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.

Whenever I start a focus group, I point out that the participants don’t have to agree on everything. “We’re not the Continental Congress ratifying the Declaration of Independence in 1776 – there’s no need for unanimity,” I’ll say. “We can disagree and still get along.” I’ll often go on to point out that if they argue with each other for the entirety of the group, that’s fine with me, as long as they keep it friendly.

A key principle in qualitative research is this:  you’re more likely to learn interesting, surprising stuff when people disagree than when everybody’s on the same page. As George Patton said, “if everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”

This is important wisdom for all aspects of our lives. How boring things would be if everybody we encountered shared all our opinions. However, interacting with people can be challenging when they have opinions that are diametrically opposed to yours.

Frequently, I hear it said that we must respect all opinions. I disagree. We must respect people, and we absolutely must respect their right to their opinions, but we most certainly do not have to respect the opinions themselves.

One factor that makes this difficult is the tendency to confuse opinions with people. So, here’s a fundamental principle: you are more than just your opinions. People are defined by their actions – the things they actually do – not the thoughts in their heads. All people have a fundamental right to be treated with respect. But ideas and opinions aren’t people, and so they don’t have that essential entitlement. They must earn respect.

I have friends who differ profoundly with me on important issues. These are good, honest people whom I am fortunate to call friends. But maintaining that friendship in the face of such disagreement requires a crucial social skill: the ability to agree to disagree. This can be harder than it sounds, particularly in the case of emotionally charged beliefs – such as religious ones  – or those that are linked to a moral principle. The key lies in separating the opinion from the person. Respect for you doesn’t require respect for your opinions, and disrespect for your opinion doesn’t imply disrespect toward you.

Your newsletter continues here…

Disagreeing respectfully – even lovingly – is tricky. Here are a few things that can make it a bit easier:

1. Before you decide what think about an opinion, determine what kind of opinion it is. Opinions can be divided into two categories:

Aesthetic judgements – these are entirely subjective beliefs. E.g., ‘my dog is really cute.’ Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, it really doesn’t matter if others respect this opinion or not.

Truth claims – these are representations of fact, such as, ‘George Washington had wooden teeth’. As Aristotle pointed out, something is either true or it isn’t. If an opinion is a truth claim, and the facts support it, then it’s worthy of respect.

One thing that can muddy the waters: aesthetic judgments sometimes get stated as truth claims, and truth claims sometimes get stated as aesthetic judgments. And things get even more confusing if there’s a truth claim on one side of the conversation and an aesthetic judgment on the other. So be careful.

2. Express disrespect for an opinion in a way that clearly shows respect for the person who holds it. Rather than saying something like “you’re an idiot for thinking that” or “that makes no sense,” ask questions such as …“what’s the basis for your point of view?” Or, “Tell me about how you came to hold this opinion and the journey that led you to it.” This gives you an opportunity to share your own journey.

3. Remember that opinions—even your own— must be subject to examination. Nobody should expect their opinions to be accepted without question. It is never OK to say that an opinion is ‘off the table’ for scrutiny. If opinions can’t be challenged, then there’s no mechanism for preventing the acceptance of bad information or the rejection of valid information. If you’ve read my previous post you’ll know why this is important.

The right to hold whatever opinion you like – no matter how outrageous  – is fundamental to a democratic society, but it presents challenges to civil discourse. A few key social skills can help smooth the waters.