Abstract. 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 wellenough 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 plagiarism (in the case of Weick) interferes with the key useful roles of stories in the scientific process.

No abstract

Academic writing is the art of writing down what you know for the purpose of discussing it with other knowledgeable people. In so far as students and scholars approach it in these terms, they often tend to focus on the role of knowledge. Students imagine that they must demonstrate what they know to their examiners (who know more than they do) and scholars imagine that they must communicate what they know to their colleagues (who don’t yet know their results). This is completely understandable since knowledge is at the core of academic work, but both scholars and students sometimes lose sight of the discussion. They think of the discourse as a performance rather than a conversation. In this paper, therefore, I will explore the formation of academic discourse and the building of academic competence in terms of the rhetorical situation (not just the epistemic resources) of academic readers and writers.  This shift of focus has some important implications. Academic writing is not merely the communication of ideas or the transmission of facts; much more importantly, it is the exposure of ideas to criticism. The academic writer is not interested in “ideas worth spreading,” to invoke the famous slogan of TED talk, but in ideas worth testing. To sharpen the point, we might say that academic writers are always writing for people who are qualified to tell them that they are wrong. As writing consultants and information specialists, we help scholars and students face this situation squarely.

Purpose -In 2010, the author published a practical critique of some of Karl Weick's writings, to which Weick offered a rejoinder. The purpose of this paper is to use his response as an occasion to reflect on the rhetorical conditions of critique in the sensemaking tradition. Design/methodology/approach -This paper provides a rhetorical analysis of Weick's response to the author's critique, showing that it is directed at the ethos of the critic. For the purpose of the analysis, ethos is conventionally defined as the character, competence and goodwill of the speaker. Findings -The analysis shows that Weick's dismissal of the author's critique suggests the lack of a "dwelling place" (the primordial sense of "ethos" in pre-Socratic Greek) for critical scholarship in sensemaking research. Originality/value -All scholarly communities need a space for the critical evaluation of the claims their members make. In an attempt to establish such a place, the author counters the standard disciplinary pedagogy of sensemaking, which is inspired by Lave and Wenger's "legitimate peripheral participation", with a call for legitimate peripheral irritation.

No abstract