With the holidays approaching, we have a unique opportunity to support the businesses we care about.

The small, local businesses that add so much to our communities are very much in need of our attention. The pandemic has taught us it’s essential to support businesses that are important to us, because they may be more vulnerable than we think. Increasing costs, higher interest rates, challenges finding and retaining employees, lingering supply chain issues, Covid safety protocols  – you name it – are creating a uniquely challenging environment for small, businesses. Their owners are feeling particularly pessimistic.

To that end, as a qualitative researcher, lately I’ve been encouraging my clients to get back to in-person qualitative. This is partly because I love doing research face-to-face, partly because I believe in-person research gets you a level of engagement, insight and nuance that online simply can’t. And partly because I believe in supporting businesses that I value. When it comes to face-to-face qualitative research, this means focus group facilities, local recruiters, field managers and other businesses that provide for this type of research. Many of these businesses have gone under over the past 2 ½ years.

When you support a local business, most or all of what you spend goes directly into the local economy and supports the creation and maintenance of jobs right in that community. Also, there’s a waterfall effect. Each of those businesses will support other local businesses. A local focus group facility, in addition to creating multiple jobs and contributing to local property taxes, supports restaurants and caterers, cleaning services and many tradespeople.

In the town where I live, Westfield NJ, we’ve lost a number of well-regarded local businesses since 2020. Our favorite store for herbs, seasonings and spices closed. And Brummer’s, a 116-year-old family-owned chocolate shop shut down as well – so no more of those to-die-for chocolate covered apricots. These businesses are gone for good. So, this holiday season, our family is making a point of buying local. By supporting local bookstores, florists, toy stores, clothing stores, restaurants, movie theaters and so on, I can think of no better way to “be the change you want to see in the world.”

About 18 months ago, during research on health-related topics, the conversation turned to attitudes towards vaccinations. Here’s a word-for-word quote from one participant: “The covid jab just makes me uncomfortable. I feel like I need more data.” After hearing this, one of the observers texted me: “Have her explain why she refuses to get vaccinated!” I didn’t ask that question. Instead, I asked the participant to tell me more.

After the group, the observer asked why I hadn’t posed his question. I pointed out that the participant hadn’t actually said that she refused to be vaccinated, only that she wasn’t comfortable and needed more information. As it turned out, she was pretty set against being vaccinated but – as a qualitative researcher – it is important that I focus on exactly what research participants have said, and not make assumptions about underlying meaning. Instead, my job is – through careful probing – to get participants themselves to reveal those hidden meanings.

This is a lesson I learned before I got into qualitive research. Back when I worked in brand management, I received training on giving constructive feedback to the people who reported to me. A key principle the instructor shared was that feedback must be solidly based on what employees have actually done. She advised against making assumptions about what was going on in that person’s head, but rather only to talk about observable, empirically verifiable actions. In other words, rather than accusing someone of being lazy and poorly organized, simply point out that they got to work 45 minutes late, and still haven’t delivered work due two days ago. I’ve taken that lesson to heart ever since.

This principle can apply to all aspects of life. Make a point of taking what people say at face value. If someone says ‘nice tattoo’ in a tone that seems insincere, don’t take the bait. Just say thanks. If somebody expresses a view with which you disagree or that you don’t understand, be sure that your response focuses on what has actually been said, without reading anything into it.  And make your response a question that gives the other person an opportunity to elaborate.

Making assumptions about people’s motivations is not conducive to civil discourse. Rather than reacting to what you think are a person’s beliefs and values, question them as specifically and precisely as you can – to better understand what they have actually said to you.  Because that’s what really matters.

Your newsletter continues here …

The following are some questions you can ask to help people clarify what they mean:

Can you tell me the story of how you came to this point of view?

I’m not sure I’m following – can you explain?

How do you think your view contrasts with the views of others?

Have any past experiences shaped your opinion on this?

Could you elaborate on that a bit?

I think I know what you mean, but could you please spell it out for me?

What do you think are the implications of your POV?

Have you always felt this way, or has your opinion changed over time?

When you say – keyword in what has just been said like ‘jackbooted thugs’ – what do you really mean by that?

So, there you have it – some questions that will enable people to explain their point of view without you making any assumptions

Sometimes, when I’m conducting qualitative research, a sensitive issue will come up for which there’s no time, that’s off topic, and that I want to avoid.

This came to mind when I recently gave a seminar to The Center for Learning and Living on agreeing to disagree. I’ve been blogging about this for a while, so it was a welcome opportunity to talk about it with thoughtful people. One point that came up in our lively discussion was that, while being able to have friendly, honest conversations with people with whom you disagree is important, avoiding difficult conversations is also a necessary skill. This is true both in everyday life and in qualitative research settings. Sometimes a civil conversation isn’t in the cards, or maybe you just don’t want to get into it with someone.

Civil conversation is a skill. But sometimes there’s no opportunity for agreeable disagreement, and you need to draw on a different skill – avoidance.

My family has a set of four techniques for deflecting or delaying difficult conversations. Here they are, in no particular order:

Ignore.  Sometimes there’s nothing gained from even the tiniest bit of engagement. If that’s the case, simply ignoring is the way to go. For many, this is harder than it sounds, as it might make you feel like you’re being rude. Some people are naturally confrontational, and struggle to ignore the objectionable. Ignoring might also be interpreted by others as aggression, implying a message you actually don’t want to send (then again, maybe you do).

Smile and nod. A greatly underrated skill. Smiling and nodding can be interpreted by others in any way they like, which might suit you just fine. Use this one if you don’t care if others think you agree or not. Another advantage of this is you can do it while walking away.

Grunt noncommittally. A great technique, it enables you to provide a response without actually responding. Just make some sort of noise in the back of your throat and you’ll be home free.

Disengage. This can take many forms – walking away, directing your attention toward another person, changing the subject, deflecting with humor or a non sequitur. Depending on the situation, this can work better than ignoring in that it might not feel as rude or belligerent.

And there you have it – four essential social skills to avoid unpleasantness or delay it for a more appropriate time. One last thing: there is a top-secret fifth social skill. I can tell you is that it involves the liberal consumption of alcoholic beverages, but that’s all I’m going to say.

As a qualitative researcher, it’s essential that I be skilled in gathering and understanding all points of view on a research topic.To put this in context, I was a member of the debating club in high school. Despite not being a very good debater – no killer instinct, they told me – the experience was a formative one. The club had three rules:

1. All arguments must be grounded in verifiable facts – no making stuff up

2. No personal attacks

3. Whatever side of the issue you’re assigned, you must debate to win – regardless of your own opinion on the topic

I’ve never forgotten that third rule. We debated a lot of fraught issues: welfare, school prayer and creationism, to name a few. The experience of arguing an opinion that I didn’t hold was uncomfortable, but also exhilarating.

I’ve come to understand that if you can’t argue every side of an issue – regardless of where you personally stand – you don’t really understand the issue. The philosopher John Stuart Mill put it well:

“He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, but if he is unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”

I continue to follow this principle. I feel a responsibility to be able to state coherently the arguments of people who disagree with me.

I’ve written in the past that – while we must respect others and their right to their opinion – we don’t have to respect opinions themselves. Here’s a build on that; you can respect an opinion without agreeing with it. But to do that you must understand it. Furthermore, if you aren’t willing to try to understand a conflicting opinion, how much respect do you have for the people who hold it?

Being able to argue the other side of an issue takes resolve – maybe even courage. Looking for information that contradicts your worldview and then constructing an argument in conflict with your own opinion can be nerve-racking. There’s a reason we have the term ‘cognitive dissonance.’ However, it is essential to respectful discourse.

So, pick a controversial, emotionally-loaded topic about which you feel strongly: voting rights, abortion, religious freedom, eating meat, whatever, and ask yourself this: if you were a member of my high school debating club, could you convincingly argue the other side? If not, what does that say about your command of the issue? And what might you do about that?

Conversation in focus groups often comes around to current events, regardless of the topic at hand. Occasionally I want it to do that, mostly I don’t, but it usually happens anyway. And, when people are discussing the news of the day, you’re almost definitely going to find anger, and you’re probably also going to encounter outrage. That just seems to be the way of the world these days. To live in our current social and political environment is to immerse yourself in outrage.

But, as a qualitative researcher, if I can’t deal with outrage in research participants, I won’t be able to have productive conversations or obtain reliable information.

Before we go any further, some definitions:

Anger is simply a strong feeling of annoyance or displeasure.

Outrage is what happens when anger gets out of control, particularly when combined with feelings of stress, fear, isolation, and helplessness, often exacerbated by poor problem-solving skills.

Anger is a normal, potentially productive human emotion – it spurs us to do things that need doing. Outrage can be toxic and destructive. It prevents civil discourse, prompts bad decisions and irrational behavior, walls you off from compassion, and can lead you to dehumanize the people you see as the source of your outrage.

But, the dirty little secret is that outrage is also highly engaging. It provides emotional release; physiologically, it triggers your body’s fight-or-flight response, causing the secretion of numerous powerful hormones, most notably adrenaline and cortisol. So outrage is exciting – maybe even fun.

The political essayist and cartoonist, Tim Kreider, has described outrage as something that feels good, but that “devours us from the inside out.” He points out that, “it’s even more insidious than most vices, because we don’t consciously acknowledge that it’s a pleasure.” He’s right about it being a vice – it’s number five on the Catholic list of Seven Deadly Sins.

In fact, you could argue that outrage is addictive. This depends on how you define addiction, but it’s no secret that there’s a close relationship between anger and addictive behaviors. That’s why so many addiction recovery programs stress the development of anger-management skills.

Your newsletter continues here …

Outrage is also seductive. Not just due to that hormone-fueled emotional response, but also because it feels productive. Outrage is so energy intensive that it can give the sense that you’re accomplishing something – the illusion that you’re powerful and in control. This allows you to avoid such pesky responsibilities as productive action and empathy.

Outrage is a challenge, and not just if you’re a qualitative researcher. Actually, it presents two challenges: understanding it and managing it. I’m not going to get into the question of managing your own anger and outrage – there’s lots of literature out there on that already. But understanding it in others is key to civil and productive conversations. And, if you’re a qualitative researcher, you need to do more than understand outrage, you need tools to manage it.

As a researcher, when I encounter outrage, I’ve learned to respond with questions. Specifically, questions that separate outrage into its individual components: annoyance, displeasure, fear, stress, helplessness, isolation and so forth. Some good questions for understanding outrage – in no particular order:

• “Why do you think people get so angry about this?”

• “How do your feelings about this relate to your sense of right and wrong?”

• “How does this issue make you feel?”

• “How have you come to care about this so deeply?”

• “What, specifically, is annoying to you about this topic?”

• “Is there anything you find scary about this?“

• “What do you think is at stake here?”

• “What do you think you, personally, can do about this?”

• “Do you feel in control here?”

• “Do you feel helpless?“

• “Do you feel like you’re the only person who sees this issue clearly?”

These questions can serve you well in any situation in which you encounter outrage. And don’t think that they’re only questions for others – you can ask yourself the same questions when you feel outrage. You never know, you might actually learn something.