This rigid structure may seem like a barrier to creativity. It tells you what you have to write, and where to write it. It pre-defines the logical structure of your story in many ways. But, I would argue that having that rigid structure forced upon you as an author not only confines the structure of your story, but it also frees you to explore different ways of storytelling.

Let’s compare other storytelling styles. Western movies have a rigid structure. Japanese samurai movies, such as those by Akira Kurosawa, and the original Star Wars movies also followed this rigid storytelling structure. Yet, they all are different and are celebrated as being creative. You would look at almost any other movie genera and find that they all follow a storytelling structure, but derive their uniqueness by being creative within that structure.

An effectively told story will follow an arc. First, the scene is set. Then there is an event that raises tension, and a few following events that raise tension even more. At the highest point of the arc, the story reaches its climax, then as the arc falls, tension is released to arrive at a resolution.

Rafael Luna described how to harness this storytelling arc in “The Art of Scientific Storytelling.” Basically, you set the scene early in the Introduction. The protagonist is the subject of your study, rather than a person. The antagonists can be the reaction conditions, interacting organisms, environmental conditions, or whatever happens in your science. Tension is created by showing the scientific unknowns (knowledge gaps) that need to be resolved, as you establish your research question. Tension is increased as you work through the results, building bits of knowledge. The climax should be in the first paragraph of the Discussion, where you answer the research question. The remainder of the Discussion will be the falling arc, as tension is released and we see how the new knowledge fits in with the world. Two other books I have read, and highly recommend, that deal with storytelling in scientific writing: “Houston, We Have a Narrative,” by Randy Olson, and “Writing Science,” by Joshua Schimel (see my review of Writing Science here). These two books take different, but equally effective approaches to storytelling. I incorporate elements from all of them into my writing practice.

It takes awareness, practice, and skill to apply these concepts effectively to scientific writing. You don’t want to go overboard with it and turn your paper into something unrecognizable and unpublishable. You also do not want to exaggerate the importance of your findings or problem just to make a more flashy story.