***The Glory of the Story:***

***A Summary of Kendall Haven's Presentation at the May EPO
Colloquium***

By Alan Ward

On Wednesday May 3, **Kendall Haven** was the featured speaker at the
monthly [Education and Public Outreach Colloquium]{.mark}. Haven's
presentation was entitled *Voice of the Mind: The Amazing Power of Story
... and What It Means to You*; the full presentation is available at the
Committee for Education and Public Outreach website:
[Esdepo.gsfc.nasa.gov](http://Esdepo.gsfc.nasa.gov/). Haven was formerly
an oceanographer but has now become a professional storyteller---see
[www.KendallHaven.com](http://www.KendallHaven.com/) for some of his
materials. He has previously presented talks and workshops at Goddard
Space Flight Center (GSFC) about the structure of stories and how to use
them to convey scientific information. Haven maintains that *story* is
the most effective means to convey scientific information, and some at
Goddard wanted to know if he could prove what he was saying was true.

The basic question Haven set out to answer was: *Does the form and
structure used for narrative presentation affect the way the
reader/viewer understands the material presented, creates meaning, and
retains the information (memory and recall), based on scientific
information, concepts, and research presented.* In short, the answer is
a rather emphatic YES!

Haven gathered evidence from a wide range of sources including
antecdotal evidence from 100 storytellers and 1800 practitioners (from a
variety of fields), 300 qualitative studies, and 100 quantitative
studies. **His research clearly shows that the use of story architecture
provides superior retention and improved understanding, makes reader pay
more attention, and enhances creation of meaning.**

Haven cited numerous examples of quotes from studies to back up his
claims. Key words that keep coming up included meaning, understanding,
relevance, and context. Some studies show that young children can
understand more complex/abstract concepts when conveyed in context of
story. (Haven argues the same is true for adults.) Many of the studies
cited come from education, but others come from other fields.
Interestingly, some directly address science writing.

Below is a sampling of some of the quotes that Haven shared. The full
list (and Haven's entire presentation) are available at the EPO website
listed above.

*Stories (structure of) are integral to the ability to have information
and experience make sense to our lives.* ---Swatton (1999)

*If you can't see the story; you won't learn the content and its
meaning.* ---Spicer (1988)

*Stories provide a way to make sense of experience. Stories provide
particularly important ways of understanding uncertain experiences that
challenge what had previously been taken for granted*. ---Babrow (2005).

*Storytelling is increasingly seen as an important tool for
communicating explicit andespecially tacit knowledge---not just
information, but know-how. ---*Kahn (2001).

*Science is a form of storytelling. Science meaning is constructed and
conveyed through storytelling and story structure.* ---Howard (1991).

*The structural form of story carries power and appeal that is
intentionally removed from what is commonly called scientific expository
prose.* ---Tannen (1999).

*People understand the world in terms of stories that they have already
understood. New events or information are understood by reference to
old, previously understood, stories and explained to others by the use
of stories.* ­---Schank (2000).

So the literature would seem to suggest that story is a very powerful
tool for conveying information, including science. **Why, then, do we
not see *stories* used more frequently?** Haven suggests two main
reasons. First, there are a number of myths and misconceptions that that
persist concerning stories, and second, no one has thought to define
*story* from any viewpoint more rational than personal preference.

There are some common misconceptions concerning stories that need to be
overcome, which include the following:

• Stories = fiction---i.e., *story* is really only useful for telling
fiction.

• Stories = lies, made up, make believe; i.e., Parent to child: *"You
better not be telling me a story!"*

• Stories are inappropriate for factual and scientific information, for
nonfiction reporting.

• People won't believe you if you have to resort to telling stories,
which goes back to story = lies above.

• Stories waste time by requiring needless details.

• Your arguments must be weak if you have to resort to stories.

With regard to the attempt to find a good definition for *story*, the
dictionary defines a *story* as *a narrative account of a real or
imagined event or events*, but that definition doesn't really help to
clarify things. By that definition, "The boy went to the store," would
be a story. Haven asserts that **the dictionary is wrong**, and suggests
that it doesn't lead us to a working definition of what a story is or
how to effectively use this might architecture.

When one turns to the literature to search for a good definition of
*story*, one doesn't find much more help. There seem to be almost as
many definitions of story out there as there are studies on the subject.
Haven showed some examples from the literature. To make it even more
confusing, sometimes a single paper might have several different
definitions for *story*. Haven classifies many of these definitions as
*useless* since they do nothing to help us come up with a specific,
concrete story architecture that will improve the reader's/viewer's
attention to, development of meaning and understanding from, retention
of, and memory and recall of the concepts, data, arguments and
conclusions presented.

So Haven has taken matters into his own hands. He has done research
bringing together information from the fields of neural biology and
linguistics, developmental psychology, computer neural net modeling,
information science and knowledge management, cognitive sciences, and
education in order to attempt to construct a more accurate and useful
definition of *story*. Haven next briefly summarized some basic concepts
of brain anatomy and brain monitoring technology. His point is going
through this information was to demonstrate that modern technology gives
us unprecedented ability to track how the brain works---i.e., we no
longer have to guess.

Research indicates that **the human brain is *hardwired* for *story***.
That is to say, we're born with a pre-disposition towards making sense
of our lives through story. The brain's *story predisposition* is
reinforced and strengthened as the brain develops---mostly complete by
age 12. In the words of *Kotulak* (1999), "Cells that fire together,
wire together." By the time we reach adulthood, we are dependent on
interpreting events and other human's behavior through a specific story
architecture. So in essence, says Haven, "The mind is what the brain
does." New technology has only helped us to confirm this.

Haven says that part of this pre-programming is that we tend to assume
that sensory input makes sense and *fill in* missing info accordingly
(using existing mental maps). Haven gave a couple of examples.

**Example 1**: "Where's John"... "Well... I didn't want to say anything.
But I saw a green VW parked in front of Carol's"

**Example 2**: "Hi Ken" ... "NO! I'm not Ken. I'm not here. I'm not
here!"

Most of us probably filled in the blanks to make the conversations above
make sense, almost without thinking about it. That is, we work with
partial information so often that we have developed certain *mental
structures* that allow us to create meaning when we are presented with
partial information. According to *Pinker* (1997), our brain tends to
create *rules of thumb* that help us process incomplete information.
Among those *rules of thumb* are:

-   Events have causes in past events (temporal sequencing).

-   Actions are driven by beliefs and goals.

-   Human behavior follows predictable patterns based on goal
    attainment.

Story structures are used to help us deal with partial information. We
observe a situation and jump to a certain conclusion, i.e., help us make
sense of the world. Haven gave a few examples:

-   You see a woman slumped on a bench crying, dress smeared with grass
    and dirt... and assume there is a logical reason for it, that
    something happened to her(in the recent past) to make her cry.

-   You see a man chasing a dog... and assume the man wants to catch the
    dog and that the dog has done something to deserve the man's
    pursuit.

-   You see a black rock against white snow... and assume even lighting.

-   You see black and white dots on a screen... and mentally assume it's
    a 3-dimensional reality

*Mental maps* are how humans make sense of other human's behavior and
*create meaning* from sensory input. Humans use *mental maps* (i.e.,
cheat sheets) to process incomplete sensory input and to *combine our
interpretation* of that input with existing banks of experience to make
it *make sense*. If you can't *make sense* of the situation quickly, you
get bored, you feel it's above your head, and you assume it's not worth
your time to try and understand---i.e., you discount the value of the
information that's before you because you couldn't connect with it.
Since *story architecture* seems hardwired into us as human beings, it
makes sense that we would turn to it as a means of creating these mental
maps that help us make sense of our world.

Haven noted that human minds use a number of specific mechanisms to
accomplish this including: metaphor/parable; correlation/prior
knowledge/pattern matching; inference/elaboration; mapping/schema; cheat
sheets/framing; language (grammar) ; and relevance/context/empathy. He
elaborated on some of these mechanisms that were particularly relevant
to the context of science writing.

**Metaphor/Parable**: Metaphors and parables allow us to understand one
domain of experience in terms of another. Consider the difference the
metaphor you choose to interpret something makes in the meaning you
create. For example, is *argument a war* or is *argument a dance*? Your
attitude going into an argument may be very different depending on how
you choose to frame it.

**Correlation//Prior Knowledge**: Having prior knowledge greatly
enhances our ability to understand. To demonstrate how *prior knowledge*
helps use make *correlations*, Haven showed used two examples from
Bransford (1993).

For the first example, Haven put a bunch of sentences up on the screen,
each connecting a seemingly random name to an action---e.g., Frank
brings eggs; Joe built a boat. Then, he went on to the next screen and
wanted to know how many the audience could remember? It was virtually
impossible to remember any of the connections because we had no *prior
knowledge* to give us context or relevance for who these people were
that would help us remember. Next he showed the same list of actions,
but this time the actions were associated with names that we would (from
our *prior experience*) associate with those actions---e.g., the Easter
Bunny brings eggs; Noah built a boat---and it was much easier to
remember the list. The example illustrates is a good reminder to us that
our audience may or may not have prior knowledge of what we are talking
about when we write. This can be a particular struggle when doing
science writing. It's one thing to write minutes for a science meeting
and quite another to write articles/products geared to the general
public.

For the second example, Haven asked the audience to compare how they
understand these two paragraphs:

**Paragraph 1**: *A thirsty ant went to the river. He was carried away
by the rush ofthe stream and was about to drown. A dove, sitting in a
tree overhanging the water, plucked a leaf. The leaf fell into the
stream close to the ant and the ant climbed onto it. The ant floated
safely to the bank. Shortly after, a bird catcher came and laid a trap
in the tree. The ant bit and stung him on the foot. In pain, the bird
catcher threw down his trap. The noise made the dove fly away.*

**Paragraph 2**: *Pete argued that data gathered from a NASA voyage to
Venus called into question current theories about the formation of our
solar system. Part of his talk emphasized the importance of mass
spectrometers. He then discussed the isotopes of argon 36 and argon 38
and noted that they were of higher density than expected. He also cited
the high values of neon found in the atmosphere. He has a paper that is
already written, but he was aware of the need for further investigation
as well.*

The point here is that it's generally much easier to connect with
**Paragraph 1** because you have *prior knowledge* and so your mind
quickly fills in the blanks. **Paragraph 2** on the other hand, is "NASA
Speak", and though some in our audience may understand it perfectly
well, the average person does not, because they have no *prior
knowledge* to help them connect the dots.

**Inference/Elaboration**. According to *Bransford* (1998), "If you know
a lot about a topic, it is much easier to elaborate on, and to create
meaning from the information that is presented and remember what you
have read or heard. However, when a topic is unfamiliar to
readers/listeners, research shows that the natural tendency is to use
familiar story structure with character goal, motive, and struggles to
elaborate on available information and to provide mapping structures to
bring *prior knowledge* and experience to bear on the interpretation of
current input."

Haven gave an example here that illustrates this idea: *John was late to
work because of the snow.* Haven pointed out that most people in the
U.S. would connect with this statement, but what about someone living
Central America who has never seen snow in their life? The idea again is
readers who connect with these details automatically elaborate---i.e,
they *infer* the unwritten details and fill in the blanks easily---but
unless you *elaborate* on why this matters, readers who don't connect
with the details provided, will tend to discard your story and assume it
doesn't have value to them.

Haven also pointed out that readers/listeners automatically make these
types of inferences. Therefore, the story creator must anticipate and
control this elaboration to produce the desired understanding and
interpretation of the information that is provided.

**Mapping/Schema**. A schema is a mental map produced in response to
stimulus that becomes a framework or basis for analyzing or responding
to other related stimuli. Readers tend to remember the mental map or
schema rather than the text itself.

Next, Haven showed how understanding a character's *goals* and *motives*
helps us make sense of information we read. He showed an example from
*Bransford* (1993):

*Sally let loose a team of gophers. The plan backfired when a dog chased
them away. She then threw a party but the guests failed to bring their
motorcycles. Furthermore, her stereo system was not loud enough. Sally
spent the next day looking for a "Peeping Tom" but was unable to find
one in the Yellow Pages. Obscene phone calls gave her some hope until
the number was changed. It was the installation of a blinking neon light
across the street that finally did the trick. Sally framed the ad from
the classified section and now has it hanging on her wall.*

Upon first reading this paragraph, it is unclear how all these facts
connect to one another. However, once we understand the character's
(Sally's) *goals* and *motives*, our understanding increases. When we
are aware that, *Sally hates the woman who moved in next door and wants
to drive her out*, our mind can conjure images and sequences that help
us form the connection between all of these different facts.

Human minds automatically seek key story elements. (If they aren't
explicitly stated, people will tend to make them up themselves, perhaps
jumping to erroneous conclusions.) People interpret objects and animate
objects and assign goal, motive, intent, conflicts, and values to all
actions. Agents propel themselves in service of a goal. For example, a
few dots on a screen are quickly given motive. We see each dot as
seeking a goal, when in reality, they are just dots on a screen!
According to *Pinker* (1997), "Beliefs and goals (wants) drive rational
behavior. If we are to understand behavior, we must understand beliefs
and *goals*." Remember, humans make decisions based on partial
information, so we use cheat sheets (*mental maps*) to fill in the
blanks (i.e., the most probable truth), and the *mental map* humans tend
to use most to explain human behavior is story structure. So for
example, we might read the sentence: *Sally smells smoke and leaves the
building*, and our brain will quickly fill in the details. *Goal* and
*motive* helps to create context, meaning, relevance, and memory.

Haven suggests that in science writing the prevailing attitude is that
the facts should speak for themselves, but unfortunately, that often
means the facts don't speak at all. Facts, he suggests, are made more
relevant in the context of a story. Science writing often implies (if
not buries) most of key story elements, and that has the effect of
losing the viewer/readers focus. The human mind basically goes through a
series of questions when it receives new information:

1\. Should I pay attention?

2\. How can I interpret and understand what I received?

3\. What of my experience and *prior knowledge* applies here?

4\. So, what does this mean to me personally?

5\. \[If deemed worthwhile\] File to memory.

So based on all of this combined research, Haven can now present a **new
and improved definition of *story***: A *character-based* narrative
account of a character's *struggles* to overcome *obstacles* and reach a
defined and *important goal* presented in sufficient *detail* to make
the story real, vivid, and memorable. One could condense this down to:
*Characters at war*. To effectively communicate using *story*, it's good
to keep in mind and be able to answer the following questions:

1\. Who is the *main character* in the story?

2\. What *character traits* make them interesting and relevant?

3\. What do the character need to do or get (*goal*)?

4\. Why is that goal important (*motive*)?

5\. What *conflicts/problems* block the character?

6\. How do they create *risk* and *danger*?

7\. What does the character do (*struggles*) to reach the goal?

8\. What sensory *details* will make the story seem real?

Haven also spoke about **applying this new definition of story to the
specific context of science writing.** The goal as stated earlier is to
adapt story elements and architecture to increase attention, retention,
memory, meaning, understanding, accuracy, and recall of the information
presented. Haven suggests that often in science, we tell what he called
*family stories*. The assumption made is *part of the family* and thus
has prior knowledge of what we are discussing, so we can leave out extra
details---e.g., defining acronyms, explaining details, etc. That
assumption is often not correct, especially when trying to write for a
more general audience. The solution, Haven suggests, is story
architecture. Strive to put a face on science. Create context, empathy,
and relevance through character development. Tell the story through the
eyes of the scientist. There are many interesting characters in science
and we should take advantage of that. Provide explicit goals and motive
for characters (left implicit in family stories, because it's assumed we
already know it) and help the reader create meaning and understanding.

There was a brief period for questions at the end of the talk. Someone
asked how we should handle situations where the reader/viewer assumes
they have *prior knowledge* of a topic that they actually don't
understand at all. Haven suggests the best cure for that is to be as
explicit as you can in your story telling, so they don't have to resort
to *mental maps*, etc. It may also be appropriate to say, *"This may run
counter to what you're used to ..."*

To speak with Kendall about specific questions using story to
communicate information, feel free to e-mail him at:
<kendallhaven@spcglobal.net>.