Critical Realism

A modern person (a positivist or naive realist) formulates a hypothesis to solve a problem and tests it in order to obtain objective truth about reality. For her this is a sign of immediate unbiased access to the world. But Wright argues she is doing so according to her story, both in the data she accepts to corroborate her hypothesis, and in the hypothesis itself.

For example, if the story she is telling herself about the world includes a god, then this will affect in some way the solutions she proposes to a problem, the questions she asks to prove or disprove whether her solution works, why she asks the questions she does, and what data she accepts. If her story does not include a god, everything looks different. Both versions of the story cannot claim the objective high-ground, according to Wright. But surprisingly neither does he say that both of these stories are equally true - just subjective perspectives (a postmodern or phenomenalist response). Instead he argues that both stories can be tested for how well they explain the world.

"There is no such thing as ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ proof; only the claim that the story we are now telling about the world as a whole makes more sense, in its outline and detail, than other potential or actual stories that may be on offer. Simplicity of outline, elegance in handling the details within it, the inclusion of all the parts of the story, and the ability of the story to make sense beyond its immediate subject-matter: these are what count." - N.T. Wright, NTPG, p.42

My question is: How does N.T. Wright's prior commitment to history as the primary category for understanding the world affect his approach to epistemology? And what are the other categories available? 

It seems to me that Merold Westphal, at least in the first two chapters of Whose Community? Which Interpretation?, is beginning somewhere else. His discussion of hermeneutics up to this point seems to be more about the communication of ideas rather than events.