This illuminating “From the Editors” column, titled “Being Scheherazade: The Importance of Storytelling in Academic Writing,” was authored by Timothy G. Pollock and Joyce E. Bono and published in The Academy of Management Journal in June 2013. The central premise articulated by the authors is that scholars are tasked with two fundamental responsibilities: identifying and answering compelling research questions, and effectively communicating their findings through the art of storytelling. While the former often receives extensive attention through numerous books, articles, and “From the Editors” columns, Pollock and Bono argue that “precious little attention is given to the latter”, asserting that many within the academic field do not fully recognize the profound importance of storytelling for academic success. They underscore that the written word is the primary vehicle for transmitting ideas to the world, and therefore, for scholarly insights to meaningfully influence management research and practice, academics must “pay as much attention to the craft of writing and storytelling as we do to identifying and answering interesting questions”. This applies equally to both quantitative and qualitative researchers.
Pollock and Bono express concern that neglecting the storytelling aspect reduces academic papers to mere “research reports,” lamenting that such a mindset means “the battle is already lost”. This neglect results in valuable ideas and findings being “buried under a desert of barren prose,” accessible only to those willing to undertake a “tedious archeological dig”. The explicit goal of this column is to illuminate “key elements of storytelling and how they can enhance the impact of your academic writing,” focusing specifically on the narrative elements of storytelling and the process involved in crafting a compelling story. To achieve this, the authors draw valuable insights from books on effective writing by acclaimed novelists and experienced writing experts, distinguishing their focus from general writing advice or grammar instruction. They evoke the legendary storyteller Scheherazade, though noting that for academics, keeping readers interested is not “a matter of life and death,” but rather a means to strengthen stories and enhance their impact.
The article identifies three crucial narrative elements for effective storytelling in academic writing:
- The Human Face: Pollock and Bono argue that “Every story, even the driest, has a human face,” which, when well-drawn, acts as “a mirror and a magnet” for readers. They criticize the common academic practice of stripping human elements from narratives in an effort to sound “scholarly,” leading to “arid, context-free theorizing” that appeals only to ardent specialists. Drawing on novelist Stephen King, they explain that readers are captivated when they “recognize the people in the book, their behaviors, their surroundings and their talk”. This connection is often forged through anecdotes, relatable examples, or rhetorical questions. While academic stories should be “dry-eyed,” they must not be “bloodless and bland, with the human emotion washed out,” especially since scholars of human behavior should be adept at portraying the human element without sacrificing theoretical focus or importance. They offer Chatterjee and Hambrick’s (2007) study on CEO narcissism as an exemplar, noting how it establishes the theoretical importance of the construct early on, relates it to Greek mythology and clinical definitions, and connects it to relatable observations from the popular press, keeping readers “interested in learning how they test their arguments and what they find”.
- Motion and Pacing: Essential for effective storytelling, motion and pacing ensure that “Good stories are a brisk journey, and the reader can always feel the breeze in his hair”. A lack of these elements can lead to reader fatigue, causing them to disengage. Motion is generated by action that propels the narrative forward, while pacing involves “an unhurried, uncrowded revelation of facts that allows the reader enough time to pause over an idea, absorb it and reflect on it”. The authors stress the importance of a judicious blend of action and commentary. Articles that are “all action” may be “spare and colorless,” while those that are “all commentary” become a “still life-pretty, but without a ripple of motion”. They specifically caution against articles with too much action that offer rapid-fire findings without explanation or hypothesis building, and articles with too much commentary that feature “long front ends, extensive literature reviews, detailed descriptions of context, repetitive arguments, and long-winded descriptions of measures”. A significant inhibitor of motion and pacing is cluttered language, which Zinsser (2006) famously described as “the disease of American writing,” characterized by “unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills and meaningless jargon”. They advocate for simplicity, echoing Strunk and White’s (2000) “Rule 17: Omit needless words,” and advise against passive constructions, long words that could be short, and redundant adverbs that “weaken the sentence” and “retard motion and pacing”. They attribute this to authors’ fear or arrogance, urging the use of active verbs, personal pronouns, and the elimination of showing off. Varying sentence and paragraph length is also recommended to “enhance motion and pacing,” creating a “conversational rhythm that is easier to follow”.
- Titles: Described as “a powerful first impression” and “the front door to a house,” titles are the “first and best opportunity to capture the reader’s attention and convey the essence of your article”. An effective title is one that “stirs curiosity, engages the reader, and conveys essential information with an economy of words,” thereby sticking in readers’ memories and increasing the likelihood of citation. They cite Klein, Lim, Saltz, and Mayer’s (2004) “How Do They Get There? An Examination of the Antecedents of Centrality in Team Networks” as an effective example, noting how it starts with a “pithy question that captures interest”. The authors also suggest that phrases from popular culture can engage readers, provided they relate to the article’s main theme.
Beyond these narrative elements, the article meticulously details the process of crafting a story, breaking it down into two main stages: writing a first draft and effectively obtaining feedback.
- Writing a First Draft: The authors assert that “Effective storytelling rarely happens on the first try”. They quote Anne Lamott (1994), stating, “Shitty first drafts. All good writers write them. This is how they end up with good second drafts and terrific third drafts“. They identify lack of discipline, fear of failure, and perfectionism as common obstacles to completing a first draft. To neutralize these, they recommend:
- Consistency: Writing regularly for a set period each day, at the same time and place, free from distractions. They counter the “binge” writing approach, citing Boice’s (1990) research which showed that “forced” (prescheduled) writing led to significantly more pages and creative ideas than spontaneous or abstinent strategies.
- Small Assignments: Following Anne Lamott’s (1994) “bird by bird” advice, they suggest breaking the writing task into small, manageable pieces that can be completed in a short timeframe, allowing “tiny drops of writing [to] become puddles that become rivulets that become streams that become deep ponds” (Clark, 2006).
- No Critics: Suspending judgment during the first draft is crucial, as this “uncensored writing” allows the core story elements to emerge. They describe perfectionism as “the voice of the oppressor” (Lamott, 1994) and advocate for limiting self-criticism in early drafts, viewing it as a “gift to yourself” (Clark, 2006).
- Getting Feedback: After polishing the first draft through “at least a couple of major rewrites,” strategic feedback becomes indispensable. Drawing on Clark (2006), they advocate for developing a diverse group of “helpers,” each serving a distinct role:
- Supportive Friend: To provide encouragement and keep the writer going.
- Experts: Those knowledgeable in the topic and publishing, offering “tough advice” rather than just “safe feedback”.
- Non-experts: Individuals like a neighbor, spouse, or a first-year grad student, whose questions can gauge if the narrative is interesting, accessible, and clear.
- Blunt Critic: Someone with deep expertise but lacking diplomacy, who provides direct, specific feedback on major flaws without sugarcoating. The authors advise against arguing and instead, to react to harsh criticism with specific questions like, “Could you be specific about two major flaws in my manuscript that stand between me and an R and R?”. They emphasize the importance of asking for specific feedback over general statements.
- Copy Editor: If a professional is unavailable, they recommend using the free, impersonal, and detailed feedback provided by the “WritersDiet test” (www.writersdiet.com).
In conclusion, Pollock and Bono issue a forceful call to action for academics to “invest in improving their writing skills,” much like they invest in methodological training. They argue that while poor writing may not be the explicit reason for journal rejections, “diffuse, dense, and complex text is often a reason your reviewers don’t see your contribution as clearly as you do”. Enhancing writing abilities can lead to substantial benefits, including “more publications, easier revisions, increased citations, and greater influence on the practice of management”. To support this endeavor, they provide a recommended list of books on writing that are described as “readable, practical, funny, and inspiring” to guide scholars in crafting stories with a human face, engaging motion and pace, and captivating titles. Ultimately, the column encourages scholars to embrace the role of Scheherazade to ensure their valuable research truly resonates and makes an impact.
Reference: Pollock, T. G., & Bono, J. E. (2013). Being Scheherazade: The importance of storytelling in academic writing. The Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4003