John Yorke’s Into the Woods is one of the classic modern storytelling theory books. In it, Yorke defines story as:
‘…the dramatisation of the process of knowledge assimilation.’
This, to me, sums up why science is so well-suited to being communicated in story. Because science is, by definition, the process of knowledge assimilation. By doing experiments or building computer models or reading the literature of scientists past, we assimilate knowledge about how the universe works.
So, when we tell stories about science, all we’re doing is dramatising that process; dramatising the process that science already just is.
When I say dramatising, I don’t mean inserting the Eastenders drum riff at the end of every presentation. The skill of a storyteller is to understand in what order to give the information to their audience so as to continually manipulate dramatic tension.
Our audience need dramatic tension to care, and that dramatic tension must constantly change for them to keep caring. If you’ve ever read a Dan Brown novel, you’ll have experienced whiplash from that rollercoaster of dramatic tension with every page-length chapter.
Increases in dramatic tension are caused by increasing uncertainty. What’s going to happen next? How will they escape? Will she notice the monster hiding under the bed? Etc.
In other words, we raise dramatic tension by raising questions.
And what goes up must come down. Dramatic tension is released when we answer those questions. That feels good for our audience. They get a dopamine kick when tension is resolved. Which sets them off craving that feeling again…
So what does this mean for telling scientific stories?
Well, scientific research is done by asking a series of questions. Well, the most important question you ask if your overarching research question, or hypothesis. A simple scientific story would set up the context, ask that question and then answer it.
But along the way you encounter all manner of smaller questions;
What equipment should I use?
Which parameters should I test first?
Why is the data not showing me what I expected?
Should I just give up and join the circus?
What if this outlier actually means something though?
Can I repeat it?
Has anyone else found this?
If you want to communicate your research as a gripping story, start by listing the small questions that contributed to your findings, then take your audience on the rollercoaster of tension with you.
