The Narrative Paradigm Theory Literature Review

The narrative paradigm is an important aspect in the lives of people as it enhances communication via storytelling. The narrative theory is one of Walter Fisher’s famous works that claims that meaningful communication occurs through the art of storytelling. According to the theory, human beings are willing participants as storytellers and are the observers of narratives. Fisher considers stories more persuasive than arguments in the sense that the flow of ideas can easily convince an individual to believe in a certain event. The narrative paradigm is useful in explaining how humans understand complex information using narratives (Eaves & Savoie, 2005). Initially, people found it difficult to engage in cohesive traditional arguments. Fisher, while developing the paradigm, believed that humans are irrational, thereby, proposing that communication is based on narratives, which implies that individuals communicate by telling persuasive stories as opposed to developing a logical argument. The theory is broad in that it allows all forms of communication to be considered as a narrative despite the fact that they may not be conforming to the requirements of a narrative. For a better understanding of the theory, it is critical to explore the various related literature, identify gaps and limitations, and finally make recommendations for future research.

Fisher, in his 1985 article “The Narrative Paradigm: An elaboration,” proposed a new communication paradigm that is based on the notion that humans are homo narrans. The scholar indicates that the narrative paradigm involves five presumptions:

• Humans are first storytellers
• The “good reasons” that define human action or decision vary in form based on the situations, media, and genre of communication
• The good reason logic is basically ruled by matters of culture, character, and history along with various temporal or spatial presentation constraints
• Rationality is based on a person’s nature as a narrative being
• The world is characterized by stories that should be chosen towards living a good life involving a continuous process

From the presumptions, it is clear that the narrative paradigm is pervasive across most variables, including cultures, time, and region. This fact complicates the description and determination of the concept’s composite elements. Nonetheless, researchers have pointed out the events that make up a narrative. Phelan (2010) defines a narrative as an understandable sequence of events that includes an element of human communication that forms the foundation of the narrative paradigm as set by Fisher. In this regard, a crucial element of the narrative paradigm foundation is Fisher’s tenet that humans are essentially storytellers and their narratives are about themselves with characters and conflicts. The story follows a particular format composed of three parts: the beginning, the middle and the ending. The universality of narratives is critical considering that the narrative theory was developed as a response to the rational globe paradigm, which makes the paradigm less elitist and more accepted.

According to Rudrum (2005), a narrative is understood to be a paradigm in communication only and a form of discourse in other areas. This is evidenced by Fisher’s argument that narration is not a form of dialogue or even a genre of discourse, but rather a conceptual framework that can be used to understand and guide human action, discourse, and decision. From this perspective, human communication forms are construed as stories. Human beings make decisions and even evaluate narratives based on good reasons, and the universe is a combination of stories, which should be chosen towards living a good life involving a continuous process of re-creation. Consequently, the human narration is similar to the incorporation of Burke’s consideration of symbol-using of man by indicating that symbols are developed and ultimately shared as narratives to give human experience order. The symbols often propel individuals to utilize them in developing better living ways. They enable people to easily adopt in diverse communities by the fact that stories involve their lives (Rudrun, 2005). Hence, Fisher implies that humans are able to understand the universe by sharing their experiences with other people in the world through stories. It is through the narratives that individuals can understand other people’s action. The narrative paradigm is thus used in conceptualizing human communication as a whole.

The aspect of narrative rationality is a major element of the theory. According to Bohn (2011), the narrative rationality makes narrative paradigm unique and advanced over the previous theories. It is the rhetoric competence, which is an essential property with the function of testing the probability and fidelity of stories as a guide towards desirable thoughts and actions. Narrative rationality is presumed as the natural traits of humans (Bohn, 2011). In Fisher’s description, rationality is the nature of people with an intrinsic awareness of their narrative probability, which makes a reasonable story and the behavior of testing the narrative. Therefore, rationality is a critical element in Fishers’ paradigm as it offers a basis of description.

Notably, one’s story is analyzed based on its trustworthiness and coherence, which is evaluated by applying reasonable reasons. Some stories are considered better since they satisfy the necessary criteria to be coherent, whereby the concept determines as to whether the story makes sense structurally or it manages to transition effectively (Fiese  et al. 2013). The concept involves the assessment of the story’s material and characterological coherence. Material coherence means that the story has relevant information, an understandable introduction, middle part, and a conclusion or rather the progression of activities. On the other hand, characterological coherence involves the presupposition that the story is believable based on character interaction and the reliability of characters in the story; it merely focuses on the analysis of how characters interact in a narrative and whether they act predictably.

The strengths of the narrative paradigm can be examined by comparing it with the traditional rational world paradigm. According to Williams (2009), the traditional rationality is fundamentally flawed as it has legitimate control of society by experts, closed public discussions, and barred citizens from being part of the process of decision making. Narrative rationality, on the other hand, is believed to be democratic because storytellers have the opportunity and ability to judge a story without any training. It allows both the public and experts to debate on the same ground when the experts willingly accept to tell their stories in public. Nonetheless, pressuring experts to translate their work into comprehensible stories will only allow the public to deliberate on the issues, hold the experts in check, and intervene in the decision-making process. As Fisher (1985) argues, from the perspective of the narrative paradigm, the stories of the experts are not beyond a layperson’s analysis. The lay audience has the opportunity to test the story for trustworthiness and coherence. Such audience should be perceived as active and irrepressible participants in the formation of stories.

Other writers have tried to expand the original ideas of Fisher’s narrative paradigm. The extensions have been valuable as they are able to offer purpose to the present study and analysis on what can be designed as narrative coherence (Rodden, 2008). At the same time, they emphasize the significance of stories in life, thereby, depicting how the study of narratives should never be limited to communication only.

Narrative Paradigm Criticism

Since introducing the narrative paradigm, Fisher experienced a lot of difficulties in clarifying and elaborating the theory. Initially, a variety of scholars have criticized the theory, especially regarding its functionality. Ideally, the theory is believed to share certain aspects with other narrative theories. For instance, it is ontological in the sense that it uses many types of discourse. If the claim is verifiable, then it unintentionally questions all fields of study to consider the discourse creation, assimilation, and transmission. There have been several criticisms leveled at the narrative paradigm due to this reason. Critiques primarily aim at deconstructing the methodological orientation of the paradigm. In this regard, it is clear that it is not the narrative theory’s arguments that are most criticized but rather the way people use the theory as a type of inquiry.

The equivocal statements that are contained within the narrative theory description make it inappropriate for application in research. The paradigm’s attitude in relation to argumentation of good reasons is also believed to have transformed with time, thereby becoming progressively ambivalent. In his theory, Fisher demonstrates a particular level of ambiguity especially by making the conventional rationality part of it and asserting that that rationality is limited in comparison to the narrative paradigm. Later Fisher attempted to improve his paradigm by including several elements of the traditional rationality, but he has warned that they should only be used when it is relevant. This approach thus makes it hard to identify a standard criterion for evaluating the paradigm narrative rationality. Therefore, criticism of the methodological orientation of the paradigm may be common, but there has been little done to undermine the guiding precepts of the paradigm.

In expounding the narrative paradigm, Fisher considers it as a philosophical statement that offers an approach to the human communication interpretation and assessment. The use of assessment as left it unclear whether the paradigm can assess the validity or the effectiveness of the story. On one hand, Fisher has claimed that the paradigm evaluates the persuasiveness of the story and on the other insists that it provides a practical guide on human actions plus decisions.  The primary functions of the theory are to provide a means of elaborating and evaluating communication that induces criticism. Hence, when taken together, it is uncertain as to whether the paradigm can explain the effective the narration effects or provide grounds for legitimacy testing.

Kim (2008) identifies and examines the narrative inquiry problem. The author particularly states that carrying out a narrative study may lead to researchers being in close proximity to the persons or texts under examination, which eventually result in a narcissistic sense. The narcissism is likely to affect the outcome by making it skewed, which will undermine the standard and consequent legitimacy of the research. Additionally, narrative inquiry lacks the narratology, which is an essential element that establishes the foundation of the study. Increasing elaboration of the story problem in relation to the inconsistency that exists regarding the narrative as a form of scientific study or an art, as many questions arise as to whether one is engaging in actual research. Kim (2008) challenges Fisher’s claim that various narratives can be regarded more attractive than others because of fidelity and coherence. There is an emphasis on the issue of why one narrative is more appealing than the other irrespective of its nature, seeking to solve the complex predicament on what actually makes an interpretation by one person more realistic than another one’s. There are suggestions that rather than considering similar narratives, one should embrace the idea of multiple stories with similar experience depending on what i The present study has not determined the wrongness or rightness or even compared the quality of the narratives of participants, but it uses the story coherence to evaluate the manner people communicate stories.

Williams (2009), on the other hand, has promoted the element of coherence in narratives. The scholar argues that an individual’s narrative cannot be considered as an account of their life but rather the base of unity, which derives structural coherence in the society. In most cases, fictional actors are involved in stories on the assumption that they are a representation of human beings; hence, humans should present personal narratives under the assumption that they are incomplete. Notably, when individuals engage in narratives by sharing their life experiences, the experiences seem to be incomplete because they finish them immaturely. Such stories are considered to be complete whenever they no longer exist. Nevertheless, even as criticisms on the paradigm have increased over the years, the prevalence of the theory has increased.  More research has employed the narrative paradigm in a variety of contexts.

Research Employing the Narrative Paradigm

Various research has employed the use of the narrative paradigm. For example, Stutts and Barker (2013) study “The Use of Narrative Paradigm Theory in Assessing Audience Value Conflict in Image Advertising” examines the business promotional activities of branding and advertising under the context of the narrative theory with the aim of evaluating the fidelity as well coherence of the involved narratives. Stutts and Barker (2013) study focused in finding out whether there exists a variance between fidelity and coherence understanding between the involved advertising experts and learners. The study determined that the two parties considered the ad to be consistent but lacked a variety of arguments. There were contradictions in the findings. Regarding fidelity, most of the subjects found the advert to contain sound arguments and was thus truthful. At the same time, the subjects identified the values of human connection and eventually concluded that the narrative paradigm was useful in the advertisement and managed to evoke discussion as well as the assessment of its fidelity and coherence.

In another study, Fiese et al. attempted to investigate the role of stories in family organizations. In this regard, the scholars explored the existing narratives with the aim of validating their dimensions as well as evaluating its ability to identify the family functioning elements (Fiese et al., 2013). The study involved an experiment that was carried out by young families, children alongside premarital couples. The subjects were interviewed, and the findings analyzed. The study then applied the 5-point scale approach in ascertaining the reliability of the story dimension in terms of various variables, including  coordination, congruence, and coherence among others. As a result, it was established that the family narratives can be reliable. Surprisingly, the study certified story coherence. It also noted that the coherence was as a result of the unification of male participants as the female ones evoked aspects of organization coherence and effective coherence than the male counterparts. This may be as a result of the variation in the manner men and women frame narratives. For instance, the female narrators tend to focus more on relation bonds than their male counterparts do. The study concluded by emphasizing the use of narrative coherence in research.

Researchers have also used the narrative paradigm on reality TV shows context. For instance, Eaves and Savoie (2005) examined the two main components of narrative, namely fidelity and coherence in the Big Brother TV show. The show offers an appropriate example of storytelling in a context where the theory is in practi a context where the theory is in practice. The availability of conflict in the scene leads to inconsistence among the viewers minds, thereby imposing reconciliation. This is achieved through narrative coherence as well as story fidelity. Big Brother has stories that are both understandable and reasonable, and the shown narrative is within the viewer’s values, experiences, and beliefs about life.

Limitations of the Narrative Paradigm

Even with the increased preference of the narrative paradigm, some gaps have been identified in its communication use. Much of them are centered on the criticisms that have been leveled on the theory. For instance, the narrative paradigm neglects the role of power and ideology in human communication (Rodden, 2008).  Fisher asserts that the narrative does not entirely negate that power and ideology, which are significant features of human communication but has not provided any elementary changes of the paradigm’s definition that proves others. Research indicates that power and ideology are the major if not the only features of communication. For most parts, humans can tell the truth, be respectful, honest, and loyal while acting on the ways that are conducive to their community. That is how stable families, friendships, proper public, and institutional practices are created; otherwise, there will be only chaos.

Besides, Fisher gives much trust to the goodwill of the speaker, which is identified as wishful thinking. Based on Eaves and Savoie (2005), history indicates that storytellers are not always true and just. Moreover, narrative is considered to be successful when it meets the expectations of the audience. The paradigm is essentially useful in predicting how audiences evaluate stories but what implies as a good story cannot exceed the value and beliefs of the audience whether it is accurate or admirable. Hence, the paradigm basically works on constant habit, and judging a story based on rationality and fidelity is devoid of the critical leverage of the quality of truth (Rudrum, 2005). A critique without a methodology backing it will lead to toxic injunctions and conclusions.

Moreover, a limitation exists under the attitude of the paradigm on the logic of good reasons. Fisher argues that a particular level of ambivalence on the traditional rationality is part of the narrative paradigm, which makes the argument that the traditional rationality is limited when compared to the paradigm inconsistent. As described by Fisher, the major function of the theory is to offer a solution in communication challenges, particularly in interpreting and assessing the aspects that lead to a critique. Hence, when taken together, it is uncertain as to whether the paradigm can explain the effective the narration effects or provide grounds for legitimacy testing. Equally, the present study has not determined the wrongness or rightness or even compared the quality of the narratives of participants, but it uses the narrative coherence to assess how individuals communicate narratives.

Future Research

The basis of future research should be the gaps and criticism of the narrative paradigm. Even though there are studies that have demonstrated the effectiveness of the theory, still there exist some limitations, which require to be dealt with. For example, the current research has systematically examined the use and application of the narrative paradigm; therefore, future research should work on determining a methodological framework that can be used in assessing narratives beyond the narrative coherence and narrative fidelity. The current theory tend to emphasize only on the two aspects, a factor that raises questions regarding its applicability in a diverse setting. In that regard, a methodological and scientific element that defines a proper critique of the paradigm theory would help in expanding the theory of narratives. Consequently, the role of power and ideology has had a huge influence on human communication and expecting humans to forever act in goodwill is totally wishful thinking. Future research should incorporate the ideas and power of the participants in storytelling in order to identify a practical methodology. This will also be helpful in determining the wrongness of the stories and the comparison of the quality of the narratives among participants.

Conclusion

A narrative refers to a series of events that comprises the element of human communication. Fisher’s narrative paradigm is a communication theory that is based on storytelling. As per the theory, individuals’ experiences are responsible for the current need for communication. Besides, people’s current behaviors are based on such experiences. This implies that humans are storytellers and what they tell is part of their experiences. Under the paradigm, people assess the organization and truthiness of a story via its rationality of coherence and fidelity. The present studies identify the paradigm as a significant tool in communication by eliciting discussion and evaluation of its coherence and fidelity. The theory is primarily important in the prediction of how audiences evaluate stories, which implies that in no occasion a good story will exceed the audience’s values and beliefs even if it is admirable and accurate. However, the theory faces criticism on various aspects. For example, there is uncertainty on the theory’s ability to offer an explanation regarding the manner narration embraces legitimacy testing. Equally, the present studies never ascertain the righteous and wrongness of narration even when compared to the quality participants narratives. It only utilizes the narrative coherence in assessing the manner people communicate. This conclusion calls for future research in the paradigm, especially to determine a methodological framework that can be suitable in assessing narratives beyond their coherence and fidelity. Development of a strategy that combines scientific elements to bridge the existing gap in the application of the theory in communication is essential. The strategy should incorporate the concepts of ideas and power of the participants in storytelling to determine righteous and wrongness of the story.

References

Bohn, A. (2011). Normative ideas of life and autobiographical reasoning in life narratives. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(131), 19-30.

Eaves, M. H., & Savoie, M. (2005). Big Brother: Merging reality and fiction: An application of the narrative paradigm. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 29(2).

Fiese, B. H., Sameroff, A. J., Grotevant, H. D., Wamboldt, F. S., Dickstein, S., Fravel, D. L., … & Seifer, R. (1999). The stories that families tell: Narrative coherence, narrative interaction, and relationship beliefs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

Fisher, W. R. (1985). The narrative paradigm: An elaboration. Communications Monographs, 52(4), 347-367.

Kim, J. H. (2008). A romance with narrative inquiry: Toward an act of narrative theorizing. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 10.

Phelan, J. (2010). Teaching narrative as rhetoric: The example of time’s arrow. Pedagogy, 10(1), 217-228.

Rodden, J. (2008). How do stories convince us? Notes towards a rhetoric of narrative. College Literature, 148-173.

Rudrum, D. (2005). From narrative representation to narrative use: Towards the limits of definition. Narrative, 13(2), 195-204.

Stutts, N. B., & Barker, R. T. (1999). The use of narrative paradigm theory in assessing audience value conflict in image advertising. Management Communication Quarterly, 13(2), 209-244.

Williams, B. (2009). Life as narrative. European Journal of Philosophy, 17(2), 305-314.

Share this