Storytelling as Human Understanding: The Narrative Paradigm for Program Planners

Anthony Christopher Jones, Institute for Communication Improvement

Fall 2006

A. Storytelling as Human Understanding 3/1B. Paradigm Shift: From Rational World Paradigm to Narrative

Paradigm 3/2C. Narrative Fidelity 3/2D. Grant Proposal as Policy Argument 3/3

1. Types of Propositions 3/4

Storytelling as Human Understanding

Humans are story-telling animals. This simple assertion is Walter Fisher’s answer to the philosophical question – “What is the essence of human nature?” Just as Berger’s Uncertainty Reduction Theory describes us as curious and Mead’s Symbolic Interactionism theory describes our use of symbol manipulation, Fisher insists our story telling is what makes us unique. He is convinced that we are narrative beings who “comprehend life as a series of ongoing narratives, as conflict stories, with characters, beginnings, middles, and ends.” He is uncomfortable with the prevailing view that rhetoric is only a matter of evidence, facts, arguments, reason and logic. It is not the story we think of in novels, plays, movies, and TV sitcoms. He does see the difference between a poem, a novel, a theater performance, a philosophical essay, historical report, political debate, theological discussion or scientific thesis. The simple fact is that we make sense of the world around us in story-form.

Human beings are “houses” who have been filled with stories over the course of their lives which create their individuality and identity. Every situation that we encounter, especially communication situations, we bring our stories with us.

Fisher describes narration as “symbolic actions, words or deeds – that have sequence and meaning for those who live, create or interpret them.” He believes that all messages are best viewed in story form, because they cause us to live out our own stories. Fisher used the word “paradigm” to refer to a “conceptual framework.” A paradigm is a universal mode, which calls for people to view events through a common interpretative lens. This is appropriate because it means that to understand human behavior, particularly communication, we needed to change the way we look at it. Communication is storytelling. It’s just that simple.

Fisher offers a way to understand all communication and to direct rhetorical inquiry. His structure is the foundation on which a complete rhetoric needs to be built. It provides a comprehensive explanation of the creation, composition, adaptation, presentation, and reception of symbolic messages.

3/1

Paradigm Shift: From Rational World Paradigm to Narrative

Paradigm

According to Fisher, the writings of Plato and Aristotle reflect the early evolution from a generic to a specific use of logos. The Greek word logos originally included story, reason, rationale, conception, discourse, debate and thought. He believes that this logos has now evolved from story to statement. Fisher gives us five assumptions of the prevailing rational-world paradigm.

1. People are all essentially rational.2. We make decisions on the basis of

arguments.3. The type of speaking situation

(legal, scientific, legislative) determines the course of our argument.

4. Rationality is determined by how much we know and how well we argue.

5. The world is a set of logical puzzles that we can solve through rational analysis.

Fisher is convinced that the assumptions of the rational-world paradigm are too limited. He calls for a new conceptual framework (a paradigm shift) in order to better understand human communication. As we will see later, this is terribly relevant to our discussion of grant writing. The narrative paradigm refutes the rational world paradigm and is based on the following assumptions:

1. People are essentially storytellers. 2. We make decisions on the basis of

good reasons. 3. History, biography, culture and

character determine what we consider good reasons.

4. Narrative rationality is determined by the coherence and fidelity of our stories.

5. The world is a set of stories from which we choose, and thus, constantly recreate our lives.

Ultimately, this means that it is not the logic that is relevant in so much as the story. Human beings are not computers or robots. We don’t simply process information without emotional consideration or make decisions the way a calculator would. Armed with common sense, we can all believe a good story. We are moved to action by storytelling and respond with “stories” of our own. To narrate is to humanize. Communication is at its best when it reflects a commitment to narrative.

Narrative Fidelity

Narrative fidelity is the quality of the story that causes the words to strike a responsive cord in the life of the listener. A story has fidelity when it rings true, when the story rings true with the hearer’s experiences, and squares with the stories they might tell about themselves.

Fisher believes a story has fidelity when it provides a logic of good reasons to guide our future actions. Values are crucial to the narrative paradigm because, as far as we are concerned, they make stories truthful and humane. People prefer to hear these types of stories.

Grant Proposal as Policy Argument

A grant proposal is an argument. Thus, grant writing is an enterprise of argumentation. Finally, grant proposal review and evaluation are acts of argument and rhetorical criticism. It is important to understand these concepts as being central when approaching grant writing, review and/or evaluation. It is easy to assume that the entire funding process is a rational one. Many think that proposals are objectively viewed by computer-like robots that check for adequate documentation, appropriate structure and format, and justified need. With checklist-like precision, evaluators award grants to organizations who meet all of the requirements without regard to other issues. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. As a communication behavior, the grant proposal process is subject to the

GUIDE TO SUCCESSFUL GRANT WRITING

3/2

rules that all human communication is subject to. To illustrate this clearly, we need to have a solid understanding of human argumentation. A look into Webster’s Dictionary tells us that argumentation is, “the act of forming reasons, making inductions, drawing conclusions, and applying them to the case in discussion; the operation of inferring propositions, not known or admitted as true, from facts or principles know, admitted, or proved to be true. (n.) Debate; discussion” (1998). So, initially we understand that argumentation involves the act of forming reasons and drawing conclusions. In our discussion of the narrative paradigm, we discussed the different aspects of our individuality that dictate how we reason. One’s lived experiences, the myths one internalizes, and what one considers conventional are just some of the factors that determines what we consider a “good reason.” Further, the definition suggests that we bring our concepts of “good reasons” with us when we are faced with cases of discussion (in this case, the grant proposal). Finally, there is an exchange between what we bring with us and what is before us that leads to debate and discussion.

When John Fitzgerald was 13, he and his mother were coming from and evening church service. As they approached their street, they could hear police sirens and what looked to be a major event near their home.

His mother, being very concerned when it came to her family and community, rushed to see what the fuss was about.

In the ambulance, John could see a boy who looked like he weighed about 25 pounds, but who was as tall as he was. The boy was crying and looked like he hadn’t eaten in years.

Later that evening, John learned that the boy actually lived next door to him! They had lived here for five years and John had never met him. The boy’s mother was addicted to crack and severely neglected him. He was forced to eat scraps from a

dog’s bowl and never went to school. The one bedroom apartment’s closet has bedroom and he was forced to use a jar as a bathroom.

John cried for two days straight. He hated this woman who would treat her own son so unfairly. His mother, attempting to comfort him, explains, “It’s the drugs, honey. They make people do terrible things.”

Since that day, John decided he would spend his life helping children. He joined numerous volunteer organizations and coached little league at this local after school club.

Now John is 40 years old and is a Senior Program Officer for the SAY YES! Foundation (Save America’s Youth YES!). SAY YES! provides support for programs which increase the community protection of children. For the most part, programs which offer enrichment, teach community values, and create safe havens are given priority.

Through various professional contact and office buzz, John has come across the proposal for Children’s Chance, a local shelter that houses 30 destitute families. One shelter emphasizes keeping the child out of foster care and helping the parents, mostly single mothers, land temporary government assistance and eventually jobs. The organization has a wonderful track record, having received acclaim for its program and services.

In this proposal, Children’s Chance is looking to extend its Family Reunion program to women on parole who want to achieve reconciliation with their children who have been placed in foster homes while they were incarcerated.

As John reads the proposal, a sentence jumps out at him,

“Most of our clients are single-parent, drug-offenders whose crimes and addiction have hurt no one but themselves. The criminal justice system, in most cases, has punished these mothers too severely

STORYTELLING AS HUMAN UNDERSTANDING: THE NARRATIVE PARADIGM

3/3

as if incarcerating them and placing their children in foster homes is actually saving lives. Our program repairs homes that the system has wounded.”

Two weeks later, the confused organization (and the local media) learned that their application was denied. The program officer, like all people, brings with them their lived experiences when they confront any communication situation. John was offended by the assumption that drugs don’t affect anyone outside of the addict. He remembered his neighbor and re-lived the pain of seeing his condition at the hands of a mother addicted to drugs. The organization, Children’s Choice, is wrong, he thought. The story told by Children’s Choice to the SAY YES! Foundation did not pass John’s test of narrative fidelity. It was not consistent with his lived experiences.

Now if you were to ask John why the proposal was rejected, it is more than likely that he would say nothing of narrative fidelity. In fact, he may not be aware of the term. Many program officers and evaluators actually consider themselves tabula rasa, Latin for “blank slate.” In communication studies, we refer to this as a way to describe an argument critic or evaluator who avoids bringing their own prejudices into a debate. However, our experiences shape the way we see the world. We define good and bad, right and wrong, by using our lived experiences as a frame of reference. On the whole, John may have no problem with the idea of providing services for women who want to reunite with their children and live a clean and sober life. But, this must be framed within the confines of his lived experiences. The point here is that John may truly believe that he made his decision independent of his experiences and used good reason to deny the application. But, our lived experiences actually help to determine what “good reasons” are. When Children’s Choice received their rejection letter, it cited proposed budget and program goals and made no mention of the overall assessment.

GUIDE TO SUCCESSFUL GRANT WRITING

3/2

In addition in narrative fidelity, the narrative paradigm is concerned with narrative probability or coherence. This refers to the degree to which a story conforms to one’s myths, metaphors, and conventions. For our discussion, myths are most important. We refer to myths as stories that cultures tell themselves to explain why things are the way they are. These cultural explanations are serious. They explain the unexplainable. We depend on these explanations because they resolve the greatest human fear: fear of the unknown. We don’t know for sure how humanity began. This has the potential to make us feel vulnerable. If we can have no understanding of our beginning, then we have zero control over our destiny or ending. Some of us are comforted by the explanation given in the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament. For others, evolution provides a more sufficient answer. The point is that we must have an answer to this question. Once we have it, we internalize it and it becomes a part of us. People, generally, do not negotiate with internalized myths. Whether it is someone who ties explosives to themselves and detonates them in a crowded café or someone who shoots a doctor who performs abortions, the internalizing of stories take control of our decisions, judgments, and emotions.

Myths are not solely the property of the extremists. Consider the following scenario. A homeless man sleeps at a park on Veteran’s Day while groups of families are enjoying barbeques and volleyball. One boy who notices the man asks his father, “Why are there so many people without homes and families on a day such as this?” “Some people are just lazy and want to live off the work of others,” the dad replies. On the other side of the park, another boy asks his father the same question. “The world isn’t fair to everyone. Some people run into a little bad luck and just need a helping hand,” the father explained.

Homelessness is a serious yet complex social issue. Many of us are no different than these children who see the plight of

others and need an explanation. The answers these children receive resolve this unknown. They’re comforted by having an answer to a social phenomenon that was previously difficult to explain. These explanations become stories which they will internalize and help shape their perspective on the issue. Both could very well end up working to eradicate the problem from society. The difference is one would seek a cure to address lazy, social parasites, while the other might seek ways to give a helping hand to the unfortunate. Thus, the story of homelessness is different for each person.

If both of the boys grew up to be program officers in a position to fund programs aimed at alleviating homelessness, proposals would be compared to their respective internalized myths. If a proposal conforms to the program officers’ explanation for homelessness, it would pass the test of narrative probability.

We can see that the grant acquisition process is a communication one. Each participant brings with them stories. The program author or grant writer tells her or his to the evaluator who had their own story. Those two stories are compared for narrative fidelity and narrative probability. All communication can be seen as an exchange of stories. Communication outcomes are determined by the combination of fidelity and probability for the parties involved. The process of exchange in which there is clash rather than conformity or consistency is what we call argumentation. Argumentation, as far as this text is concerned, is a process designed to resolve difference through clash. Many people view argumentation and debate as being similar to war. We see arguments as something we “win” or “lose.” We often say that we “defend” our arguments and “beat” the arguments of others. After a lengthy and heated discussion parties can frequently be heard telling others “I killed them,” or “She murdered me.” It is this argumentation as a tool for insight, shared meaning and for mutual understanding.

GUIDE TO SUCCESSFUL GRANT WRITING

3/4

To assist in illustrating how argumentation can be an effective tool for professional proposal writing, some essential elements of the concept must be explained.

Most important is the idea that argumentation usually begins with a proposition. Someone must propose an argument before there can be one. Every argument supports or refutes some proposition. So, since we have established that the grant process is a process of argumentation, then proposition must be essential aspects of the grant proposal.

Types of Propositions

There are three types of propositions: (1) propositions of fact, including propositions of explanation, (2) propositions of value, and (3) propositions of policy.

A proposition of fact is a statement to be proven true or false as the evidence is gathered. For example, the proposition, “Resolved, the HIV/AIDS will be the leading killer of Americans between the ages of 50-75 by the year 2015,” is neither true nor false at the present time. Once the time has become current, the proposition is no longer debatable. A proposition of fact is not a fact. Facts are truths proved only through such means as observation, experiment, testing, measurement, or scientific observation. Propositions of explanation, which we refer to as a subset of the proposition of fact (some refer to it as an independent type of proposition. This suggests that there are actually four types of argument propositions), attempt to determine whether a cause and effect relationship exists between two actions or events. For example, the proposition, “Resolved, that oily rags left in the attic caused the fire,” asks whether the rags were a necessary and sufficient factor to produce the fire.

A proposition of value contains a relative term that makes a value judgment. For example, in the proposition, “Resolved, that John Jones did a good job as County Supervisor,” the word good cannot be precisely defined. The meaning of good depends on the value that is given to it. It may have several meanings: (1) John was kind to county board members, (2) John was politically successful, (3) John achieved his agenda, or (4) John was moral. In order to debate a value proposition, participants must define the value term, convince the audience that this definition is reasonable, and apply it to the subject of the proposition (John, in this case). Propositions of value represent the most common in respect to our daily lives. Whether trying to determine what to have for dinner, which movie to watch, which neighborhood is better for our children, selecting a car, or even selecting a radio station, we are faced with value judgments. They are also the most critical, because, as the narrative paradigm tells us, they cut to the core of our personal belief systems. It is values, you will remember that makes stories truthful and human.

A proposition of policy evaluates potential courses of action. It answers the question, “Should we change?” A proposition of policy may argue for a new program: “Resolved, that the federal government should finance elementary and secondary public education in the United States.” A proposition of policy may want to end a policy: “Resolved, that trial by jury should be eliminated in civil cases.” It may also want to substitute one policy for another: “Resolved, that tackle football should be replaced by touch football.” In any event, “should” is central to propositions of policy because they not only suggest change, but they warrant action. Something must be done to fulfill the call of the proposition of policy.

STORYTELLING AS HUMAN UNDERSTANDING: THE NARRATIVE PARADIGM

3/5

4/1