Key points from the video

• Language is cultural, hence writing is cultural.

• You might know the cultural expectations of your own language, but for a second
language this might be difficult.
• This means that being aware of the cultural expectations makes you a good writer.

In English it is considered the writer’s responsibility to ensure that the correct meaning is
conveyed.
Some questions you can ask yourself to fulfil this requirement are:
• Have I organised my information in the right order?
• Is there some background or context that I should explain to the reader?
• Does my text have a proper introduction, body and conclusion?
• Does my introduction contain the central idea of my text?
• Are my body paragraphs relevant to my central idea?
• Does my conclusion tie everything together and emphasise the main message I wanted
to convey?

The structure or outline of your text can vary according to the topic. The important thing to
remember is that the structure should guide the reader properly. The information should be
presented in a sensible order and the reader shouldn’t feel lost.

Credibility means how believable or trustworthy you sound.

Some important things to remember for credibility:
• Follow the correct level of formality
• Use appropriate tone and vocabulary
• Avoid slang
• Present a fair analysis - you can be honest about your perspective but you shouldn’t be
unfair or biased.
• Cite your sources.
FAQs

1. What exactly is the meaning of Rhetorical Preferences?

Rhetorical simply means to be related to the skill of rhetoric or effective communication.

Like Stephen says in the video, in English it is the writer's responsibility to make sure that
the reader understands the text properly. This means that as writers, we have to be careful
about a lot of things that can influence the meaning of our work. We need to be aware of
how things like tone, vocabulary, structure, register etc. can influence the meaning we are
conveying to the audience. These things 'tone, register etc.' are tools that can help our
rhetoric become impactful in the way we want. This is why they are collectively called
Rhetorical Preferences in this section.
Take an example: You receive an email from a job applicant saying "i am applying for this
job because i really like the company. It's got this huge image, and the stuff you're doing is
cool!" Compare this to "I am applying for this job because your corporation has a
respectable brand name. Moreover, I am particularly inspired by the company's recent
initiatives to invest in xyz cause." Both these sentences contain the same information but
differ drastically in their register (level of formality), tone, and vocabulary. It is this
difference that leaves an impact on the person hiring.

2. I need an example of narratives in academic writing.

Take a look at our Facebook post here. The linked article contains many sources and
examples that you might find helpful.

Reading Comprehension

'(Escaping) the paradox of scientific storytelling’

In order to understand audiences’ expectations of an academic text in more depth,

read this model of good argumentation below. When answering the questions that
follow each section of the text, please focus on what the authors of the text have
said explicitly.
At the end of the passage, three questions probe how well you have understood the
text as a whole. Remember to choose the best possible option when answering the
questions.

Adapted for educational purposes from: Dahlstrom MF, Scheufele DA (2018) '(Escaping)
the paradox of scientific storytelling'. PLoS Biol 16(10): e2006720. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/
journal.pbio.2006720
(References used by the authors of the text: References - Rhetorical Preferences Reading
Comprehension.pdf)

Paragraph 1

Storytelling is the creation and sharing of specific narrative messages. A narrative

message is a distinct communication format structured around a character who
experiences events over time, often overcoming conflict on the way. Because narrative
messages portray larger phenomena through an individual’s experience, narrative
messages are predisposed to depict information in ways audiences can identify with both
cognitively and emotionally [1,2]. Strongly constructed narrative messages can therefore
be highly persuasive [3]. A number of science-related organizations, both academic and
not, are promoting narrative messages as influential tactics to engage audiences in
support of science [4,5].

1. The authors argue that ‘narratives’ can convince a significant proportion of the
readers because

• narratives focus solely on an individual’s experience.

• narratives have found favour in scientific and academic circles.

• narratives strike a chord with the audience by involving feelings in addition to logic.

Paragraph 2
However, storytelling is also a way of thinking to evaluate information. Most direct
experience is stored in memory as narrative cases, and we often interpret new information
not on its own merit but by trying to integrate it with the existing narratives and mental
schemas we already use to understand the world [6]. In this sense, a narrative way of
thinking endows single cases and anecdotes with significant weight toward evaluating
evidence. Not all information is processed through this narrative way of thinking, but
research suggests that it is the default mode of human thought if not countered with intent
[7]. In this sense, a narrative way of thinking is a distinctly unscientific way of knowledge
production because it focuses on particular instances rather than considering the full range
of possibilities. “[T]he plural of the word anecdote,” as Kernaghan and Kuruvilla [8] put it
dryly, “is not data.” Because of this, scientists sometimes resist telling stories, feeling they
are manipulative or are oversimplifications.

2. The authors acknowledge that

• narratives are based on memories and therefore they are subjective.

• narratives can be equated with scientific data.

• scientists may consider narratives anecdotal and hence unscientific.

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5

So when are narratives useful and appropriate tools for science communication? And
when might the use of scientific storytelling be antithetical to the goals and mission of
science? To unpack this paradox, we suggest comparing how these concepts of
storytelling (narrative messages versus a narrative way of thinking) align with different
underlying goals for communicating science with external audiences [9].
If the goal of communicating science is to transmit knowledge about scientific facts, then
narrative messages can be an effective tactic to a larger end. Scientists could use
narrative messages to engage and motivate audiences to learn about climate change or
vaccine safety, for example. Likewise, if the goal of communicating is to influence attitudes
or behaviors toward science, scientists could use narrative messages to demonstrate and
encourage certain attitudes or behaviors, such as healthier eating habits, smoking
cessation, or choosing science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) career paths.
In all of these contexts, a narrative message being an oversimplification and engaging a
narrative way of thinking doesn’t much matter if the larger goal is met: was knowledge
learned? Were attitudes or behaviors changed?
Such goal-directed uses of narrative messages, of course, come with caveats. There
might be societal disagreement about what kinds of behaviors or attitudes should be
encouraged, raising ethical questions about what kinds of advocacy by scientists are
appropriate [9,10]. Engaging in a battle over competing narrative messages in larger public
debates pits scientific communication against narrative messages constructed by other
actors. Competing narrative messages potentially introduce counter arguments or even
misinformation, while competing at the same level with narrative messages constructed
around the best scientific evidence.

3. The authors argue that narrative messages can be useful for communicating
scientific facts, but this practice of scientific storytelling creates a problem. Which
problem do the authors point out?

• Simplified narratives might not be trusted by the audience as they might lack scientific
backing.

• Questions about the intentions behind such simplified narratives may create controversy
due to alternative reasonings.

• Simplification may involve using false information to communicate facts to a wider

audience.

Paragraphs 6 and 7

If the goal of communicating science is instead to help an audience engage or develop

scientific reasoning and orient discourse around evidence, narrative messages may be
counterproductive. In this context, a narrative message being an oversimplification matters
greatly because, by engaging a narrative way of thinking, the communication fails to reach
the larger goal of engaging scientific reasoning. Since narrative messages can be
persuasive regardless of the validity of underlying factual claims, the use of narrative
messages in this context becomes an oversimplification at best or manipulative at worst.
Even an otherwise desired outcome (such as correct knowledge about climate change)
could be viewed negatively if the desired reasoning process was not engaged.
If scientific reasoning is developed or activated in an audience, other communicators
within public debates would find it more difficult to compete through narrative messages
because the “manipulation" might become more apparent to audiences. Competing
communicators might instead try to use scientific reasoning to counter, which scientists in
this context would likely view as valid rebuttals.

4. If the audience is capable of understanding and partaking in scientific reasoning,

oversimplified narratives could be met with scepticism about the soundness of the
underlying arguments.

• True

• False
Paragraph 8

Hence, the paradox comes into focus—storytelling can meaningfully engage audiences
and make scientific information relevant while simultaneously encouraging a narrative way
of thinking that places scientific stories on a similar level to any other plausible story that
may or may not support scientific truth. Abandoning storytelling for the sake of scientific
reasoning merely abdicates the influence of a powerful communication technique to
nonscience communicators. Yet storytelling also fails to engage the way of evaluating
evidence that has given science its rightful claim to truth.

5. According to the authors, the ‘paradox’ results from which of the follwing?

• The inherent nature of narratives being audience-friendly and capable of communicating

important information effecively.

• The use of narratives to communicate scientific findings may compromise their rigor and
credibility.

• none of the above

• both of the above

Paragraphs 9 and 10

While our discussion thus far has treated a narrative way of thinking as often being at odds
with scientific reasoning, it is possible to use the first in service of the second. Narrative
messages can be constructed toward the goal of engaging audiences to understand the
process and credibility of scientific reasoning. These types of narratives might tell the story
of a scientist who uses scientific reasoning to arrive at an important result. They might tell
the story of a character who struggles to overcome a conflict until scientific reasoning is
used. They show the process of science through an individual’s experience.
This is not a new idea, as talented science journalists often make this connection in their
work. Nor is this a panacea to the paradox. Increased scientific literacy does not lead to
greater acceptance of science [11,12], so merely knowing more about the scientific
method is unlikely to solve the problem on its own. Yet we think this middle path offers one
way to deconstruct the paradox to see how science can use storytelling while still
emphasizing its right to truth claims. In the end, using storytelling to primarily build
scientific support through knowledge, attitude, or behavior goals without also engaging
scientific reasoning might not help science in the long run.
6. The authors argue that in order to engage in scientific storytelling without
undermining the scientific reasoning behind the facts, a scientist should

• highlight the personal problems they faced in the course of their research project.

• imitate journalists in their style of communication.

• emphasize their own methods and experiences when narrativizing how and why they
came to a certain conclusion.

Paragraphs 11 and 12

The latest National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Engineering Indicators, a
biennial report measuring the state of science in the United States, finds only one in four
Americans (26%) are able to correctly describe what constitutes a scientific study. Surveys
from China show similarly low numbers with less than a third (31%) of respondents
understanding the idea of scientific research [13]. A limited understanding of the scientific
process is particularly troubling in light of ongoing discussions about replicability and
reproducibility in psychology and other scientific fields [14–16] in which perceptions can
cast doubt on the enterprise of science itself rather than promote discussion about how
science can best use new computational tools and methods to improve on its self-
correcting nature.
Unless the scientific community also focuses on these long-term narratives to help build
understanding of the process of scientific knowledge production, the facts or conclusions it
puts forth might increasingly be seen on equal footing with arguments and judgments
offered by other societal stakeholders [17]. This is particularly worrisome in a world where
the idea that the scientific process is the best way of producing valid and reliable
information is increasingly under siege. For science, narratives might have most of their
power not in conveying facts or building excitement but in rebuilding the foundation of
understanding scientific reasoning.

7. The authors are concerned about which of the following root problems?

• Surveys show that few American and Chinese scientists understand the implications of
their own research.

• People are largely unaware of the true nature and process of scientific reasoning.

• Many psychologists are worried that their scientific findings may be too case specific.
 Societal buy-in to science’s unique claim to producing the best available evidence
depends on citizens appreciating the process that underlies science. By using narrative
more narrowly to fight for small victories over science knowledge instead of using narrative
to build understanding of the process of scientific reasoning, science may remain caught
up in this paradox and risk its place as our societal curator of knowledge.

Global Questions

1. The main idea of this text is

• embracing storytelling in science writing is a lost battle.

• embracing storytelling in science writing requires scientists to shift their focus from
method to process.

• embracing storytelling in science writing might seem like a paradox but can be resolved
if a change in focus is achieved.

2. The main purpose of this text is

• to present the pros and cons of narrativising science writing.

• to argue that the paradox of using storytelling in science writing can be resolved.

• to persuade scientists to adopt a journalistic approach when writing about their findings.

3. The target audience of the text is

• scientists communicating their research.

• publishers in their role of gatekeepers.

• readers of scientific research.

• all of the above.

Answers
1. C 2. C 3. B 4. A 5. D 6. C 7. B
1. C 2. B 3. D