The first post in this series looked at language that can be used when there is a knowledge gap. This post will focus on language you can use when there is an inconsistency in current knowledge, or a problem.
Here are some examples:
- "However the definition of compost and biowaste stability is a matter of some debate." (MacLeod et al. 2008)
- "The effects of sex steroids on the GH-IGF system reported to date are enigmatic." (Hansen et al. 2013)
- "The use of artificial media and amended soils in ecotoxicity studies remains a subject of debate." (Maderova et al. 2009)
To indicate an inconsistency or problem in current knowledge, these examples all use a word that implies some kind of doubt or controversy. A similar word that would also work well is "conflict", as in: "Reports on X appear to conflict." Because these sentences all summarize the state of the art in their field, they would work well at the beginning of a paragraph full of examples, as Maderova et al. do in their article.
EXERCISES
Read some studies in your field that
were written by researchers working in English-speaking countries. Do
they make clear what is unknown? How do they make it clear? With the
pattern we have seen today, or with different language?
COMING UP
I am going to take a break from writing during the next two weekends, so my next post will be on January 5th, 2014.
SOURCES
Hansen AM, Kittilson JD, Martin LE, Sheridan MA, "Environmental estrogens inhibit growth of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) by modulating the growth hormone-insulin-like growth factor system." General and Comparative Endocrinology (2013): doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2013.11.013 [unedited manuscript that had been accepted for publication]
Maderova, Lenka, Julian JC Dawson, and Graeme I. Paton. "Cu and Ni
mobility and bioavailability in sequentially conditioned soils." Water,
Air, & Soil Pollution 210, (2010): 63-73.
MacLeod I, Savage AL, Pahl O, Baird J, "Decline in microbial activity does not necessarily indicate an end to biodegradation in MSW-biowaste: A case study." Bioresource Technology 99 (2008): 8626-8630.
Good introductions to scientific papers always answer several questions for the readers. One of these questions is the following: What is unknown about your research topic? What is a gap in current knowledge, or a problem, or an inconsistency? (e.g. Zeiger 2000, 107-109; Booth et al. 2003, 224; Swales and Feak
2004, 244; Schultz 2009, 34; Valiela 2009, 139-140; Harmon and Gross
2010, 3-13: Schimel 2012, 35-65)
In last week's post, you might have noticed some similarities in the language that the authors used to answer this question. Here are some of those sentences; they all effectively explain the knowledge gap with language that is easy to use:
A) "However, there are no scientific reports comparing the use of these three freely available Excel-based tools for evaluation of the stability of reference genes in Hymenoptera." (Scharlaken et al. 2008)
C) "In column leaching processes, kinetics of HM [heavy metal] desorption/dissolution may become a more important factor than under batch extraction conditions; yet few studies have addressed this aspect." (Sun et al. 2001)
E) "Investigations of optimal operational factors and proper control of the composting process have been reported by several researchers, but studies investigating the thermal balance of this process are rare." (Ahn et al. 2007)
These sentences all share two elements:
- words that are used for contrast (however, yet, but), and
- either the word "no" or what Swales and Feak (2004, 258) call "quasi-negative" language (no scientific reports, few studies, studies…are rare).
The contrast word signals the reader that the focus of the introduction is changing from what is known to what is unknown. The word "no" or the "quasi-negative" language stress that little or no research has been done in this area, highlighting the novelty and originality of the authors' work. This helps to convince the editors and reviewers to accept the article, and the readers to read the article and perhaps to cite it. Because it is so important to highlight the knowledge gap, the ideal place to put these sentences is in one of the "power positions" of English discourse: at the beginning or at the end of a paragraph (Zeiger 2000, 99-100).
An important part of the grammar of these sentences is the difference between countable and uncountable nouns:
- With countable nouns, you should use "few", e.g. few studies, few reports.
- With uncountable nouns, you should use "little", e.g. little research, little data.
- You can use "no" with countable and uncountable nouns.
EXERCISES:
Read some studies in your field that were written by researchers working in English-speaking countries. Do they make the knowledge gap clear? How do they make it clear? With the pattern we have seen today (contrast word + no/"quasi-negative language"), or with different language?
Try to use the language pattern in this post to explain the knowledge gap that your next paper will attempt to fill. Remember to put this sentence at the beginning or the end of a paragraph.
SOURCES
Ahn, H. K., T. L. Richard, and H. L. Choi. "Mass and thermal balance during composting of a poultry manure—Wood shavings mixture at different aeration rates." Process Biochemistry 42 (2007): 215-223.
Scharlaken, Bieke, Dirk C. de Graaf, Karen Goossens, Marleen Brunain, Luc J. Peelman, and Frans J. Jacobs. "Reference gene selection for insect expression studies using quantitative real-time PCR: The head of the honeybee, Apis mellifera, after a bacterial challenge." Journal of insect Science 8 (2008), available online: insectscience.org/8.33
Sun, B., F. J. Zhao, E. Lombi, and S. P. McGrath. "Leaching of heavy metals from contaminated soils using EDTA." Environmental pollution 113, no. 2 (2001): 111-120.
REFERENCES
Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. The craft of research. University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Harmon, Joseph E., and Alan G. Gross. The craft of scientific communication. University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Schimel, Joshua. Writing science: how to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded. Oxford University Press, 2012.
Schultz, David M. Eloquent Science: A practical guide to becoming a better writer, speaker & atmospheric scientist. American Meteorological Society, 2009.
Swales, John M. and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. The University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Valiela, Ivan. Doing Science: Design, Analysis, and Communication of Scientific Research. Oxford University Press, 2009.
Zeiger, Mimi. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. McGraw-Hill, 2000.
