Using storytelling techniques for research, design, and presentation of content poses a variety of challenges to the course designer. Among the most significant are

• Contrast with the engineering approach

• Lack of standards

• Credibility

The next several sections explore each of these challenges in more detail.

Contrast with the Engineering Approach

Two approaches dominate education, behaviorist and constructivist. Although both are scientific in the sense that they are based on empirical inquiry (that is, research based on actual observation of phenomena) and require extensive rigor (in other words, merely observing something is not sufficient —the phenomenon must be observed several times and from a variety of perspectives), the more traditional approach in education—the behaviorist—is more consistent with the engineering approach followed in many organizations, especially certain corporations and government agencies. The engineering approach makes extensive use of hypothesis testing and statistical data.

Storytelling is more representative of the other scientific tradition that dominates education—constructivism. In fact, the interviews and analysis of documents (called artifacts) used to elicit background stories for learning programs are the same research methods usually preferred by constructivists.

Because the engineering approach dominates many organizations in which learning professionals work, in some of them, the use of a storytelling and contextually based design may create discomfort. In some of these instances, sponsors are not familiar with the scientific rigor in the methods of research and may feel that they are inappropriate as an approach to needs assessment, design, and formative evaluation. One of the challenges to instructional designers who consider using storytelling and contextually based design techniques is the issue of whether such approaches will be accepted within the culture of the organization for whom designers are working.

Lack of Standards

Although a variety of storytelling and contextually based design techniques exist for training needs assessment, design of learning programs, and formative evaluation, no standards exist. That is, no standard format exists for conducting day-in-the-life research or for presenting personas and scenarios. At the most, some organizations have formats for presenting such content.

Nor are standards expected. Contextually based design is about choosing what is appropriate in a given situation, not force-fitting design to meet a standard. As a result, instructional designers must feel comfortable developing and refining their own approaches.

Credibility

The greatest challenge in storytelling is credibility. That is, are the stories credible and believable to the people who are using them? In terms of needs assessment, credibility usually refers to the credibility of the data emerging from the assessment. The data must be complete and accurate. In practical terms, the question is, Did the instructional designer consider all key views regarding the data? Does the reporting reflect those varieties of views? Did the instructional designer consider situations that contradict the data collected and, if so, are those contradictions represented? For example, does the needs assessment merely represent the views of learners or does it also include that of managers?

In terms of design, credibility refers to the believability of the personas and scenarios created. How accurately do these represent the real world of learners? Do they represent the full spectrum of learners? If not, has the designer explained why these other personas and scenarios are not presented? For example, suppose the designer prepares a persona of a typical user for an upcoming learning program about a new system. Does the persona represent the user as blindly embracing the new system or does it acknowledge doubts that users will likely have?