Asian Journal of Current Research

This article re-evaluates persistent scholarly scepticism concerning the methodological rigour of narrative inquiry by comparing the mechanisms through which narrative and scientific discourse achieve textual cohesion. The analysis distinguishes the temporal and experiential configuration that characterises narrative discourse from the structured argumentation, logical reasoning, and evidentiary organisation associated with scientific discourse. On this basis, the study develops a contrastive cohesion framework for clarifying how narrative evidence functions within scholarly research without being reduced to the evaluative standards of positivist inquiry. The analysis shows that narrative cohesion derives meaning from temporal sequencing, contextual interpretation, and the organisation of lived experience, whereas scientific cohesion relies primarily on inferential progression, claim-evidence alignment, and systematic argumentation. These differences reflect distinct epistemic rationalities rather than a simple hierarchy of methodological quality. The study further clarifies how narrative techniques and data can operate as legitimate research instruments while remaining distinguishable from conventional literary storytelling. By locating methodological rigour within paradigm-appropriate forms of cohesion, the article provides a basis for evaluating narrative inquiry according to its own analytical logic while preserving the evidentiary and argumentative requirements of scholarly research. The resulting framework supports a more balanced understanding of narrative inquiry as a context-sensitive and methodologically coherent approach to knowledge production.