I am working on an article about patient advocacy. I have come to a point in the article where I am not sure which "road" to take. I can either give anecdotes from my personal experience or just write in general terms. There are pros and cons for each, but I am particularly curious about two things.
The first, which do readers relate to better. Would they feel an affinity with my story and understand what I am trying to convey through that means? Or would they have difficulty relating it to what they may be experiencing? If so, does that mean generalities would communicate more effectively?
Secondly, which approach does the audience actually prefer? In other words, is there any data that shows which technique leads to greater readership.
I welcome any and all comments on this subject. I will continue in researching this on my own, as well.
Back to writing...