Communication Conventions

Communication Conventions

There are certain characteristics that are common to nearly all discourse in Neuroscience. Not only how discourse is conveyed, but what type of information and discourse is conveyed is rather standardized in this field. Many neuroscience publications serve the purpose of synthesizing and conveying the results of research studies in a manner that proves (or disproves) a claim. The claim, or argument, is typically stated as a hypothesis and the information is typically conveyed in the format of a research report. Research reports vary only slightly in structure. For example, a research study conducted by Lilian Riad-Allen and Derek van der Kooy was summarized in a report containing the following sections: Abstract, Materials and Methods (including Statistical Analysis), Results, and Discussion. This overall structure is very representative of many Neuroscience publications.

The above structure reveals to the reader what the author’s claim was, how that claim was investigated, and then the results of the investigation. The argument is made evident within the abstract. In the case of Riad-Allen and van der Kooy, it was “hypothesized that by modeling anxiety in a male C57BL/6 mouse model it would be possible to reveal a preference for benzodiazepines within this subpopulation” (Riad-Allen and van der Kooy, 2013, p. 1). Whether the argument was or was not accurate is revealed in the results section. Riad-Allen’s and van der Kooy’s results showed that their hypothesis was correct, as verified through the use of numerical data and statistical analysis. Thus, the author’s argument was confirmed strictly through logos. This is another convention of writing in the field of Neuroscience. Argumentation in the field also utilizes findings obtained from animal research in order to make claims about disease states in humans. A publication by Ian. R. Brown is an example of this convention in which research on rodents is used to make claims about neurodegeneration in humans.