A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science

Norris, Stephen R.; Guilbert, Sandra M.; Smith, Mary Ellen; Hakimelahi, Shahram; Phillips, Linda M.

doi:10.1002/sce.20063

Cited by 212 publications

(241 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

184

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fundamental conflicts have been identified in every one of Norris et al's [Norris et al, 2005] four defining characteristics of narrative; these were sometimes insurmountable and sometimes not. Event-types, for example, are not amenable to being treated as event-tokens in science writing, and science writers instead invest the particular with general meaning.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Knight's theory also exhibits the second criticism leveled at 'Just So' stories -that they are stories, and we will craft a definition of 'story' shortly, leaning on Norris et al's identified four defining characteristics of narrative [Norris et al, 2005]. Meanwhile, Knight's 'how the woman got her menstruation' account has face parity with Kipling's 'how the leopard got its spots'.…”

Section: Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The four characteristics of narrative Norris et al [2005] have isolated four defining features of narrative. The first characteristic that distinguishes narrative from scientific exposition is the structural issue of its building blocks, as we noted in the earlier example of the king and the queen's death.…”

Section: Lorementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evolutionary biology is almost in its essence a strongly narrative science, containing significant elements of contingency, timeframe and history [Norris et al, 2005;Journet, 1999;Morson, 1996], and the same point can be said for developmental psychology although the story plays out on a smaller timescale. That both fall into a narrative trap may be less to do with the natural fit between science and the 'packaging' that story offers and more to do with the appeal of story to the cognitive makeup of humans in general rather than scientists in particular.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We will use Freud, who styled himself a scientist who attempted to bring determinism to psychology, to illustrate the general tension between 'lore' and 'law', and then turn to McAllister's text as a specific illustration of how these tensions play out in a modern piece of popular science writing. We will refer Norris et al's [Norris et al, 2005] four defining characteristics of narrative , and conclude by offering one way in which popular science writing can compel in the manner of true narrative, and still serve to advance science.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Narrative risks in science writing for the lay public

Muurlink¹,

McAllister²

2015

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The narrative method of presenting popular science method promises to extend the audience of science, but carries risks related to two broad aspects of story: the power of narrative to impose a compelling and easily interpretable structure on discrete events and the unpredictability and mystique associated with story. AbstractHistory of public communication of science; Science writing Keywords ContextScience writing for the lay public frequently appears to degenerate into so-called 'Just So' stories: narrative explanations of evolutionary phenomena that do not conform to rigorous principles of scientific explanation. The term derived from Kipling's 1912 famous short stories of how creatures like elephants, camels and rhinos got their trunks, humps and skins. 1 But how uncommon is the use of the fundamentals of narrative storytelling in popular science writing -and not just evolutionary phenomena? Bruner [1986] describes narrative and scientific explanation as "two modes of thought, each providing distinctive ways of ordering experience, of constructing reality. The two [though complementary] are irreducible to one another" (p. 11). They differ radically in structure, Bruner insists: scientific explanation follows that of the logical proposition "if x, then, logically, y", while narrative adopts the recitational formula "the king died, and then the queen died." The crucial difference here, of course, is notion of causality: in the first case, Bruner says, causality is seen as a question of universal truth conditions while in the second it is a matter of connections between two particular events (a queen does not invariably die shortly after a king). Norris et al. [2005] echo these generalities, describing narrative as unsuited to the circumspection and caution required in scientific explanation, and preoccupied with particularities as opposed to the search for general principles that are the ultimate goal of scientific enquiry.They also, however, offer a quite specific critical analysis of the defining characteristics of narrative, contrasting them in each case with those of scientific explanation. Briefly, these are: narrative's character as a sequence of discrete, unique, unrepeatable and hence unpredictable events (at odds with the deductive-nomological drive of scientific explanation, where the aim is to reduce events to universal, general, inevitable and or repeatable actions); its incorporation of actors who 1 "Once upon a most early time was a Neolithic man" begins Kipling's (1912) story about how the first letter was written.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lorementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Narrative risks in science writing for the lay public

Muurlink¹,

McAllister²

2015

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication

Yang¹,

Hobbs²

2020

American J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores information framing effects by comparing the effectiveness of using logical‐scientific versus narrative information to communicate with consumers about a new biotechnology application (gene editing). Using data from an online survey of 804 Canadian adults, a discrete choice experiment elicits preferences for diverse novel food attributes and technologies, with respondents randomly assigned to different information conditions. We construct a logical‐scientific information condition, written in a scientific style using the passive voice with generalized and impersonal language and attributed to either a government agency or a scientific organization. In contrast, we frame the narrative‐style information condition as a story, using a lively and vivid personal style, and attributed to either a science journalist or a consumer blogger. Data are analyzed using multinomial logit and random parameters logit models. We find that the information format (logical‐scientific vs. narrative) matters: narratives help reduce negative perceptions regarding agricultural and food technologies. We also examine factors that predispose consumers to seek logical‐scientific versus narrative information sources.

show abstract

Economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and genomic screening programs: update of the literature

Vegter

Jansen

Postma

et al. 2010

Drug Development Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics show great potential for developing individual treatment modalities to achieve optimal therapy effectiveness. Economic analyses are performed to determine whether pharmacogenetic screening strategies provide good value for money. The current review provides an update of published economic studies. Economic analyses of pharmacogenetic screening programs published between 2000 and July 2010 were included in the review. Information was extracted on research area, genetic information, type of economic analysis, key aspects of adherence to economic guidelines, costs and commercial availability of genetic tests, and the role of the funding party. A total of 42 economic studies on pharmacogenetic screening strategies were included. Over time, more cost-utility analyses were performed, longer time windows were employed, and more extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. Considerable differences in costs of screening tests for the same polymorphism were found, which often, but not always, had a large influence on the costs of screening strategies. Most studies were conducted from an academic or hospital perspective without direct links to pharmaceutical or diagnostic manufacturers. The quality of economic analyses of pharmacogenetic screening programs has improved over time. However, input variables are not always clearly described. In particular, substantial variation exists in the reported costs of the pharmacogenetic tests. Often these test costs are considered a major cost driver and could therefore be of particular importance for the interpretation of cost-effectiveness results. Furthermore, the economic studies seem to be conducted to increase awareness of possibilities and perspectives of genetic testing rather than to influence policy decisions on reimbursement. Drug Dev Res 71:492-501, 2010.

show abstract

A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science

Cited by 212 publications

References 39 publications

Narrative risks in science writing for the lay public

Narrative risks in science writing for the lay public

The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication

Economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and genomic screening programs: update of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About