Communicating Research To Dumb-Dumbs

Bet the title caught your eye. For any clients or potential clients, the title is not what you think at all!! I actually had a client that I just finished an assignment for a few weeks ago. The main objective was to determine how they could build better relationships with one of the constituencies they serve. A specific focus was to determine how my client could present scientific research to their constituents in a way that would convince them of its validity.

In my focus groups, when I asked about their use of scientific research, my BS detector went off when I heard their responses. Most of the groups were comprised of individuals who did not have a research or scientific background - so to them research was "complicated" and "biased". Moreover, participants doubted the methods and conclusions drawn, saying they just did not know how the research could be so precise as to isolate specific effects of certain substances. I had no reason to doubt these stated responses, but the BS detector told me that these participants were actually scared of research and embarrassed about not knowing how to use or interpret it. This was the unsaid truth in the groups.

Knowing this, my recommendation to the client was not modify how research was presented - rather I simply told them to present the research as is, but to LISTEN and actually AGREE with most everything their constituents had to say about the research, even though, in my clients eyes what was being said was not true. I said in my presentation "What you need to realize is that these people don't know how to use research and are scared of it. If you actually agree with them in general, and then softly point-out point out how the research you are discussing is different, they will be much more likely to listen to you. You can teach them without triggering their concerns over not knowing too much about scientific research."

The recommendation is based on a number of theories in Gestalt Psychotherapy:

- In every transaction, the other person has "the power", not you. If you can yield to this, your mind begins to open-up and listen to the other person. In this example, my client's constituents are actually obliterating the research with a simple thought - how's that for power. They don't have to take any action - all the constituents have to do is say "I don't believe what you're putting in front of me." When this happens, you're dead in the water, and there is no way that you will be able to out maneuver this state of mind. There's a wonderful saying I use - "Never argue with an idiot - they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Now I'm not calling anyone involved in this research an idiot, but the saying holds. If someone is not going to see your point of view, no matter how "right" you are, you're the one that walks away frustrated and angry. The other person walks away "victorious", because they could care less about increasing their knowledge - they care more about winning and have in fact done so.

- There is a wonderful model called the "Co-dependency triangle". In it, people involved in any transaction can be described as "Persecutors", "Rescuers" and "Victims." In my client's case, the constituents were the Persecutors, and my clients were the Victims (i.e. "How could you not accept this research... it's completely valid"). The way to deal with a Persecutor is not to react to what they are saying, but to simply listen to it, keep listening and then show that you have listened. The persecutor simply wants to be heard. When that happens, the transaction opens to more possibilities.

- The Gestalt Cycle is a model that explains how a person makes contact with his or her environment. The very first part of the cycle assumes that a person is able to recognize that his environment is saying something to him (ever day-dream at the office and have someone call your name for 5 seconds - you're missing the environment), and that what the environment says is valid (ever feel slightly warm, but wait too long before you blast your A/C - you're dismissing yourself and your hot environment). My client was not recognizing any of their constituent's objections as valid. When this happens, my client is in a better position to respond.

In closing, I have taken on as my position to bring "humanity" into market research. While I have used three very "highfalutin" theories to describe why my client should engage with their constituent's objections, the bottom line is that I am simply recommending that my client make some human contact and show empathy to someone who is a bit scared and does not know how to express it. When looked at this way, who needs the theory, eh?