Structuring a report or thesis (IMRaD)
A surprising amount of the difficulty in writing a report disappears once you stop asking "what should I write next?" and start asking "which section does this belong in?" IMRaD — Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion — is the standard structure behind most scientific and technical writing precisely because it answers that question for you.
What each section is actually for
Introduction — sets up why the work matters and what question it answers. A common and effective shape here is the "funnel": start broad (the general area and why it matters), narrow to the specific problem or gap (often supported by your literature review), and end with your specific research question or objective. By the end of the introduction, a reader should know exactly what problem you're solving and why it's worth solving.
Methods — explains exactly what you did, in enough detail that someone else could repeat it. Usually written in the past tense, often with a fairly plain, procedural style. This is typically the least-read section by a casual reader, but the most important one for anyone trying to verify or build on your work — don't skimp on precision here just because it's less exciting to write.
Results — presents what you found, without yet interpreting it. This distinction trips a lot of student writers up: "accuracy improved to 87%" belongs in Results; "this suggests the added feature was genuinely useful" belongs in Discussion. Keeping interpretation out of Results forces you to present the data honestly, before it's coloured by the story you want to tell about it.
Discussion — interprets the results, connects them back to your original question and to the wider literature, and honestly addresses limitations. This is where you argue for what your results actually mean, acknowledge what they don't show, and (often) suggest what should happen next.
Why is this important?
Beyond making your own writing process easier, this structure is what most readers — supervisors, markers, reviewers — expect and use to navigate a document quickly. A reader who wants to check your methodology knows exactly where to look; someone deciding whether your paper is relevant to their own work can often get what they need from the introduction and discussion alone. Deviating from this expected shape without good reason makes your work harder to read and easier to misjudge.
A useful trick: write backwards
Many experienced writers don't draft IMRaD in reading order. A common and effective approach is to write Methods first (since it's the most mechanical and least ambiguous section), then Results, then Discussion, and write the Introduction last — once you actually know what your paper's story is. Trying to write a compelling introduction before you know what you found is much harder than writing one once the ending is already clear.
Common student mistakes
- Mixing interpretation into the Results section, which muddies both sections and makes it harder for a reader (or you, later) to separate what you found from what you think it means.
- An Introduction that's too broad for too long, delaying the actual research question past the point where a reader's patience has run out.
- A Discussion that just restates the Results in different words instead of genuinely interpreting them, connecting them to prior work, and being honest about limitations.
- Treating IMRaD as absolutely rigid when your specific assignment or field calls for variations (an added "Related Work" section, a combined "Results and Discussion," a separate "Limitations" section) — check what's actually expected before assuming the textbook version applies exactly.
Tips
- Draft an outline with section headings before writing full paragraphs, and sanity-check that each planned point is going in the right section before you write it out in full.
- Write your abstract last, once the full structure is settled — it's much easier to summarise a finished argument than to write a summary of an argument you haven't fully worked out yet.
- Ask your supervisor or check your specific assignment brief for any expected deviations from standard IMRaD before you commit to a structure.
References
George Mason University Writing Center — Writing an IMRaD Report
Finding Your Scientific Story by Writing Backwards — a deeper look at the "write backwards" approach within the IMRaD structure.