-in-chief (Wu, 2011).
THE ACRONYM
1. Introduction 2. Methods
3. Results & 4. Discussion
STEP BY STEP
1. Introduction: The importance of this
initial part of the scientific paper needs does not have to be over emphasized.
Like in any kind of composition, the introduction should set the scene, open
gates and entice the reader to go further. It should be well crafted to reveal
gaps that exist in current literature that which you aim to address (in part as
research can't cover every part of a phenomenon). The problem you are trying to
address should be painted RED and
explicit enough for the reader (Nenty, 2009). It also has to provide some background
information about what you are writing such that readers can appreciate and
trace the timeline of issue under investigation.
NB: Start as general & end as specific as possible
(Todorovic, 2003).
2.
Methods: “Sedibeng go iiwa ka
tesela” (a Setswana proverb) implies
that there has to be a way which is to be followed if we are to achieve our
targets. This also goes for empirical research. Researchers have to provide a
clear map of how they intend to tackle the problem under investigation. In
fact, the approach and design, subject/participants, sample & sampling
techniques and the tools for data collection should be described to the reader
& or researchers who would otherwise intent to embark on the same to try
and replicate your study findings.
NB: This should usually be described
under suitbale sub-headings (Todorovic, 2003).
3.
Results/Findings: These
should be presented subsequent from the data collection exercise. A rule of
thumb is to present the results/findings that are only congruent to the
research questions, objectives or hypothesis while anything else should be
treated as surplus to requirements and beside the point. Apart from being
presented in writing, illustrations, graphs and tables might be considered to
help present the results/findings differently and for emphasis purposes.
4.
Discussion:
This is one aspect of scholarly writing that is tricky to research rookies
because it demands a different kind of creativity, analysis and writing
prowess. However, practice and experience will lead you to the promised land.
In discussing the findings, writers should try to position their results
vis-à-vis what other writers before them have reported. As a point of caution,
this step should not be confused with literature review (a part of step 1
above). Connections and inferences based on and between the findings discussed
should be well laced as the writer makes their conclusions and recommendations.
The IMRAD serves as a
path to follow if one is to publish their works. This post should not, however,
be treated as absolute. It is not an in-depth description of the model but
rather a stepping stone for beginners. That notwithstanding, I hope this rant
helps a few starters out there in their pursuit to academic writing.
References
Nenty, H. J. (2009). Writing a
quantitative research
thesis. International Journal of Educational
Sciences, 1(1), 19-32
Todorovic, L. (2003). Original (scientific) paper- the IMRAD
layout. Archives of Ontology, 11(3),
203-205
Wu, J. (2011). Improving the writing of research papers:
IMRAD & beyond. Landscape Ecology, 26(10),
1345-1349
