Science and Storytelling: An Alternative Outlook to Science Communication
Storytelling has traditionally been treated as a sub-optimal format in the scientific community. Scientists obsess about communicating objective truths and facts to fellow scientists and the public at large. Needless to say, to a layman hearing about new things, scientific writing meant for a layman appears a rather dull description of various phenomena, along with some drab explanation of its associated causes and effects.
Whereas objectivity might appeal to expert audiences, narrative formats have proven to be more effective as a communication tool for non-expert audiences. Research has suggested that narratives are easier to comprehend and the audiences also find them more engaging than the traditional logically oriented methods of scientific communication [1] [2]. This is in line with the fact that for a scientific non-expert, a major chunk of knowledge gained is from sources that are already biased towards using narrative formats.
Presenting science as a story transforms the format of the data from orthodox fact-sheets into a winding narrative that is both engrossing and informative. It also provides the communicator with an opportunity to carefully choose the analogy or anecdote that they may use, so the audience doesn’t feel like they’re being talked down to. This method also provides an easy roadmap to avoiding factual overdose, implementing appropriate censorship, while not being overly reductive.
This idea has been in play for a while now and is being actively investigated in science education literature [3] [4]. According to Glaser et.al [5], narratives offer four features that may improve comprehension from narrative formats namely, dramatisation, emotionalisation, personalisation, and fictionalisation. The narrative format presents more contextual data along with the facts. This also brings home the often-missed fact that scientists, too, are humans like the readers themselves.
A very interesting example of this is the discovery of Helium. Helium was first discovered in the Sun during a solar eclipse in 1868 and later confirmed on Earth in 1895. The discovery of Helium in the sun provides for a dramatic and intriguing tale. It spans continents, petty human behaviour, a race against time to observe rare phenomena and obtain data, and even a small delay in postal services which resulted in a partially incorrect attribution of the discovery. The full tale was untangled as recently as 2013 when Bimal B. Nath clarified the issue in his book, The story of Helium and the birth of astrophysics [6]. Interestingly, the first observation was reported in the observatory at Guntur in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India.
Telling this sequence as a story includes facts, context, as well as scientific logic — leading to the conclusions that a non-expert may work out themselves, thereby becoming more responsive to the story and consequently, the information itself. Served as a narrative device, this context personifies the story and allowing for a greater chance of identification and understanding in the audiences’ mindset.
Another excellent example of this method is Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, a 13-part documentary series hosted by the (almost) legendary science communicator Carl Sagan. Told in the form of stories, these 13 episodes were first broadcast in the USA in 1980 and remained the most widely watched series in the history of American television for a decade. Two sequels to this series were released in 2014 (A Spacetime Odyssey) and 2020 (Possible Worlds), presented by Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was inspired by Sagan and is a science communicator of significant repute himself. The series presents modern science in all its glory as it progressed through the ages in a storytelling format, and how it evolved over time and led to discoveries in the modern era.
In focusing on characters and context while presenting factual information, Sagan and Tyson told the stories and struggles of real people who shaped the world into its present shape. Perhaps the biggest achievement of this series was not to bring science to the people — the presenters reached out and challenged popular thinking — and in talking to people, they brought people to science.
References
[1] J. Bruner, Actual minds, possible worlds, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1986.
[2] M. Green, “Narratives and cancer communication,” Journal of Communication, vol. 56, Suppl 1, pp. S163-S183, 2006.
[3] L. Avraamidou and J. Osbourne, “The role of narrative in communicating science,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1683–1707, 2009.
[4] S. Klassen, “The relation of story structure to a model of conceptual change in science learning,” Science & Education, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 305–317, 2010.
[5] M. Glaser, B. Garsoffky and S. Schwan, “Narrative-based learning: Possible benefits and problems,” Communication & Medicine, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 429–447, 2009.
[6] B. Nath, The story of Helium and the birth of astrophysics, New York, New York: Springer, 2013.
