Narrative in Science Communication

Do Scientists Use Narrative?

Typically one thinks of the scientist as adhering to a strict procedure, governed by the rules of the scientific method. In crafting a study and eventually reporting it, the scientist should review the literature on the topic, determine the questions to be investigated, conduct the study according to well-understood rules, and report the results in a straightforward way. The introduction of narrative elements into such a product would be seen as out of place in the standard scientific report, whose main goal is to advance the theory and report the results in such a way that other investigators could replicate them. While scientific investigations could and often do make for interesting narratives, the actual product of science, most often seen in the peer-reviewed journal article, is normally rigorously screened to remove any narrative elements that would be seen as inappropriate. Thus, in such reports, the narrative, such as it is, is fairly straightforward: Previous investigators found certain results, they raise unanswered questions, the investigator answers them, and science moves on.

However, scientists are of course human and thus not immune from the almost universal human interest in narrative. In 1985, the Journal of Communication presented a special issue on Homo narrans (humans as a storytelling species). In it Walter Fisher argued that narratives are the principal means by which humans reason. He put forth the idea that people use “good reasons” to evaluate problems, and that these good reasons are derived from stories that have good “narrative probability” and “narrative fidelity.” That is, if a person hears a story that rings true with their lived experience and their social and cultural knowledge, people are likely to adopt its claims as valid.

...