Gee describes a discourse as a group of individuals who obtain the same identity kits and practices. Meaning the way one speaks, the language used, the values they hold, what they wear and much more. Without these characteristics one is not apart of the group. An example of an exclusive discourse would be scientific discourse, many wonder and try to interpret what’s necessary to be included in the field. Studies have been done by Haas, and models such as the IMRAD format have been concluded and explained by authors such as Nair and Nair to attempt to unveil the key. And what I have learned is that science discourses are much more than simply reading and retaining information, in fact they require specific practices that show in depth understanding. It is crucial that one must be able to decipher similarities and differences between works using connections as well as notice how scientific pieces build upon one another through reading. Not only this but individuals in scientific discourse must be able to see the significance in a given scientific text in order to realize the importance on one’s own study and on the scientific community as a whole. If one is able to accomplish these practices then you can tell that they have in depth understanding and are therefore apart of the scientific discourse.
For starters, Gee is a firm believer that when individuals speak or write they subconsciously establish seven different areas of reality. In his work titled “Building Tasks” he defines these areas, an example of one area would be connections. He explains connections as the language that is used to define similarities between texts, as well as differences. This is a crucial practice when it comes to science discourse. Without the ability to draw conclusions of similarities and differences of work, the reader isn’t able to see how ones work build upon another. After all, science is about discovery, and often, ideas are linked to recent research or a past theory that is being questioned or supported. When further explaining differences, Gee mentioned how “Things are not always inherently connected or relevant to each other… Even when things seem inherently connected or relevant to each other, we can use language to break or mitigate such connections” (35). That even if ones work doesn’t relate to another it is also extremely important to see the contrasting of views for it develops a stance on the subject. Plus it is also significant that an individual is able to decide which text is reliable through comparison. These connections that he mentions are clearly evident in science discourses. Throughout the study of Eliza, Haas realized that within her senior year she was able to finally realize connections throughout academic literature, “She also exhibited a greater awareness of the intertextual nature of discourse; texts were not isolated, but linked” (66). She no longer struggled to obtain all the facts in a text but instead takes the general knowledge and relates it to other academic pieces she’s read upon. She believes that in science everything builds upon one another due to gained knowledge, that no one has a truly original idea but instead they’re all indirectly related. This marked an important stepstone in her learning growth as a college student, showing how memorization isn’t the only aspect in scientific discourse. That establishing connections between scientific readings is a practice that shows in depth understanding. This deeper understanding proves how Eliza as well as many other individuals are able to become apart of the scientific discourse.
