1988/09/01 by Walter R. Fisher · 3 citations
Arts and Humanities · Psychology · #Rhetoric and Communication Studies #Philosophy, History, and Historiography #Narrative Theory and Analysis #Narrative #Interpretation (philosophy) #Argument (complex analysis) #Epistemology #Subject matter #Subject (documents) #Sociology #Linguistics #Psychology #Literature #History #Philosophy #Art #Pedagogy #Curriculum #Computer science
paper · doi:10.1080/00028533.1988.11951383
openalex publication_date 1988/09/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
This essay is a response to two papers, written by Bruce E. Gronbeck and Allan Megill, which appeared in the 1987 Alta proceedings. The subject is the nature of historical writing. Looking at the matter from the stance of the narrative paradigm, I offer another view, one that questions the heavy distinction between narrative and argument which informs the positions taken by Gronbeck and Megill.