My academic writing has become influenced by my non-academic reading over recent times, in particular the developing literature on giving presentations. I've found the focus on the effectiveness of 'story' very persuasive, through my own experience of watching presentations and reading texts and the research findings from psychology.

This has two significant impacts on my research. It should influence the way I write (more of this in a later post) and direct the project's theoretical framework. Bevir and Richards (2009, p.132) describe "networks as the product of individuals acting on their beliefs and the stories they tell one another". If stories are to be a major subject of the research, this suggests to an emphasis on qualitative methods; interviews enabling a deep understanding of actors' experiences and stories.

As well as providing a method for investigating the behaviour of actors, network stories can also act as useful outputs for policy practitioners. Policy 'toolkits' are a device by which a network manager expects to derive the optimum outcome from their actions. However, in a system where there is great uncertainty, this technocratic approach gives a specious sense of precision to the consequences of individuals' actions. Bevir and Richards (2009, p.138) use this to justify storytelling as an alternative method of network management, focusing on the creation of meaning by individuals as a way of discovering possible courses of action. As the psychology literature has identified that humans gain a better understanding of situations through storytelling, this could prove to be a more effective way of engaging those within a network than a more abstract empirical approach. Rather than attempting to predict outcomes, practitioners can assess the consequences of actor behaviour in previous situations and use those experiences to make their own judgement on the best way to proceed.

A familiar challenge arises from the arguments put forward here: how can such an approach add anything to the literature other than a series of deep but unrelated case studies which cannot be replicated. Can there be a 'recentred' account which can provide generalisations without relying on structures or exogenous factors for explanation? Bevir and Richards (p.140) highlight traditions, beliefs and power as explanatory concepts which can facilitate this task. Power exists wherever actors interpret their surroundings, these surroundings in turn being derived from the actions of others.

The prospect of using stories to better communicate ideas is appealing for a researcher wishing to contribute to improved practice. That network actors are already using stories to interpret their environment is also an interesting question to explore. However, as someone who agrees with Margaret Archer's view that a middle-ground must be sought between positivism and post-modernism, I need to find a route from contingent case studies to  policy learning and a generalised theory.