IMRaD (or IMRD) stands for Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion. In many scientific disciplines, IMRaD is the most common format for writing up original and/or systematic research in texts such as lab reports, degree project reports, and research articles.
The IMRaD format is often illustrated as an hourglass (see Figure 1). Note both its symmetrical shape and the different widths of each section.
Figure 1. The IMRaD structure. The Background section is common in longer reports, such as degree projects, but is not always present in e.g. research articles.
The width of each shape represents its specificity: the narrower the shape, the more specific the writing in that part of the text tends to be. Note how the Introduction and Discussion are mirror opposites in terms of their general-specific content.
Each section in the IMRaD format has a typical function with related typical linguistic features:
In the Introduction, writers motivate their research aim(s). They can do this by describing a problem or context, defining key terms, summarising the current state of research in the field ("the literature"), highlighting a "gap" in the literature, and finally explaining how their study is a solution (or a step towards a solution) to the aforementioned problem or gap.
Writers, and especially students, can display their knowledge in a Background (or Theoretical Background) section. The Background section usually includes detail that does not directly motivate the research question, such as theoretical explanations and more detailed reviews of previous literature.
In the Method, writers describe the research design. This can include the materials and equipment used, the process of collecting data, and the sample and/or population. Writers may also include ethical considerations and methodological limitations. A good measure of a Method is that it should allow readers to duplicate the study. The Method can be written in the past or present tense.
In Results, writers present their findings in tables and figures (e.g. images, graphs, pie charts), and they comment on these in running text. Location statements (e.g. Table 3 shows ...) connect the commentary to the figures and tables. There tends not to be much explanation for the findings, but specific data are highlighted for the reader. This section is written in either the past or the present tense.
In the Discussion, writers make observations and claims about their findings, sometimes using hedged language to express precision and nuance (e.g. The results in this study suggest … rather than The results in this study show …). Where possible, writers connect their results to the literature and/or a broader context. Either in the Discussion or in a Conclusion section, writers also discuss any limitations of their study and suggest avenues for future research.
Note that Results and Discussion are sometimes combined.
Readers (and especially examiners and editors) expect to find certain details in certain sections of an IMRaD text. Problems can arise when, for example, the Results section provides too much explanation and general discussion rather than specific commentary. Another common problem is that the Introduction contains too much background detail that doesn't directly lead up to the problem statement and research question.
