- When comparing both Gee and Haas’s definitions and important aspects of a Discourse, more specifically a Scientific Discourse, there are very distinct similarities that can be found. These such parallels are the use of variations of three words; saying, doing, and believing. Furthermore, Gee puts forth his “seven building tasks” used in reading and writing as the virtual end-all-be-all to the manifestation of a perfected Discourse. Among these seven concepts, only one mentions all three of the shared parts of a Discourse, and even goes further in its analysis; “What we say, do, and are in using language enacts practices. At the same time, what we say, do, and are would have no meaning unless these practices already existed…language and practices ‘boot strap’ each other into existence in a reciprocal process through time. We cannot have one without the other” (Gee 33). Practices or activities is clearly an important factor in developing a Discourse, and for that matter the utilization of an already established one. Therefore, while we need the activity to exist to create the very need for the Discourse, what we say, do and are (a Discourse) is used through and developed by a certain practice. One of these such practices is the teacher-student relationship that Eliza enjoys during her work in the biology lab under the guidance of a graduate student named Shelly. In Haas’ analysis of her experiment involving Eliza she notes that “Shelly became quite important to Eliza, making up a full 10% of the mentions of human agents in the interviews from Eliza’s senior year” (Haas 77). While not all of Eliza’s growth in her understanding of the scientific field can be attributed to her work with Shelly, it is apparent that this particular experience had quite an effect on her, and the activity of hands-on tasks and the presence of a mentor certainly helped develop her speech, methods, and mindset relating to her science academia.
- Examining portions of Gee’s texts closer, it is possible to form a strong connection to the work of P. K. R. Nair and V. D. Nair on the IMRAD Format. When introducing his “building tasks” James Paul Gee discusses the significance of written and verbal communication; “We use language to build things in the world, to engage in world building, and to keep the social world going…Saying something makes it so, as long as one has said it in the right circumstances” (Gee, 31). Language, whether through print or speech, are very powerful tools according to Gee but are only effective when utilized in the correct manner and environment. You can not hope to produce the desired outcome when using the means incorrectly, such as conducting business in the same manner as you do with your friends in an informal setting. The manner of communication and environment they are used in simply do not match. Nair and Nair help to provide the necessary platform to correctly communicate a scientific Discourse by stating that “with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) adopting the term [IMRAD] as the standard, first in 1972 and again in 1979 (ANSI 1979), it has become the choice of most research journals” (Nair and Nair 14). The components of the format are nonessential for this discussion, however the IMRAD being the universal vessel for conveying scientific knowledge is. In fact, this evidence gives the instrument or Gee’s “right circumstances” needed to enter the specific Discourse of academic science through written, and through further discussion and readings, verbal communication.
ENG110I
