Storytelling as

Human Understanding:
The Narrative Paradigm
for Program Planners
Anthony Christopher Jones,
Institute for Communication Improvement
Fall 2006

A. Storytelling as Human Understanding 3/1

B. Paradigm Shift: From Rational World Paradigm to Narrative
Paradigm 3/2
C. Narrative Fidelity 3/2
D. Grant Proposal as Policy Argument 3/3
1. Types of Propositions 3/4
 Storytelling as Human
Fisher offers a way to understand all
Understanding communication and to direct rhetorical
inquiry. His structure is the foundation on
Humans are story-telling animals. This
which a complete rhetoric needs to be built.
simple assertion is Walter Fisher’s answer to
It provides a comprehensive explanation of
the philosophical question – “What is the
the creation, composition, adaptation,
essence of human nature?” Just as Berger’s
presentation, and reception of symbolic
Uncertainty Reduction Theory describes us
messages.
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.

3/1
 GUIDE TO SUCCESSFUL GRANT WRITING
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.
3/2
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
 STORYTELLING AS HUMAN UNDERSTANDING: THE NARRATIVE PARADIGM
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
3/3
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
 GUIDE TO SUCCESSFUL GRANT WRITING

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.

3/2
 GUIDE TO SUCCESSFUL GRANT WRITING
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
3/4
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.
 STORYTELLING AS HUMAN UNDERSTANDING: THE NARRATIVE PARADIGM
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.
3/5
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.
4/1