Mechanisms of Writing Across Disciplines: Is Scientific Writing Different from Humanities?

Mechanisms of Writing Across Disciplines: Is Scientific Writing Different from Humanities?

Personal Information :-

Name :- Rahul Desai 

Roll No. 22

Semester :- 4

Paper No. 209

Paper Name :- Research Methodology 

Assignment Topic :- Mechanisms of Writing Across Disciplines: Is Scientific Writing Different from Humanities?

Submitted To :- Department of English, M.K. Bhavnagar University 

Email ID :- rahuldesai477@gmail.com

Introduction :-

Academic writing is influenced by the particular requirements and customs of various fields. Although the goal of all research writing is to effectively convey ideas, writing mechanics, such as structure, language, evidence, and style, differ greatly between disciplines, such as the arts and sciences. The various ways that information is created, verified, and disseminated across fields are reflected in these variances. Gaining an understanding of these distinctions promotes improved interdisciplinary communication and helps scholars write more effectively within their professions.

Strong verbs that effectively communicate the subject matter and concise phrases are essential when writing scientifically. Long, flowing words could seem more appealing to the writer, but readers may have to read them several times before they get what they're really saying! As a result, sentences should only contain information that is required to understand the subject. A scientific work is also improved by including and referencing experimental and statistical data since evidence helps readers grasp a topic. A specific structure is frequently adhered to in scientific writing: abstract, introduction, methods, findings, and discussion. This structure makes it possible for ideas to flow naturally from broad information about the subject to detailed information about the data. Students frequently have more creative freedom and can employ a wider range of adjectives and adverbs to evoke imagery when writing in the humanities. However, students should also be aware that using "fluffy" words or sentences takes away from the aim of a paper, so they should talk concisely. Although linguistic originality is frequently more prevalent in humanities papers than in scientific ones, it's crucial to distinguish between words that enhance and words that detract from the paper's meaning. When writing papers in the humanities, a particular format is typically followed: introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Similar to how an abstract provides a synopsis of a scientific study, an introduction provides context for the main points of a humanities paper.

In professional development and education, science and the humanities are frequently kept apart. The two disciplines are typically regarded as incompatible, even when pursued as personal interests. They are actually complementing. It is quite dangerous to bring up the phrase "humanities" in front of a group of scientists. The study of "arty" themes carries a stigma for certain scientists. The scientific approach differs greatly from the investigation and inquiry procedure used in anthropology, literature, history, and classics. The goal of science is to create and disseminate knowledge in order to increase our collective wisdom. Therefore, one of a scientist's primary responsibilities is to communicate the findings of scientific research. something that has gained considerable attention lately. Through blogs, popular science media, and scholarly journals, experts from a variety of fields have been exchanging brilliant ideas about how scientists may communicate more effectively. Most of these articles, however, concentrate on communicating as a practicing scientist, that is, after graduation. Much little focus is placed on how top-down educational initiatives might improve communication skills before beginning a career in science. Medical degrees have acknowledged the need of studying the humanities (e.g., here, here, here), but other sciences have not yet adopted this idea. However, several ecologists acknowledge that many research initiatives might benefit from an interdisciplinary awareness of the cultural, historical, and social subtleties of the study system. (Saunders)

Understanding Disciplinary Epistemologies :-

Every academic area has its own unique methods for creating and disseminating knowledge. For example, whereas the humanities promote subjective insight and critical interpretation, scientific disciplines place more emphasis on empirical research and objective results reporting. The mechanics of writing, from choosing a topic to developing an argument, are directly impacted by this fundamental difference in epistemology, or the understanding and justification of knowing. Discipline-specific epistemological variations are reflected in the utilization of sources and supporting data. Primary research in scientific domains includes data collecting, statistical analysis, and experimentation with the goal of testing hypotheses. The humanities, on the other hand, place more emphasis on text interpretation, historical background, and theoretical frameworks, and thus rely more on secondary research to develop a complex argument. According to the guidebook, students should integrate and build upon preexisting concepts to arrive at their own interpretations rather than just "extract a series of quotations." The concepts of what constitutes evidence and sound reasoning in each field influence this process of knowledge construction, whether it be through data analysis or interpretive critique.

The MLA Handbook provides additional examples of how epistemic values impact writing standards in Chapter 3, "The Mechanics of Writing." For example, the active voice and author presence in humanities articles indicate personal engagement and critical perspective, but the passive voice, which is frequently employed in scientific writing, represents an epistemological commitment to impartiality and detachment. Even how a research paper is organized varies: humanities articles may take a more flexible, argument-driven shape, whereas scientific papers adhere to a strict IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure. These stylistic conventions are not arbitrary; rather, they are closely related to the ways in which various disciplines understand interpretation, objectivity, and truth. Writing a research paper is described as a "intellectually rewarding" process that necessitates modifying one's approaches to meet the standards of the academic community, rather than merely being a mechanical activity. Therefore, creating academic writing that is credible, convincing, and effective requires an awareness of discipline epistemologies. An important realization that the handbook fosters through its interdisciplinary focus is that authors must match their methodology with the knowledge-making practices of their profession when citing sources, structuring arguments, or formatting texts. (MLA HandBook)

Structure and Organization :-

Research writing in scientific fields follows a strict, goal-oriented format that prioritises objectivity, replicability, and clarity. Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion, or IMRAD, is the most widely used format. Every component serves a specific purpose: the introduction presents the research question and hypotheses; the methods section describes the steps and resources utilized for replication; the results section presents data objectively and without prejudice; and the discussion section analyses the findings in the context of previous research. The empirical epistemology of science, which emphasises visible, testable knowledge, is reflected in this sectioned, linear style. The structure reflects the creation and validation of knowledge and is not only about organization. For a professional audience, even the use of headings, numbered sections, and short paragraphs is intended to improve readability and navigability.

Humanities writing is more interpretative, argumentative, and flowing. The structure adheres to a thesis-driven framework, in which the author makes a claim in the introduction and supports it with thoughtfully planned analytical parts. Although the introduction, body, and conclusion paradigm is still used, the organization is led by concepts and theoretical advancements rather than following a set structure. In humanities writing, paragraphs are frequently longer and more discursive, enabling the writer to delve into textual, philosophical, or historical complexity. More rhetorical and subtle, transitions frequently depend on the reader's capacity to follow the argument as it develops. This is consistent with the humanities' epistemology, which views knowledge as placed, contextual, and interpretive. Therefore, structure becomes more than just a means of delivering factual information; it becomes a vehicle for compelling argumentation.

The structural contrasts between writing in the arts and sciences draw attention to the basic ways that different fields approach knowledge. Science prioritises what can be learnt from data and has a tendency to keep substance and interpretation apart. The humanities combine interpretation with substance, concentrating on how and why we know things and frequently challenging presumptions, meanings, and sources. It's interesting to note that interdisciplinary fields like scientific communication and environmental humanities have started to conflate these distinctions. They use data visualisation in humanities analysis or include narrative patterns into scientific reporting. As a result, knowing the structural mechanics of each discipline is crucial for both writing effectively within it and navigating and translating knowledge across boundaries, particularly in the increasingly hybrid research landscapes of today.

Language & Style :-

Language and style are essential to the success of research writing, as stated in the MLA Handbook. Writers are advised to strive for a style that is “clear, concise, and respectful of the reader’s expectations” in Language and Style (MLA Handbook). Although these standards can seem universal, there are big differences in how they show up in disciplinary writing. Both scientific and humanities writing benefit from the MLA Handbook's recommendation for a formal tone that steers clear of slang, contractions, and colloquial language. The two disciplines, however, have different interpretations and levels of flexibility about that formal tone. Because of their divergent perspectives on what constitutes legitimate information and the best ways to communicate it, scientific writing places a strong emphasis on standardization and objectivity, whereas humanities writing values stylistic complexity and rhetorical engagement.

Despite being designed with humanities students in mind, the MLA Handbook's suggestions for sentence structure and clarity provide valuable information about scientific writing practices. By using clear vocabulary, concise sentences, and the passive voice—elements intended to remove personal bias and highlight facts and results—scientific writing generally avoids ambiguity (MLA Handbook). The Handbook's focus on verb tense consistency and omitting superfluous words aligns with the impartiality ideal of science. Additionally, it advises against using jargon unless the readership is highly specialized, which is consistent with the objective of transparent, reproducible communication in scientific writing. That epistemological framework is supported by the language used in scientific style, which represents a trust in knowledge as fixed, measurable, and externally verifiable.

The MLA Handbook acknowledges the importance of individual voice, argumentative depth, and rhetorical options in the discursive and interpretative nature of humanities writing. It urges authors to "use the active voice appropriately," change up their sentence structures, and write in a way that interacts critically with other works. This method makes the assumption that language is a tool for creating and negotiating meaning rather than just a means of conveying information. The tone of writing in the humanities can vary based on the author's viewpoint and discipline tradition, and it usually includes theoretical words, historical allusions, and intertextuality. Additionally, the MLA Handbook permits greater stylistic flexibility, which is generally discouraged in scientific publications. Examples of this include the occasional use of first-person pronouns or introspective commentary. This is in line with the humanities' epistemological perspective, which emphasizes the importance of interpretation, critique, and contextualization in the process of creating meaning.

Despite the differences in tone and stylistic requirements between the humanities and sciences, the three main components of effective academic writing—logical order, grammatical precision, and audience attention—are universal. The advice on avoiding excessive use of qualifiers, maintaining suitable and courteous language, and emphasizing coherence is helpful for writing in the humanities and sciences. The guidebook does not, however, prescribe a strict style, acknowledging the variety of academic traditions and enabling authors to modify the fundamental ideas to suit their discipline requirements. By doing thus, it affirms that the values and methods of each field, in addition to rules, impact language and style. Writing is an intellectual activity based on how various disciplines comprehend and generate knowledge, not just a mechanical process. In order to communicate and validate discoveries, scientific disciplines prioritize economy, impersonality, and precision in their writing. The goal of writing in the humanities is to investigate, challenge, and evaluate; argumentation, voice, and multi-layered expression are preferred. Each discipline's presumptions on impartiality, truth, and the goal of scholarly investigation influence the language and style employed in each instance; these are not random choices. (MLA Handbook)

 

Use of Evidence and Citation :-

All academic writing must include the appropriate use of evidence and reference, but the structure, purpose, and display of that evidence vary greatly throughout disciplines. Evidence in the humanities, especially in literary and cultural studies, usually consists of main text excerpts, interpretations, and interaction with critical or theoretical sources. This frequently calls for a lengthy Works Cited list that lists both primary and secondary sources, as well as frequent in-text citations of page numbers, character names, or play acts and scenes. Quantitative, empirical, and experimental evidence are used in scientific fields. Although it is mostly focused on the humanities, scientific forms can also benefit from its proper citation guidelines, particularly with regard to source credit and structure. Although direct quoting is uncommon in scientific reference, proper acknowledgment is nevertheless necessary to prevent plagiarism. Scientific citation frequently depends on summarizing or paraphrasing prior research. Scientific writing uses data, prior research, or statistical findings to support or refute new findings, in contrast to humanities writing that could quote a critic's interpretation. Rather than interpretive commentary, the focus is on establishing credibility through replication and established techniques.

Evidence is frequently employed in the humanities to bolster claims or refute accepted interpretations, so the citation itself becomes a part of a broader discussion. According to the MLA Handbook, authors should mention specific sections of works, such as pages, paragraphs, scenes, or lines, depending on the type of source, and include complete bibliographic references. For instance, both volume and page numbers could be needed when referencing a literary anthology or a multivolume work. This particular detail illustrates how the humanities are concerned with historical context, authorial intention, and textual nuance; the MLA style citation system is designed to handle this complexity. The MLA Handbook recognizes that not all sources, particularly those that are digital or web-based, provide precise pagination or number reference points. In certain situations, it recommends using different referencing schemes, such as section numbers (sec.), paragraph numbers (par.), or contextual citations inside the text (e.g., "in the final third of the article..."). The use of datasets and repositories in science and the digital transformation in the humanities are two examples of how citation procedures can adapt to reflect disciplinary changes. Regardless of the discipline, the guiding principles which are specific to the norms of each field—remain accuracy, consistency, and transparency.

The methods used to collect, present, and integrate data vary between scientific and humanities writing, even though both emphasize the value of using and citing evidence in an ethical and rigorous manner. Using condensed or paraphrased data with little stylistic variance, scientific writing emphasizes factual accuracy and replication. On the other hand, writing in the humanities focuses more on textual specificity, interpretation, and critical engagement, with thorough citation techniques to back up these objectives. In order to address these many needs, the MLA Handbook offers a framework that is both flexible and organized, guaranteeing that evidence is used appropriately and understandably across all disciplines. (MLA Handbook)

Argumentation and Voice :-

The significance of cultivating a writer's unique voice as a primary objective of research writing. It implies that writing well involves more than just restating or summarizing the thoughts of others; rather, it involves expanding on them to develop a distinct viewpoint or stance. Research should be viewed as a chance for authors to "arrive at [their] own understanding of the subject." This expectation follows a humanistic heritage in which the writer's voice actively connects with previous scholarship and reasoning is dialogical. Writing in the humanities involves formulating a thesis, putting together interpretive arguments, and critically analyzing the work of other academics. On the other hand, even while scientific writing presents arguments, the researcher's voice is usually kept to a minimum in order to maintain impartiality and neutrality. It highlights that research writing should be the product of one's own intellectual work and understanding, even if the tone is impersonal, in its discussion of plagiarism and academic integrity. Argumentation in science is fueled by controlled variables, evident findings, and evidence-based reasoning. The passive voice is often utilized, and personal opinion is normally ignored unless expressing a hypothesis. The scientist does, therefore, formulate an argument, although it is frequently expressed through procedures and outcomes rather than through an interpretive voice.

The manual establishes a strong link between academic honesty, voice, and reasoning. It sends a warning that plagiarism destroys a writer's original contribution to their work in addition to undermining intellectual integrity. This idea of authorship and voice is especially prominent in the humanities because writing is frequently regarded as a private manifestation of intellectual uniqueness. The argument of the book is influenced by the author's tone, citation style, and analytical framing. As a result, the arguments subtly reinforce the notion that, in contrast to the muted tone of most scientific writing, a strong arguing voice is both expected and praised in the humanities. Argumentation and reference are necessary in both scientific and humanities writing, but the author's voice takes a different form and is not as visible. In the humanities, authors use interpretation, critique, and rhetorical construction to make their points; in scientific fields, they use data and technique. In the humanities, the author's voice is not only acknowledged but also essential to the creation of meaning and the advancement of knowledge. This contrast highlights the larger epistemological divides: the humanities strive to examine various viewpoints, whereas science seeks to uncover universal truths.

Purpose and Audience :-

In academic writing, a research paper's goal goes beyond just summarizing what has already been learned; it also seeks to effectively convey fresh information to its target audience. A research paper should "present information and ideas clearly and effectively," per the MLA Handbook. Despite being universal, this communication objective takes on distinct forms among fields. In the sciences, the goal is to communicate verified data and empirical findings to a specific audience, frequently in an organized, succinct manner. For a readership of other academics who value methodology, data, and conclusion, the focus is on objectivity, replication, and clarity. In this case, the writer's job is to accurately and quickly convey findings rather than to participate in rhetorical discussion.

Humanities literature, on the other hand, usually speaks to a readership that anticipates interpretation, criticism, and debate. Particularly pertinent to fields like literature, history, and philosophy, the MLA Handbook urges authors to "assimilate and build on" the ideas of others in order to arrive at their own stance. Subject matter experts, multidisciplinary scholars, and occasionally an informed public readership make up the audience in these subjects. Writing in the humanities frequently aims to spark debate, provide other perspectives, or join in on current academic discussions. As a result, the writer's voice becomes a crucial component of the communication, and the tone may be more combative or personal.

The significance of taking the audience's expectations into account when presenting and using language. Students are encouraged to adjust their language and style in accordance with the advice that "you must write your paper in a way that demonstrates your awareness of your audience." This could entail avoiding intricate rhetorical devices in favor of standardized language and visual aids (such as charts and graphs) in scientific domains. In the humanities, this could entail carefully citing textual material, interacting directly with theoretical frameworks, and creating well-structured paragraphs. Despite the fact that both fields strive for academic rigor, their goals are different—one is based on factual reporting, while the other is based on critical investigation—and how those goals are accomplished depends on the audience.

Interdisciplinary Trends :-

By doing this, it creates room for interdisciplinary investigation, particularly when it says that a research report should reflect the author's "own understanding" that was formed from critically analyzing the ideas of others. This type of intellectual synthesis is essential to interdisciplinary writing, in which experts and students combine ideas and methods from several fields—for example, literary theory or historical analysis (humanistic methods) with data analysis (scientific methods). It acknowledges the vast range of materials researchers may use based on their topic and field and offers clear guidelines not only for books and journal articles but also for scientific papers, government documents, digital resources, and multimedia content. In multidisciplinary research, where authors frequently reference both scientific and humanistic sources, this flexibility is particularly pertinent. For instance, it enables a researcher to combine qualitative and quantitative findings by examining a literary narrative and quoting a sociological study.

Disciplines can benefit from the humanities' writing style, which includes rules for developing research topics, upholding logical order, and incorporating different points of view. Regardless of the subject, it promotes clarity and critical thinking in writers rather than limiting them to a specific rhetorical approach. Scholars can use both scientific data and environmental literature to investigate climate change, for instance, thanks to this open-ended approach to writing. Thus, as long as the writer maintains consistency, transparency, and a respect for academic integrity, the MLA Handbook encourages the blending of styles and methodologies. The expanding scholarly tendencies that emphasize cross-disciplinary cooperation and synthesis. In line with contemporary scholarly developments like digital humanities, cultural studies, and environmental humanities, it subtly invites students to investigate how knowledge is generated differently in other fields. These fields demand flexible writing that takes into account both empirical data and theoretical criticism because they do not follow conventional academic boundaries. By providing a writing framework that is organized yet flexible enough to accommodate the changing needs of interdisciplinary scholarship, the MLA Handbook helps students get ready for this.

Conclusion :- 

It is clear from analyzing writing processes across disciplines that writing in the arts and sciences is influenced by essentially distinct audiences, goals, and epistemological principles. Clarity, organization, and objectivity are key components of scientific writing. It adheres to a set format intended to display data in a manner that can be verified and replicated. Arguments are supported by facts and empirical logic, and the author's voice is reduced. Humanities writing, on the other hand, places more emphasis on interpretation, theoretical nuance, and critical participation. It embraces the writer's voice, permits structural flexibility, and uses rhetorical devices to explore and persuade readers of complicated ideas.

Notwithstanding these variations, both types of writing follow fundamental academic guidelines, such as using sources ethically, structuring ideas logically, and paying attention to the reader. Scholars must increasingly navigate and integrate the writing styles of several fields as interdisciplinary research gains prominence. Adapting one's writing to the requirements of various academic fields has become crucial, especially when tackling difficult, real-world problems that call for both humanistic and scientific thinking. Students and scholars can become more adaptable, considerate, and proficient communicators by comprehending the principles of writing across fields. Success in writing, whether for a lab report or a literary study, depends on adhering to the discipline's rules while expressing one's own ideas in an understandable and intentional manner. This understanding not only improves academic writing but also fosters a greater understanding of the various ways that information is produced and disseminated within the academic community.

References :-

Lehner, Stephanie., & Caitlin, Doughton. "Writing in the Sciences vs. Writing in the Humanities." 15 March 2023. https://sites.scranton.edu/writingcenter/archives/761.

Modern Language Association of America. MLA Handbook. 7th ed., Modern Language Association of America, 2009.

Saunders, Manu. "Humanities vs Science: is writing a dying art?" 11 March 2015. https://ecologyisnotadirtyword.com/2015/03/11/humanities-vs-science-writing/. 

Words :- 3732

Image :- 01