Login
This post is about philosophy, memes, and taking action. It’s a reflection on an experience I had this week which caused me to reflect on the paucity of ‘awareness raising’ as a tactic.
I studied Philosophy at university a couple of decades ago. One of the courses was on ethics and involved the trolley problem.
The trolley problem is a series of thought experiments in ethics and psychology, involving stylized ethical dilemmas of whether to sacrifice one person to save a larger number. The series usually begins with a scenario in which a runaway tram or trolley is on course to collide with and kill a number of people (traditionally five) down the track, but a driver or bystander can intervene and divert the vehicle to kill just one person on a different track. Then other variations of the runaway vehicle, and analogous life-and-death dilemmas (medical, judicial etc.) are posed, each containing the option to either do nothing, in which case several people will be killed, or intervene and sacrifice one initially “safe” person to save the others.
It’s a powerful tool to generate insights into your own ethical position on certain topics. These days, it’s rolled out to warn about outsourcing decision-making to the systems underpinning self-driving cars. And, of course, it’s now a recognisable meme.
In my experience, most of the trolley problem thought experiments lead towards an understanding of supererogation.
In ethics, an act is supererogatory if it is good but not morally required to be done. It refers to an act that is more than is necessary, when another course of action—involving less—would still be an acceptable action. It differs from a duty, which is an act wrong not to do, and from acts morally neutral. Supererogation may be considered as performing above and beyond a normative course of duty to further benefits and functionality.
Interestingly, in a recent episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast, Theron Pummer suggested a twist on this. Pummer, who is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of St Andrews and Director of the Centre for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs, has published a book entitled The Rules of Rescue. I haven’t read it yet, but to quote the summary on his own web page about the book:
Pummer argues that we are often morally required to engage in effective altruism, directing altruistic efforts in ways that help the most. Even when the personal sacrifice involved makes it morally permissible not to help at all, he contends, it often remains wrong to provide less help rather than more.
I have issues with Effective Altruism, which I’ll not go into here, but I find Pummer’s framing fascinating. Basically, you don’t have to help others in certain situations; no-one would think it was immoral or illegal to go about your business. However, if you do decide to help, then there’s a minimum amount of help that could reasonably be required.
This week, I was at MozFest House. I had a good time. As with all MozFests I’ve been to, there are exhibits with which you can interact. One of them asked you to use a touch screen to fill in details of the kinds of services you use. It then printed out a long receipt on the type of data that is gathered on you when using them. I asked the PhD students who had come up with the machine what I was supposed to do with this data. They intimated that they were merely raising awareness and didn’t suggest a single thing I could do.
I was left in a worse position than I began. One could say that’s the point of awareness-raising, that it’s about making people feel discomfort so that they take action. But if you’re going to make an intervention I would agree with Theron Pummer’s stance that there’s a certain minimum level of guidance to give. A first step, at least.
Contrast this with another interactive exhibit in which you received tokens for free coffee if you answered a series of questions about yourself. I managed to get three by lying and not providing personal data. Which, of course, could be said to be the point of the exercise: be careful about the data you put out there, especially for scant reward.
Once you see people putting in the minimum effort of ‘awareness raising’ you start seeing it everywhere. It’s particularly prevalent on social media, where it takes a single tap to reshare news and make others aware of something you’ve just seen. As humans, though, we tend to have a bias towards avoiding harm so social media timelines become full of doom.
I’m on a bit of a mission to get some more positivity into my life. Not in a mindless way. Not in an avoiding-reality kind of way. But rather following people who have noticed a problem and are doing something about it. Seeking out those who can take a step back and look at the wider picture. And, of course, those who share some of the wonder of the world around us.
The post On the paucity of ‘raising awareness’ first appeared on Open Thinkering.Note: cross-posted at LinkedIn
Sharepidation (noun) A fusion of sharing and trepidation, sharepidation refers to the state or condition in which a person feels anxious, apprehensive, or nervous about disclosing or presenting their work, ideas, or personal creations more widely. This term encapsulates the vulnerable and courageous act of making one’s efforts transparent despite the underlying fear of judgement, criticism, or rejection.
I come across this all of the time in We Are Open Co-op‘s work. People get over it (and flourish!) but it’s a thing. So let’s have a name for it!
Image by Quentin Lagache
The post Sharepidation first appeared on Open Thinkering.Note: cross-posted at LinkedIn
When WAO starts working with organisations, the most important thing we have to figure out is how decisions are made. After we’ve established that, the second is the organisation figures out how best to serve their audience. The latter can be done in several ways, but there’s no substitute for talking to people!
In our experience, there’s quite a few reasons why organisations might avoid user research. Let’s have a look at a few of the most common along with some arguments against (and ways around) them.
The world is not slowing down, and product development and service delivery are particularly fast-paced environments. That means it’s not uncommon for managers and stakeholders to overlook the vital role that user research plays in their success. This oversight may stem from a lack of comprehension regarding the tangible benefits that user research brings to the table. As a result, decision-makers might be hesitant to allocate resources towards research initiatives.
However, by shedding light on the value of user research and illustrating its impact on the effectiveness of products and services, we can help foster a deeper appreciation among stakeholders. Quantitative data is important, but gaining qualitative data from users or your audience is vital. It’s the difference between ‘having a better value proposition’ and the realisation that your core audience doesn’t think that your product or service is actually for them.
People are promoted within organisations often because of their understanding of the sector in which they work. However, it can be dangerous to think that previous lived experience or a particular view constitutes the ‘truth’ of the situation. This can lead to thinking that user research is superfluous. Such overconfidence is usually based on anecdotal evidence, personal experiences, or preconceived notions that may not accurately reflect the broader user base.
If we acknowledge the limitations of these informal insights, then we can emphasise the importance of user research in painting a more comprehensive and diverse picture of users’ needs. By doing so, organisations can make more informed decisions and avoid the pitfalls of overconfidence, which ultimately results in more successful products and services for their users or audience.
No-one particularly likes to hear that they or their organisation are doing anything other than a good job. So it’s natural for people to be wary of negative feedback. The problem is that this apprehension can sometimes give rise to resistance towards user research, as decision-makers may be reluctant to uncover potential issues or face criticism.
There is a way of reframing this mindset by embracing the notion that constructive feedback is a valuable opportunity for growth and improvement. Looked at this way, organisations can overcome hesitations and appreciate the indispensable role that user research plays in enhancing their offerings. In the end, it’s through facing these challenges head-on that organisations can truly thrive and achieve long-term success.
As mentioned above, we live in a fast-paced world with organisations tending to focus on short-term objectives and instant outcomes. User research, on the other hand, represents a long-term investment in product development, which might not always align with the immediate ambitions of an organisation or its decision-makers.
However, when undertaking user research for the first time, or for the first time in a while, immediately-actionable insights often are forthcoming. Coupled with the long-term value that user research brings to the table, organisations can strike a balance between short-term wins and sustainable success. In doing so, they can foster a more holistic approach to product development that not only meets immediate needs but also paves the way for a future-proof, user-centric experience.
User research is a time-consuming process. I’m well aware of this as my wife (Hannah Belshaw) is a user researcher! As such, organisations might find themselves facing constraints around budgets or staff, which can make it challenging to plan and carry out research sessions. More frequently, they may opt to prioritise other initiatives over user research.
Nevertheless, by acknowledging the long-term value that user research brings to product development and service design, organisations can make a conscious effort to allocate resources effectively. User research can be weaved into the fabric of strategic planning to ensure that their products and services continually evolve to meet the needs and expectations of their users. This ultimately drives long term success.
Organisations often don’t know what they don’t know about user research. Sometimes they don’t have the required in-house expertise for designing, implementing, and analysing user research sessions. This gap in their knowledge can make it difficult to derive actionable insights which means that they’re hesitant to get started in the first place.
Once this challenge has been recognised, organisations can seek to bridge that gap in their expertise, either through training existing staff, hiring new ones, or partnering with external experts. By tapping into the wealth of knowledge that user research provides, organisations they can ensure that their products and services evolve in sync with the ever-changing needs of their users.
The idea of user research is to gain insights to improve products and services. Sometimes, these insights can lead to a call for substantial alterations which, understandably, might be met with resistance. After all, if you’ve invested considerable time and effort into the existing design, then you might not be best pleased if you’re being asked to change course. In addition, there are many people and organisations who are naturally averse to change of any sort.
However, by embracing the notion that adaptability is key to long-term success, organisations can begin to adopt a growth mindset. By navigating this resistance to change they can make use of user research insights to create better, more user-centric products and services that ultimately stand the test of time.
There are many other reasons barriers to performing effective user research. For example, gaining buy-in or support from leadership can be an uphill battle, making it difficult to secure the necessary resources or cooperation. Then there are sometimes privacy and legal concerns, particularly when handling sensitive information or user data. And, of course, logistical complexities in terms of co-ordinating with research participants, internal teams, and external organisations can be off-putting.
To overcome these additional obstacles, organisations can focus on ensuring proper legal guidance when dealing with sensitive data — which is something they should be doing anyway! Effective project management should help with difficulties around logistics, and it’s always a good time to start fostering a culture of research appreciation among leadership.
User research is a form of superpower for organisations. Doing it effectively means the difference between designing products and services that work for your users and audience, and creating a barrier between you and them. It’s no silver bullet, but if the best time to start was several years ago, the second best time to start is today!
Images CC BY-ND Visual Thinkery for WAO
The post Identifying and overcoming barriers to user research within organisations first appeared on Open Thinkering.It’s only Wednesday and I’ve had a couple of occasions this week to refer to Nonviolent Communication (NVC) and the FONT framework that I learned in workshops run by Outlandish. I’d highly recommend that you also attend their Reframing Conflict sessions.
I’m publishing this post so that I’ve got something to point people towards during conversations in which I reference FONT and NVC.
Let’s begin by defining terms:
Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is an approach to communication based on principles of nonviolence. It is not a technique to end disagreements, but rather a method designed to increase empathy and improve the quality of life of those who utilize the method and the people around them.
[…]
NVC is a communication tool with the goal of firstly creating empathy in the conversation. The idea is that once there is empathy between the parties in the conversation, it will be much easier to talk about a solution which satisfies all parties’ fundamental needs. The goal is interpersonal harmony and obtaining knowledge for future cooperation. Notable concepts include rejecting coercive forms of discourse, gathering facts through observing without evaluating, genuinely and concretely expressing feelings and needs, and formulating effective and empathetic requests.
Wikipedia
I have to be honest, I thought this was some real hippy-dippy stuff when I first read it. But the FONT framework in particular changed my mind. As Pete Burden and Abi Handley explain:
“FONT” is not a single model – it is a bricolage; it draws on:
Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication, Gervase Bushe’s Clear Language, Thomas Gordon’s work on I-statements and requests.
Ideas from several people (such as Bill Isaacs and Diana McLain Smith) at the MIT Dialogue and Harvard Negotiation projects ; David Grove’s Clean Language; Agazarian and Simon’s System for Analysing Verbal Interaction (SAVI™); Bill Torbert’s collaborative enquiry.
And work by Arnold Mindell, Bob Kegan, Carl Rogers, David Cooperrider, David Kantor, Douglas Stone, Lisa Lahey, Mary Follett, Reg Revans, Robert Plutchik, Stephen Hayes, Susan Wheelan, Richard Schwartz and many, many more.
So what is it? How does it work?
FONT is an easy way to remember the four constituent parts, but when you use this as an approach, you actually use it in this order:
Since I attended the workshop, I’ve used this approach in both professional and personal conflict situations. Sometimes I’ve done it verbally, starting with “I noticed that…” whereas other times I’ve gone through the FONT process in written form to prepare me for a potentially-awkward conversation.
Step 1: Observe the situation objectively — focus on the specific behaviour that’s causing the issue, rather than making assumptions or jumping to conclusions. For example, if a colleague is frequently interrupting you during meetings, observe that behaviour without making any assumptions about their intentions or motivations.
Step 2: State your thoughts — try and articulate what you are thinking or have noticed in an uncontroversial way. For example, you could say to your colleague, “I notice that you often have a lot that you want to communicate during meetings.”
Step 3: Identify your feelings — are you feeling frustrated, angry, or upset? By identifying your emotions, you can communicate more effectively and avoid becoming defensive or confrontational. For example, you might say “I feel frustrated when you interrupt me during meetings because I want to make sure my ideas are heard.”
Step 4: Articulate your needs — what do you need in order to feel more comfortable or productive in the situation? This is an opportunity to express your needs in a positive and constructive way. For example, you might say “I need to have uninterrupted speaking time during meetings so that I can share my ideas and feel heard.”
Step 5: Make a request — this is an opportunity to ask for what you need in a constructive and positive way. For example, you might say “can we agree that everyone will have an opportunity to speak uninterrupted during our meetings?”
As a side note, it’s worth mentioning that “I noticed that…” is a bit of a magic phrase. For example, there are cars which travel too fast down the 20mph street next to my house. I tend to get annoyed at this and have a tendency to shout at the drivers, but my neighbour has a better approach. He smiles, asks them to wind down their window, and says something like, “I noticed that you seemed to be in a hurry?” His going on to explain that the road has a 20mph speed limit feels overall like a less confrontational approach.
In closing, one of the things I’ve learned during my career to date is that coercion and manipulation tends is a hallmark of hierarchical and paternalist organisations. We can do without it:
Nonviolent Communication holds that most conflicts between individuals or groups arise from miscommunication about their human needs, due to coercive or manipulative language that aims to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These “violent” modes of communication, when used during a conflict, divert the attention of the participants away from clarifying their needs, their feelings, their perceptions, and their requests, thus perpetuating the conflict.
Wikipedia
People may bristle at the accusation that many of our ‘normal’ ways of communication tend to be violent but, it’s worth thinking about adding the FONT framework and nonviolent communication techniques to our toolboxes. I think my family, friends, and colleagues would still say I’m perhaps a little too quick to anger, but at least I now have tools to defuse situations that would previously feel out of my control!
The post FONT and Nonviolent Communication first appeared on Open Thinkering.
FreshRSS 