This is different. Not only different than anything we have done before, but different than the research and reporting that we read before we came. Just a couple of days into our Tour I offer a few reflections on how our method is evolving and the consequences of this approach.
Amateurs on the Beat
We are amateurs. This means we do not have preconceived ideas about how to do the research. We don’t pretend to apply any level of academic rigor. We cannot backup anything we say with statistical data, other than that which occurs to us and is easily found. On the other hand, that leaves us open to pursue any train of thought that the people we interview want to present to us. We do not feel any need to fit the information into a set “box.”
Ax Free
We have no “ax to grind,” a phrase very familiar to Wisconsinites. We are not from the government, any political party or candidate, anyone trying to sell them anything, or anyone conducting marketing research. This becomes obvious quickly and as such it may feel safer to talk with us than others.
We are not constrained by norms of socially acceptable conversation. Rather than avoiding questions such as “how much do you, or did you earn?” We are asking. For some reason, given the context of the discussion, people seem willing and even eager to answer. Rather than avoiding politics, we are jumping right into it. Yet the context of the conversation is one of “somebody getting to know a bit about somebody else.”
We are trying to avoid value judgments about what people tell us. We are attempting to report, as accurately as we can, what we hear. To this end, we are recording (on a phone app) the conversations when they are with individuals in an appropriate setting after gaining permission. No one has said “no” although several have asked us “why” before giving it. As we were told by pros, we notice that the recording device disappears from the observable consciousness of the person we are interviewing within a minute of the conversation.
We are not constrained by norms of socially acceptable conversation. Rather than avoiding questions such as “how much do you, or did you earn?” We are asking. For some reason, given the context of the discussion, people seem willing and even eager to answer. Rather than avoiding politics, we are jumping right into it. Yet the context of the conversation is one of “somebody getting to know a bit about somebody else.”
We are trying to avoid value judgments about what people tell us. We are attempting to report, as accurately as we can, what we hear. To this end, we are recording (on a phone app) the conversations when they are with individuals in an appropriate setting after gaining permission. No one has said “no” although several have asked us “why” before giving it. As we were told by pros, we notice that the recording device disappears from the observable consciousness of the person we are interviewing within a minute of the conversation.
Clarify, don’t Challenge
We are not challenging statements made by the people we are interviewing. We do ask clarifying questions. We believe clarifying by challenging may turn people off and as a result give us less information to report. This may be uncomfortable to our readers, and it sometimes is to us as well. But the task we have set out is to listen and learn.
We do not, to the best of our ability (and I think this is harder and less common for me than Peter) inject our own opinions. Sometimes commenting on what we are hearing can elicit additional and very interesting responses, and we are trying to be active listeners. The responses we have observed to date would indicate that we have not offended the people we have interviewed.
One of the big challenges is to get beyond “Wisconsin Nice” and to get to the tender parts of conversations. This is very difficult in the one interview we do with any given person. To the extent that we are, and appear to be, interested in what people have to say, and non-judgmental about their comments, they seem to be opening up. We have no way to determine the effectiveness of this, though.
We do not, to the best of our ability (and I think this is harder and less common for me than Peter) inject our own opinions. Sometimes commenting on what we are hearing can elicit additional and very interesting responses, and we are trying to be active listeners. The responses we have observed to date would indicate that we have not offended the people we have interviewed.
One of the big challenges is to get beyond “Wisconsin Nice” and to get to the tender parts of conversations. This is very difficult in the one interview we do with any given person. To the extent that we are, and appear to be, interested in what people have to say, and non-judgmental about their comments, they seem to be opening up. We have no way to determine the effectiveness of this, though.
Four Ears, Two Mouths
We are not individual researchers or journalists out gathering data. We benefit from both listening to the conversation and reflecting with each other afterwards. Naturally each of us observed something slightly different. As a consequence our observations may be more well-rounded than those of individuals who are researching solo.
No Market Pressure
We are not researching for publication, other than this blog, and do not feel that we need to get the sensational and dramatic narrative that might be needed to find a publisher or larger audience. We are not working with a grant and its particular requirements.We expected this to be an adventure and to date we are finding one.
We welcome your feedback as a comment or an email if you are so inclined.
--David
David, you and Peter are embodying the approach that Charles Eisenstein has advocated. You're asking, "What is it like to be you?" — and you are listening to the answers in a non-judgmental spirit. You appear to be learning a lot while you inhabit this consciousness yourselves. Looking forward to more reports as you go!
ReplyDelete