« ACKMIDS 2005 - Larry Prusak's presentation | Main | Humour is a powerful narrative approach »
| 8/12/05 | | Balancing narrative and data |
Freakonomics made it click for me. Narrative on its own is entertaining, informative, makes it real and even inspiring but it’s rarely effective on its own to persuade the hard-nosed number-crunchers which dwell in every organisation. Conversely, data is dry, clinical and reasonable but rarely hits you in the guts with excitement to take action. Freakonomics is a book of anecdotes which drips with data. Gladwell did a similar job with Tipping Point and Blink but his data was less in your face.
With this observation in my head I was reading Hari Tsoukas’ new book Complex Knowledge and was bowled over by this quote by Jerome Bruner:
There are two modes of cognitive functioning, two modes of thought, each providing distinctive ways of ordering experience, of constructing reality. The two (though complimentary) are irreducible to one another. Efforts to reduce one mode to the other or to ignore one at the expense of the other [emphasis added] inevitably fail to capture the rich diversity of thought.
A rich business communication entwines data with narrative. Data subtly informs us that time, effort and rigour has been applied. Narrative provides meaning conveyed through experiences. Proponents of narrative techniques have generally downplayed the importance of data; they are hanging on to that pendulum which is swinging away from the logical-scientific perspective. This table, also from Hari’s book, neatly describes the features of these two modes of thought:
|
|
Logical-scientific |
Narrative |
|
Objective |
Truth |
|
|
Central problem |
To know truth |
To endow experience with meaning |
|
Strategy |
Empirical discovery guided by reasoned hypothesis |
Universal understanding grounded in personal experience |
|
Method |
Sound argument |
Good story |
|
|
Tight analysis |
Inspiring account |
|
|
Reason |
Association |
|
|
Aristotelian logic |
Aesthetics |
|
|
Proof |
Intuition |
|
Key characteristics |
Top-down |
Bottom-up |
|
|
Theory-driven |
Meaning-centred |
|
|
Categorical |
Experiential |
|
|
General |
Particular |
|
|
Abstract |
Concrete |
|
|
Decontextualised |
Context-sensitive |
|
|
Ahistorical |
Historical |
|
|
Non-contradictory |
Contradictory |
|
|
Consistent |
Paradoxical, ironic |
Send this entry to:
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.anecdote.com.au/cgi-bin/mt-tback.cgi/235
Comments
If you haven't seen it, you might consider a book by Karl Scheibe called "The Drama of Everyday Life". It's a "dramaturgical" view of human behavior, motivations, and meaning. It examines the internal drama's we all carry around and act out in social settings -- those plots, intrigues, and schemes that color our perceptions, influence our behaviors, and occupy our internal dialogue.
I think the reality of internal dramas also helps to explain the power of narrative – to its nearly universal appeal when accomplished with some mastery, as well as to it’s more constrained influence when it is done with less flair.
It seems to me drama is the older part of the human psyche, and that rationality is its more recent bedfellow. That leaves open the door for some interesting speculations regarding the relationships between the two.
Posted by: Bob at December 10, 2005 5:31 AM
Thanks Bob. I'll check out Karl's book.
Posted by: Shawn Callahan ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.anecdote.com.au/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 10, 2005 8:51 AM