Storytelling has long been recognized as central to human cognition and communication. Here we explore a more active role of stories in social science research, not merely to illustrate concepts but also to develop new ideas and evaluate hypotheses, for example, in deciding that a research method is effective. We see stories as central to engagement with the development and evaluation of theories, and we argue that for a story to be useful in this way, it should be anomalous (representing aspects of life that are not well explained by existing models) and immutable (with details that are well-enough established that they have the potential to indicate problems with a new model). We develop these ideas through considering two well-known examples from the work of Karl Weick and Robert Axelrod, and we discuss why transparent sourcing (in the case of Axelrod) makes a story a more effective research tool, whereas improper sourcing (in the case of Weick) interferes with the key useful roles of stories in the scientific process.
GelmanA.2004. “Exploratory Data Analysis for Complex Models (with discussion).”Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics13:755–87.
17.
GelmanA.2008. “Methodology as Ideology: Some Comments on Robert Axelrod’s “The Evolution of Cooperation.””QA-Rivista dell’Associazione Rossi-Doria2:167–76.
18.
GelmanA.2010. “Bayesian Statistics Then and Now.”Statistical Science25:162–5.
19.
GelmanA.2011. “Going beyond the Book: Toward Critical Reading in Statistics Teaching.”Teaching Statistics34:82–86.
GelmanA.ShaliziC. R.. 2013. “Philosophy and The Practice of Bayesian Statistics (With Discussion).”British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology66 (1): 8–80.
MarchJ. G. 2010. The Ambiguities of Experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
31.
MarshallS. L. A.1947. Men against Fire. New York: William Morrow.
32.
MaurerS. B.TuckerA. W.. 1983. “An Interview with Albert W. Tucker.”Two-year College Mathematics Journal14:210–24.
33.
MossR. W.1988. Free Radical: Albert Szent-Gyorgyi and the Battle over Vitamin C. New York: Paragon Books.
34.
SallerR.1980. “Anecdotes as Historical Evidence for the Principate.”Greece & RomeSecond Series27:69–83.
35.
SchankR. P.AbelsonR. P.. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36.
SlomanS.2005. Causal Models: How People Think about the World and its Alternatives. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
37.
SpillerR. J.1988. “S. L. A. Marshall and the Ratio of Fire.”RUSI Journal133:63–71.
38.
SwieringaR.WeickK. E.. 1982. “An Assessment of Laboratory Experiments in Accounting.”Journal of Accounting Research20:56–101.
39.
TukeyJ. W.1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
40.
WeickK. E.1982. “Affirmation as Inquiry.”Small Group Research13:441–50.
41.
WeickK. E.1987. “Substitutes for Strategy.” Pp. 222–33 in The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal, edited by TeeceD. J.. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
42.
WeickK. E. 1998. Sensemaking as a Vocabulary for Innovation Management. Distinguished address to Technology and Innovation Management Division, Academy of Management, August 11. San Diego, California.
43.
WeickK. E.2003. “Commentary on Czarniawska.”Management Learning34:379–82.
44.
WeickK. E.2006. “Dear Editor: A Reply to Basbøll and Graham.”Ephemera6:193.
