STRAT7 Jigsaw’s inspirational positioning – a blessing and a curse!
‘Making sense of human complexity’ is company brand positioning that is (at least) as challenging as it is inspiring. To hope to deliver on it means a heavy reliance on Wendy Gordon’s bricoleur approach to qualitative thinking – the more and varying perspectives we have at our disposal, the more complete and insightful the picture we can build for our clients.
Qual researchers are naturally curious about people, but at STRAT7 Jigsaw we encourage an intellectual curiosity to match. The brand positioning demands it! We are not expected to spend our spare time seeking new inspiration but if we do, serendipitously, encounter a book, film or cultural event that might have some potential implications on the ‘day job’, why waste it?
Case in point, Harvard intellectual Stephen Pinker recently gave a talk, based on his latest book ‘When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life’. (If you think the title is long and hard to follow you should try reading the book!) It was one of those promotional tours where even a grandiose thinker like Pinker ends up lurking in the foyer, signing and flogging copies, with his dignity firmly around his ankles.
But enough about the vibe, what about the content itself?
What is Pinker’s theory of Common Knowledge?
By ‘common knowledge’ Pinker doesn’t mean ‘what everyone happens to know’, but rather ‘knowledge that everyone knows that everyone knows’. Central to his thesis is a concept from social psychology, ‘pluralistic ignorance’ – a state where everyone privately holds doubts about a belief or opinion but publicly conform because they assume they are the exception. Pinker builds and develops this concept arguing the distinction between private and common knowledge matters because shared awareness encourages and enables people to collaborate and act. He cites Han Chistian Anderson’s ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ as the most celebrated example of the exchange from private to common knowledge.
What has that got to with qual research?
Reflecting on the talk during my morning run the next day (typically a scene of mental rather than physical achievement), I began to wonder if Pinker’s theory may have relevance to qualitative research. As a moderator, the description of pluralistic ignorance struck a chord. You do sometimes pick up on a feeling of participant’s ‘holding back’ their opinions. It was interesting to put a name to this phenomenon and understand the dynamic a little more.
I then began to wonder whether the theory might have specific implications on how we conduct qual on sensitive or controversial subjects, for example ‘awkward’ health conditions (mental health, incontinence and sexual dysfunction) or issues around social or political dissent. The stigma around some health issues may arguably have lessened somewhat in recent years but sensitivities around political expression will surely have increased in our era of polarisation? Pluralistic ignorance may be more relevant now than ever.
Should we rethink the default to depths in sensitive research studies?
Conventional qualitative research wisdom traditionally favours depth interviews for these projects because the more intimate setting builds and encourages greater disclosure. That is persuasive, but it has always seemed that group discussions, budget permitting, can bring an additional lens. Groups and depth interviews tend to elicit different participant personas, revealing distinct yet complementary truths. Groups also allow us to observe social norms in action – revealing the language participants use, what they emphasise and what they leave unsaid.
Pinker’s framework can potentially offer another rationale for including group discussions in these projects.
A sensitive or controversial finding that is teased out in a depth interview remains essentially private knowledge, more akin to a confession and requiring careful moderation. Exploring it further may not be appropriate or comfortable. The insight is of course intrinsically valuable, but there’s a limit to what can be done with it in the depth interview context.
Theoretically, if the same insight were to emerge in a group environment and resonate with other participants, then the participant is no longer isolated but amongst like-minded peers. The traditional strengths of the group discussion, its collaborative and constructive nature, could be utilised to develop the insight.
Wait, there may be more
There is another element of the theory to consider. The way Pinker describes the transition process suggest they are accompanied by an energy conducive to collaboration and action. He doesn’t elaborate on the exact nature of this energy, but it feels intuitively right. It is feasible that the release of inhibition, coupled with the boost of knowing you are ‘in group’, not out group creates a swell of energy that a moderator can use. Moderators know what a precious commodity energy is in and just how hard it is conjure up! The transition in group could then be an opportunity, not just for gaining deeper understanding of the insight and exploring its implications but also for utilising that energy to brainstorm its strategic potential.
But how to make it work?
The theory can explain the potential role groups can play but a practical question remains, how do we reliably surface private knowledge, so it becomes common knowledge in the room?
Just to note, we are talking here of the relative likelihood of certain insights emerging and there are no absolutes – a group discussion that is especially open and non-judgmental may tease out the same private knowledge ready for transition – but it is just much less likely to do so. Bearing that in mind, what is the best way to ensure the insight emerges in the group environment?
Several possible approaches come to mind and each grants permission in a different way. Projective questioning lets people voice sensitive feelings but in disowned form. Sharing anonymous pre-task content makes the insight visible without individual discomfort. In these examples the knowledge comes specifically from within the group and therefore is more likely to resonate and convert into common knowledge. It also (somehow) seems to better respect the integrity of that group. There is however no rational reason why researchers shouldn’t reveal content from previous depth interviews, on condition they are transparent about their origins. Perhaps introducing it something like: “This is something people in other research interviews have shared albeit a little reluctantly” – which leaves the researcher with the option of exploring not just reactions to the thought, but also why it might be voiced only reluctantly.
Even if the insight as shared fails to resonate (and convert into common knowledge), it can instead be treated like a standard piece of stimulus. Certainly nothing is lost.
Don’t get too excited
My night with Pinker didn’t change my life or even transform my qualitative philosophy but it has provided food for thought for sensitive or controversial future projects.
But even if new thinking doesn’t have clear and direct application, it can still increase our understanding of what we are hearing and seeing during fieldwork, aiding our analysis and interpretation in subtle ways.
That is enough reward – but I am glad I didn’t spend the £32 on the book!
Peter Totman, Oct 26