Limits of Narrative Science
Unnarratability and Neonarrative in Evolutionary Biology
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21834443 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Daniel Aureliano Newman (0000-0001-7931-5221, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 231-251 |
| Publication date | 2022-06-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Partial Answers Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1936-9247 • E-ISSN: 1565-3668 |
| Publisher | Project MUSE (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1353/pan.2022.0014 |
| OpenAlex | W4281633251 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
Narrative is increasingly promoted for improving science communication and thus combatting misinformation and facilitating fact-based education and policy (Dahlstrom 2014; ElShafie 2018). This instrumental use of narrative is laudable, but current approaches tend to be reductive and therefore potentially counterproductive. Most proponents of narrative science view narrative as a mere formula, often derived from entertainment (Luna 2013; Olson 2015; Loverd et al. 2018). Sceptics rightly worry that using narrative formats in this way oversimplifies and distorts scientific information. Given the social, medical, and environmental urgency of effective and accurate scientific communication, the shortcomings and promise of narrativizing science represent a limit-case for the applicability and scope of narrative theory and practice
Anxiety · Art · Entertainment · Epistemology · Literature · Misinformation · Narrative · Narrative criticism · Narrative inquiry · Political science · Skepticism · Sociology · Worry · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Computer Science · Digital Storytelling and Education · Law · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Philosophy · Psychology
| Citations per year | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |