In arguing that academic writing can be (and already is) narrative based, I’m arguing that academic writing is not nearly as objective as we often like to imagine. It is autobiographical. I’m also arguing that much of the academic writing I’ve done, which explicitly relies on narrative, is just as valid as any other type of academic writing. That is, my writing is revealing the truth of Thomas Newkirk’s argument that “[my] theories are really disguised autobiographies” (3). If we are indeed narrative beings, then surely we do not simply shut off the narrative machine the minute we start writing an academic or argumentative text, even if we may pretend that we do.
Ron Christiansen offers an interesting point when it comes to academic writing. Academic writing is at it's core, extremely detailed story telling. In scientific writing, particular emphasis is taken to how the scientists performed their procedures, and the results of said procedures, and the broader implications of the results of said procedure. In other words, a scientific paper is an extremely rigorous narrative.