This essay first describes the indictment of the “rational world paradigm” upon which the narrative paradigm is built and then systematically tests that indictment as well as the benefits that have been claimed for the narrative perspective. The analysis suggests that there is a useful argumentative tradition, best represented by the informal logic movement, which avoids the dangers identified by proponents of narrative. At the same time the narrative paradigm largely fails to fulfill its aims.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robert C. Rowland (1988) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: