top of page

The Story is the Thing

Writer's picture: Mishkat BhattacharyaMishkat Bhattacharya

Nowadays, when I get to talk to younger students studying science, especially seniors in high school or starting undergraduates, I ask them to give some attention to reading literature (flash fiction, longer stories, novels, listen to podcasts, anything they like). That sounds like strange advice - how would reading literature help science students?


The mathematicians would say our business is proving (bounds and) theorems - why should we read flash fiction? The physicists would say our job involves making mathematical models and solving equations - how will going through stories help us? The chemists would say our tasks are basically looking at reactions and analyzing processes - what's the point of scanning novels? The computer scientists would say our mandate is to write code and develop algorithms - how would listening to podcasts aid our endeavors?

In fact, for some science students, the minute they can stop taking courses on literature (and the humanities in general), is a moment of relief. Literature to them is not attractive, as it involves subjective considerations (where a lot, if not everything, seems to boil down to personal opinion), while science is all about quantitative phenomena (and facts which exist independently of anyone's personal opinion).


The connection between science and literature arises from the fact that the technical documents we have to assemble while performing science - grant proposals, journal and review articles, reports, books, applications for tenure and/or promotion - all share the structure of stories (I would claim that even a piece of good computer code tells a story).


I have quoted documents from my experience in academia, but I suspect that similar/analogous objects exist in other places as well - in industry or government jobs, for example. And in an increasingly competitive world, it has become imperative that we tell the most compelling stories possible.


I should clarify rightaway that in no way am I suggesting that we should misrepresent or fabricate any material. We have to tell the true story - the truth as we can best determine it - in each case, sticking conscientiously to the facts. But within those constraints there is usually scope for arranging the ingredients in the most compelling way. And the more compelling the story, the better chance that the grant proposal will be awarded, the paper will be accepted, the book will sell, tenure will be given, and promotion secured.


All this I believe is linked to the fact that storytelling arises from a biological necessity that human beings have, to establish narratives that make sense of the infinitude of facts and impressions that life throws at us.


Let us take the example of a physics research article. In my opinion the abstract should itself be a short story - a condensed version of what is to come in the main body of the paper. The main paper should set up by posing the problem and its importance (the basis of conflict in the story), describing previous unsuccessful or partially successful attempts in the area (deepening the crisis), describing the approach of the authors (proposing a rescue plan), fleshing out the work in detail (revealing the plot in measured steps) and delivering a punchline (the climax of the story). I have not covered every detail, of course, but hopefully enough to convey the general idea.


Of course, one may ask if such an approach is superficial. Shouldn't grants be funded on the quality of the science rather than the cosmetic polish of their writing? Shouldn't papers be judged on the depth and reach of their results, rather than the way in which these results are arranged?


A practical answer, which I have heard from several program officers who manage research portfolios, is that funding agencies receive many competitive proposals that contain great science. Typically, there are many more competitive proposals than can be funded. In this situation, any and all legitimate techniques for gaining a competitive advantage can, should be, and are, used.


A more philosophical answer is that while superficial work may achieve short-term success, in the long-term science with depth will likely survive and continue to be impactful.


Coming back to the original advice mentioned at the beginning of this post, I believe telling good stories is an art. How to learn this art? A quick review of interviews of successful authors online will reveal some advice they often repeat: a good way to become a good writer is to read a lot.


Their point, I think, is that one should try and absorb the examples by osmosis. Accessible analyses of writing techniques are also available nowadays. These can clarify important concepts like foreshadowing, world-building and micro-plotting, which can be productively translated into the scientific/technical context.


Literature also improves our communication skills. In this context an interesting anecdote: a decade ago, there was a lot of emphasis in the United States on STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) education. I remember reading that employers found that to get STEM graduates to communicate and collaborate effectively, English majors had to be hired into the team. So my advice to the science majors is perhaps not completely misplaced - at the very least they will be humanized by their reading.











Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Responsible comments are welcome at mb6154@gmail.com. All material is under copyright ©.

© 2023 by Stories from Science. Powered and secured by Wix

bottom of page