Abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion. The straight forward reporting format you were taught in high school, maybe even intermediate. Stringent, quantified and… boring. Do we really enjoy reading literature that does not appeal to our human nature?
Our brains are hardwired to respond to storytelling. A well-constructed narrative can captivate our imagination, change our beliefs and influence our behaviour. Think about how our childhood bedtime stories helped us relax and provide the content for our sub-conscious thoughts and our dreams.
And then think of facts. Scientists and other minority groups will latch onto these, but they don’t appeal to the majority. Yet they implicate the majority. Scientific research is important for the innovation of new toolkits for society. But one of the reasons we aren’t interested is that it is not written in our innate language. It is emotionless and often doesn’t have a well-developed context that we can relate to.
Where is the story? Intro, methods, results, discussion, conclusion. Important steps to structure, but they need context and they need to be weaved into a story.
All around the world, science communication is catching up and using alternative platforms to promote and communicate scientific endeavors. Culture is also a large part of the context and this assists when explaining your work in communities and part-taking in stakeholder engagement. We are seeing the rise of a variation of traditional western science. One that is inclusive and engaging. One that you won’t need to have a PhD in order to communicate. Because it’s a story and a story that you will want to tell your friends.