research helps us to see other perspectives

Seeing through another's eyes

Research shows how we use others’ viewpoints to make decisions.

Everyday life is full of situations that require us to take others' perspectives -- for example, when showing a book to a child, we intuitively know how to hold it so that they can see it well, even if it is harder to see for ourselves. Or when performing before an audience, we often can't help but picture how we will look to the other people.

New research published on 21 February in Current Biology has provided the first direct evidence that we can do this because we spontaneously form mental images of how the world looks to the other person, so that we can virtually see through their eyes and make judgements as if it was what we were seeing.

The study, led by Eleanor Ward, Dr Giorgio Ganis and Dr Patric Bach at the University of Plymouth, focused on a mental rotation task commonly used in psychology, where participants are asked whether a rotated letter on computer screen is presented in its standard form (e.g. "R") or mirror-inverted form ("?"). Usually, the more a letter is rotated away from the person judging it, the longer it takes to decide its form. The reason for this is that people first have to mentally rotate the object back to its upright orientation before being able to judge its form, and this rotation takes longer the more the letter is oriented away.

But the new study reveals that people can bypass this mental rotation when another person is introduced. The study shows that even when items are oriented away from participants, their decision times are surprisingly fast if the item appears upright to the other person and is therefore easily identifiable from their perspective. In contrast, if the letter appears upside down for the other person, even relatively easy judgements become harder for the participants.

Lead author Eleanor Ward, PhD student in the University of Plymouth School of Psychology explained: "This study shows that what we see can be overridden by what another person sees if it helps us to make a judgement. People do not need to mentally rotate an object if they already 'see' the object in the usual upright orientation from the eyes of another.

"People did this even though we did not give them instructions about the extra person introduced and they viewed them completely passively. They still used the extra set of eyes, which suggests it is a process that occurs spontaneously."

You can try out the task in this short demo video here: http://www.psy.plymouth.ac.uk/research/actionprediction/Shared/VPT_demo.mp4

Importantly, the study did not find the same speeding up of judgments when an inanimate object (a lamp) was introduced instead of a person, even though the lamp was roughly the same size and was oriented towards the letter in the same way as the person's. This makes sense as a lamp can't 'see' so participants would not construct an image of how the world looks to an inanimate object.

Eleanor continued: "Imagine you're in a car and you see a pedestrian crossing the road, and a bus is travelling at speed towards the crossing. Suddenly you realize the driver hasn't seen the pedestrian and could hit them, so you beep your horn. How did you make this split-second decision? Our study suggests you automatically put yourself in the bus driver's shoes and saw the scene through their eyes."

Dr Patric Bach, who is the head of the Action Prediction Lab where the research was carried out, added: "Perspective taking is an important part of social cognition. It helps us understand how the world looks from another's point of view. It is important for many everyday activities in which we need interact with other people. It helps us to empathize with them, or to work out what they are thinking.

"Our study provides new insights that people can do this because they very quickly and spontaneously form a mental image of how the world looks to another person. As soon as we have such a mental image, it is easy to put ourselves in the other person's place and to predict how they will behave."

• Child Psychology
• Public Health
• World Development
• Popular Culture
• Legal Issues
• Psychopathology
• Social cognition
• Psychologist

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Plymouth . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Eleanor Ward, Giorgio Ganis, Patric Bach. Spontaneous Vicarious Perception of the Content of Another’s Visual Perspective . Current Biology , 2019; DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.01.046

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Humans and Earth's Deep Subsurface Fluid Flow
• Holographic Displays: An Immersive Future
• Harvesting Energy Where River Meets Sea
• Making Diamonds at Ambient Pressure
• Eruption of Mega-Magnetic Star
• Clean Fuel Generation With Simple Twist
• Bioluminescence in Animals 540 Million Years Ago
• Fossil Frogs Share Their Skincare Secrets
• Fussy Eater? Most Parents Play Short Order Cook
• Precise Time Measurement: Superradiant Atoms

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

2.1 Why Is Research Important?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior
• Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
• Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession ( Figure 2.2 ). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

The goal of all scientists is to better understand the world around them. Psychologists focus their attention on understanding behavior, as well as the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes that underlie behavior. In contrast to other methods that people use to understand the behavior of others, such as intuition and personal experience, the hallmark of scientific research is that there is evidence to support a claim. Scientific knowledge is empirical : It is grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing.

While behavior is observable, the mind is not. If someone is crying, we can see behavior. However, the reason for the behavior is more difficult to determine. Is the person crying due to being sad, in pain, or happy? Sometimes we can learn the reason for someone’s behavior by simply asking a question, like “Why are you crying?” However, there are situations in which an individual is either uncomfortable or unwilling to answer the question honestly, or is incapable of answering. For example, infants would not be able to explain why they are crying. In such circumstances, the psychologist must be creative in finding ways to better understand behavior. This chapter explores how scientific knowledge is generated, and how important that knowledge is in forming decisions in our personal lives and in the public domain.

Use of Research Information

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the explosion in our use of technology has led researchers to question whether this ultimately helps or hinders us. The use and implementation of technology in educational settings has become widespread over the last few decades. Researchers are coming to different conclusions regarding the use of technology. To illustrate this point, a study investigating a smartphone app targeting surgery residents (graduate students in surgery training) found that the use of this app can increase student engagement and raise test scores (Shaw & Tan, 2015). Conversely, another study found that the use of technology in undergraduate student populations had negative impacts on sleep, communication, and time management skills (Massimini & Peterson, 2009). Until sufficient amounts of research have been conducted, there will be no clear consensus on the effects that technology has on a student's acquisition of knowledge, study skills, and mental health.

In the meantime, we should strive to think critically about the information we encounter by exercising a degree of healthy skepticism. When someone makes a claim, we should examine the claim from a number of different perspectives: what is the expertise of the person making the claim, what might they gain if the claim is valid, does the claim seem justified given the evidence, and what do other researchers think of the claim? This is especially important when we consider how much information in advertising campaigns and on the internet claims to be based on “scientific evidence” when in actuality it is a belief or perspective of just a few individuals trying to sell a product or draw attention to their perspectives.

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding early intervention programs. These programs are designed to help children who come from low-income backgrounds, have special needs, or face other disadvantages. These programs may involve providing a wide variety of services to maximize the children's development and position them for optimal levels of success in school and later in life (Blann, 2005). While such programs sound appealing, you would want to be sure that they also proved effective before investing additional money in these programs. Fortunately, psychologists and other scientists have conducted vast amounts of research on such programs and, in general, the programs are found to be effective (Neil & Christensen, 2009; Peters-Scheffer, Didden, Korzilius, & Sturmey, 2011). While not all programs are equally effective, and the short-term effects of many such programs are more pronounced, there is reason to believe that many of these programs produce long-term benefits for participants (Barnett, 2011). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, you would want to look at research. Which programs are most effective? What characteristics of these programs make them effective? Which programs promote the best outcomes? After examining the research, you would be best equipped to make decisions about which programs to fund.

Link to Learning

Watch this video about early childhood program effectiveness to learn how scientists evaluate effectiveness and how best to invest money into programs that are most effective.

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine that your sister, Maria, expresses concern about her two-year-old child, Umberto. Umberto does not speak as much or as clearly as the other children in his daycare or others in the family. Umberto's pediatrician undertakes some screening and recommends an evaluation by a speech pathologist, but does not refer Maria to any other specialists. Maria is concerned that Umberto's speech delays are signs of a developmental disorder, but Umberto's pediatrician does not; she sees indications of differences in Umberto's jaw and facial muscles. Hearing this, you do some internet searches, but you are overwhelmed by the breadth of information and the wide array of sources. You see blog posts, top-ten lists, advertisements from healthcare providers, and recommendations from several advocacy organizations. Why are there so many sites? Which are based in research, and which are not?

In the end, research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.

NOTABLE RESEARCHERS

Psychological research has a long history involving important figures from diverse backgrounds. While the introductory chapter discussed several researchers who made significant contributions to the discipline, there are many more individuals who deserve attention in considering how psychology has advanced as a science through their work ( Figure 2.3 ). For instance, Margaret Floy Washburn (1871–1939) was the first woman to earn a PhD in psychology. Her research focused on animal behavior and cognition (Margaret Floy Washburn, PhD, n.d.). Mary Whiton Calkins (1863–1930) was a preeminent first-generation American psychologist who opposed the behaviorist movement, conducted significant research into memory, and established one of the earliest experimental psychology labs in the United States (Mary Whiton Calkins, n.d.).

Francis Sumner (1895–1954) was the first African American to receive a PhD in psychology in 1920. His dissertation focused on issues related to psychoanalysis. Sumner also had research interests in racial bias and educational justice. Sumner was one of the founders of Howard University’s department of psychology, and because of his accomplishments, he is sometimes referred to as the “Father of Black Psychology.” Thirteen years later, Inez Beverly Prosser (1895–1934) became the first African American woman to receive a PhD in psychology. Prosser’s research highlighted issues related to education in segregated versus integrated schools, and ultimately, her work was very influential in the hallmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional (Ethnicity and Health in America Series: Featured Psychologists, n.d.).

Although the establishment of psychology’s scientific roots occurred first in Europe and the United States, it did not take much time until researchers from around the world began to establish their own laboratories and research programs. For example, some of the first experimental psychology laboratories in South America were founded by Horatio Piñero (1869–1919) at two institutions in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Godoy & Brussino, 2010). In India, Gunamudian David Boaz (1908–1965) and Narendra Nath Sen Gupta (1889–1944) established the first independent departments of psychology at the University of Madras and the University of Calcutta, respectively. These developments provided an opportunity for Indian researchers to make important contributions to the field (Gunamudian David Boaz, n.d.; Narendra Nath Sen Gupta, n.d.).

When the American Psychological Association (APA) was first founded in 1892, all of the members were White males (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.). However, by 1905, Mary Whiton Calkins was elected as the first female president of the APA, and by 1946, nearly one-quarter of American psychologists were female. Psychology became a popular degree option for students enrolled in the nation’s historically Black higher education institutions, increasing the number of Black Americans who went on to become psychologists. Given demographic shifts occurring in the United States and increased access to higher educational opportunities among historically underrepresented populations, there is reason to hope that the diversity of the field will increasingly match the larger population, and that the research contributions made by the psychologists of the future will better serve people of all backgrounds (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.).

The Process of Scientific Research

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning , ideas are tested in the real world; in inductive reasoning , real-world observations lead to new ideas ( Figure 2.4 ). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

In the scientific context, deductive reasoning begins with a generalization—one hypothesis—that is then used to reach logical conclusions about the real world. If the hypothesis is correct, then the logical conclusions reached through deductive reasoning should also be correct. A deductive reasoning argument might go something like this: All living things require energy to survive (this would be your hypothesis). Ducks are living things. Therefore, ducks require energy to survive (logical conclusion). In this example, the hypothesis is correct; therefore, the conclusion is correct as well. Sometimes, however, an incorrect hypothesis may lead to a logical but incorrect conclusion. Consider this argument: all ducks are born with the ability to see. Quackers is a duck. Therefore, Quackers was born with the ability to see. Scientists use deductive reasoning to empirically test their hypotheses. Returning to the example of the ducks, researchers might design a study to test the hypothesis that if all living things require energy to survive, then ducks will be found to require energy to survive.

Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction. Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based. For instance, you may notice that your favorite fruits—apples, bananas, and oranges—all grow on trees; therefore, you assume that all fruit must grow on trees. This would be an example of inductive reasoning, and, clearly, the existence of strawberries, blueberries, and kiwi demonstrate that this generalization is not correct despite it being based on a number of direct observations. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate theories, which in turn generate hypotheses that are tested with deductive reasoning. In the end, science involves both deductive and inductive processes.

For example, case studies, which you will read about in the next section, are heavily weighted on the side of empirical observations. Thus, case studies are closely associated with inductive processes as researchers gather massive amounts of observations and seek interesting patterns (new ideas) in the data. Experimental research, on the other hand, puts great emphasis on deductive reasoning.

We’ve stated that theories and hypotheses are ideas, but what sort of ideas are they, exactly? A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena. Theories are repeatedly checked against the world, but they tend to be too complex to be tested all at once; instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory.

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about how the world will behave if our idea is correct, and it is often worded as an if-then statement (e.g., if I study all night, I will get a passing grade on the test). The hypothesis is extremely important because it bridges the gap between the realm of ideas and the real world. As specific hypotheses are tested, theories are modified and refined to reflect and incorporate the result of these tests Figure 2.5 .

To see how this process works, let’s consider a specific theory and a hypothesis that might be generated from that theory. As you’ll learn in a later chapter, the James-Lange theory of emotion asserts that emotional experience relies on the physiological arousal associated with the emotional state. If you walked out of your home and discovered a very aggressive snake waiting on your doorstep, your heart would begin to race and your stomach churn. According to the James-Lange theory, these physiological changes would result in your feeling of fear. A hypothesis that could be derived from this theory might be that a person who is unaware of the physiological arousal that the sight of the snake elicits will not feel fear.

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable , or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors ( Figure 2.6 ). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

In contrast, the James-Lange theory does generate falsifiable hypotheses, such as the one described above. Some individuals who suffer significant injuries to their spinal columns are unable to feel the bodily changes that often accompany emotional experiences. Therefore, we could test the hypothesis by determining how emotional experiences differ between individuals who have the ability to detect these changes in their physiological arousal and those who do not. In fact, this research has been conducted and while the emotional experiences of people deprived of an awareness of their physiological arousal may be less intense, they still experience emotion (Chwalisz, Diener, & Gallagher, 1988).

Scientific research’s dependence on falsifiability allows for great confidence in the information that it produces. Typically, by the time information is accepted by the scientific community, it has been tested repeatedly.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-1-why-is-research-important

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Science, health, and public trust.

September 8, 2021

Explaining How Research Works

We’ve heard “follow the science” a lot during the pandemic. But it seems science has taken us on a long and winding road filled with twists and turns, even changing directions at times. That’s led some people to feel they can’t trust science. But when what we know changes, it often means science is working.

Explaining the scientific process may be one way that science communicators can help maintain public trust in science. Placing research in the bigger context of its field and where it fits into the scientific process can help people better understand and interpret new findings as they emerge. A single study usually uncovers only a piece of a larger puzzle.

Questions about how the world works are often investigated on many different levels. For example, scientists can look at the different atoms in a molecule, cells in a tissue, or how different tissues or systems affect each other. Researchers often must choose one or a finite number of ways to investigate a question. It can take many different studies using different approaches to start piecing the whole picture together.

Sometimes it might seem like research results contradict each other. But often, studies are just looking at different aspects of the same problem. Researchers can also investigate a question using different techniques or timeframes. That may lead them to arrive at different conclusions from the same data.

Using the data available at the time of their study, scientists develop different explanations, or models. New information may mean that a novel model needs to be developed to account for it. The models that prevail are those that can withstand the test of time and incorporate new information. Science is a constantly evolving and self-correcting process.

Scientists gain more confidence about a model through the scientific process. They replicate each other’s work. They present at conferences. And papers undergo peer review, in which experts in the field review the work before it can be published in scientific journals. This helps ensure that the study is up to current scientific standards and maintains a level of integrity. Peer reviewers may find problems with the experiments or think different experiments are needed to justify the conclusions. They might even offer new ways to interpret the data.

It’s important for science communicators to consider which stage a study is at in the scientific process when deciding whether to cover it. Some studies are posted on preprint servers for other scientists to start weighing in on and haven’t yet been fully vetted. Results that haven't yet been subjected to scientific scrutiny should be reported on with care and context to avoid confusion or frustration from readers.

We’ve developed a one-page guide, "How Research Works: Understanding the Process of Science" to help communicators put the process of science into perspective. We hope it can serve as a useful resource to help explain why science changes—and why it’s important to expect that change. Please take a look and share your thoughts with us by sending an email to  [email protected].

Below are some additional resources:

• Discoveries in Basic Science: A Perfectly Imperfect Process
• When Clinical Research Is in the News
• What is Basic Science and Why is it Important?
• ​ What is a Research Organism?
• What Are Clinical Trials and Studies?
• Basic Research – Digital Media Kit
• Decoding Science: How Does Science Know What It Knows? (NAS)
• Can Science Help People Make Decisions ? (NAS)

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

Understanding different research perspectives

Introduction

In this free course, Understanding different research perspectives , you will explore the development of the research process and focus on the steps you need to follow in order to plan and design a HR research project.

The course comprises three parts:

• The first part (Sections 1 and 2) discusses the different perspectives from which an issue or phenomenon can be investigated and outlines how each of these perspectives generates different kinds of knowledge about the issue. It is thus concerned with what it means to ‘know’ in research terms.
• The second part (Sections 3 to 7) identifies the different elements (e.g. methodologies, ethics) of a business research project. In order to produce an effective project, these different elements need to be integrated into a research strategy. The research strategy is your plan of action and will include choices regarding research perspectives and methodologies.
• The third part (Sections 8 to 10) highlights the main methodologies that can be used to investigate a business issue.

This overview of the research perspectives will enable you to take the first steps to develop a work-based project – namely, identifying a research problem and developing the research question(s) you want to investigate.

By the end of this course you should have developed a clear idea of what you want to investigate; in which context you want to do this (e.g. in your organisation, in another organisation, with workers from different organisations); and what are the specific questions you want to address.

This OpenLearn course is an adapted extract from the Open University course B865 Managing research in the workplace .

Learning outcomes

After studying this course, you should be able to:

understand the different perspectives from which a problem can be investigated

consider the researcher’s involvement in the research process as insider and/or outsider

reflect on the importance of ethical processes in research

understand the development of a research strategy and how this is translated into a research design

identify a research problem to be investigated.

1 Objective and subjective research perspectives

Research in social science requires the collection of data in order to understand a phenomenon. This can be done in a number of ways, and will depend on the state of existing knowledge of the topic area. The researcher can:

• Explore a little known issue. The researcher has an idea or has observed something and seeks to understand more about it (exploratory research).
• Connect ideas to understand the relationships between the different aspects of an issue, i.e. explain what is going on (explanatory research).
• Describe what is happening in more detail and expand the initial understanding (explicatory or descriptive research).

Exploratory research is often done through observation and other methods such as interviews or surveys that allow the researcher to gather preliminary information.

Explanatory research, on the other hand, generally tests hypotheses about cause and effect relationships. Hypotheses are statements developed by the researcher that will be tested during the research. The distinction between exploratory and explanatory research is linked to the distinction between inductive and deductive research. Explanatory research tends to be deductive and exploratory research tends to be inductive. This is not always the case but, for simplicity, we shall not explore the exceptions here.

Descriptive research may support an explanatory or exploratory study. On its own, descriptive research is not sufficient for an academic project. Academic research is aimed at progressing current knowledge.

The perspective taken by the researcher also depends on whether the researcher believes that there is an objective world out there that can be objectively known; for example, profit can be viewed as an objective measure of business performance. Alternatively the researcher may believe that concepts such as ‘culture’, ‘motivation’, ‘leadership’, ‘performance’ result from human categorisation of the world and that their ‘meaning’ can change depending on the circumstances. For example, performance can mean different things to different people. For one it may refer to a hard measure such as levels of sales. For another it may include good relationships with customers. According to this latter view, a researcher can only take a subjective perspective because the nature of these concepts is the result of human processes. Subjective research generally refers to the subjective experiences of research participants and to the fact that the researcher’s perspective is embedded within the research process, rather than seen as fully detached from it.

On the other hand, objective research claims to describe a true and correct reality, which is independent of those involved in the research process. Although this is a simplified view of the way in which research can be approached, it is an important distinction to think about. Whether you think about your research topic in objective or subjective terms will determine the development of the research questions, the type of data collected, the methods of data collection and analysis you adopt and the conclusions that you draw. This is why it is important to consider your own perspective when planning your project.

Subjective research is generally referred to as phenomenological research. This is because it is concerned with the study of experiences from the perspective of an individual, and emphasises the importance of personal perspectives and interpretations. Subjective research is generally based on data derived from observations of events as they take place or from unstructured or semi-structured interviews. In unstructured interviews the questions emerged from the discussion between the interviewer and the interviewee. In semi-structured interviews the interviewer prepares an outline of the interview topics or general questions, adding more as needs emerged during the interview. Structured interviews include the full list of questions. Interviewers do not deviate from this list. Subjective research can also be based on examinations of documents. The researcher will attribute personal interpretations of the experiences and phenomena during the process of both collecting and analysing data. This approach is also referred to as interpretivist research. Interpretivists believe that in order to understand and explain specific management and HR situations, one needs to focus on the viewpoints, experiences, feelings and interpretations of the people involved in the specific situation.

Conversely, objective research tends to be modelled on the methods of the natural sciences such as experiments or large scale surveys. Objective research seeks to establish law-like generalisations which can be applied to the same phenomenon in different contexts. This perspective, which privileges objectivity, is called positivism and is based on data that can be subject to statistical analysis and generalisation. Positivist researchers use quantitative methodologies, which are based on measurement and numbers, to collect and analyse data. Interpretivists are more concerned with language and other forms of qualitative data, which are based on words or images. Having said that, researchers using objectivist and positivist assumptions sometimes use qualitative data while interpretivists sometimes use quantitative data. (Quantitative and qualitative methodologies will be discussed in more detail in the final part of this course.) The key is to understand the perspective you intend to adopt and realise the limitations and opportunities it offers. Table 1 compares and contrasts the perspectives of positivism and interpretivism.

Some textbooks include the realist perspective or discuss constructivism, but, for the purpose of your work-based project, you do not need to engage with these other perspectives. This course keeps the discussion of research perspectives to a basic level.

Search and identify two articles that are based on your research topic. Ideally you may want to identify one article based on quantitative and one based on qualitative methodologies.

Now answer the following questions:

• In what ways are the two studies different (excluding the research focus)?
• Which research perspective do the author/s in article 1 take in their study (i.e. subjective or objective or in other words, phenomenological/interpretivist or positivist)?
• What elements (e.g. specific words, sentences, research questions) in the introduction reveal the approach taken by the authors?
• Which research perspective do the author/s in article 2 take in their study (i.e. subjective or objective, phenomenological/interpretivist or positivist)?
• What elements (e.g. specific words, sentences, research questions) in the introduction and research questions sections reveal the approach taken by the authors?

This activity has helped you to distinguish between objective and subjective research by recognising the type of language and the different ways in which objectivists/positivists and subjectivists/interpretivists may formulate their research aims. It should also support the development of your personal preference on objective or subjective research.

2 The researcher as an outsider or an insider

The researcher’s perspective is not only related to philosophical questions of subjectivity and objectivity but also to the researcher’s position with respect to the subject researched. This is particularly relevant for work-based projects where researchers are looking at their own organisation, group or community. In relation to the researcher’s position, s/he can be an insider or an outsider. Here the term ‘insider’ will include the semi-insider position, and the term ‘outsider’ will include the semi-outsider position. If you belong to the group you want to study, you become an ‘insider-researcher’. For example, if you want to conduct your research project with HR managers and you are a HR manager yourself you will have a common language and a common understanding of the issues associated with doing the same job. While, on one hand, the insider perspective allows special sensitivity, empathy and understanding of the matters, which may not be so clear to an outsider, it may also lead to greater bias or to a research direction that is more important to the researcher. On the other hand, an outsider-researcher would be more detached, less personal, but also less well-informed.

Rabe (2003) suggests that once outsider and insider perspectives in research are examined, three concepts can lead to a better understanding. First, the outsider and insider can be understood by considering the concept of power : there is power involved in the relationship between the researcher and the people and organisations participating in the research. As researchers are gathering data from the research participants, they have the power to represent those participants in any way they choose. The research participants have less power, although they can choose what to say to the researchers. This has different implications for insiders and outsiders. It is obvious that in the case of work-based projects conducted in your organisation, the ways in which you choose to represent your colleagues and your organisation places you in a position of power.

Second, insider and outsider perspectives can be understood in the context of knowledge : the insider has inside knowledge that the outsider does not have. If you conduct research in your organisation, institution or profession you will have access to inside knowledge that an outsider will not be able to gain.

The third way in which the insider/outsider concept can be understood is by considering the role of the researcher in the field of anthropology . In fact, anthropologists approach those being studied (e.g. remote cultures, tribes, social groups) as outsiders. As researchers experience the life of those studied by living with them, they acquire an insider’s perspective. The goal is to obtain both insider and outsider knowledge and to maintain the appropriate detachment. This approach applies to participatory research in general, not only anthropology.

Figure 1 reports the various stages you are expected to follow in order to complete and write up your research report.

3 Deciding what to research

Selecting an appropriate research topic is the first step towards a satisfactory project. For some people, choosing the topic is easy because they have a very specific interest in an area. For example, you might be interested in studying training and development systems in multinational companies (MNCs), or you might have a pressing work issue you want to address, like why the career progression of women in the construction industry is slower than that of men in the same industry. Alternatively, your sponsoring organisation might like you to carry out a specific project that will benefit the organisation itself, for example, it might need a specific HR policy to be developed.

While you may be among those who already have clear ideas, for other learners the process of choosing the research topic can be daunting and frustrating. So how can you generate research ideas? Where should you start? It is easiest to start from your organisational context, if you are currently in employment or if you are volunteering. Is there anything that is bothering you, your colleagues or your department? Is there a HR issue that could be addressed or further developed? Talking about your project with colleagues and family may also help as they may have suggestions that you have not considered.

The following case study describes a process that might help you to identify opportunities in your daily activities that could lead to a suitable topic.

Lucy works as a HR assistant manager for a large manufacturer of confectionery that operates at a national level. The company has three factories and a head office. While the company has a centralised HR function based at the head office, Lucy is based at one of the factories (the largest of the three) that employs 176 workers. The HR department at the factory comprises three HR experts: the manager and two assistants. Their focus is mainly concerned with the training and development of the on-site staff, with the recruitment of factory workers, grievances, disciplinary and day-to-day HR management. It excludes general issues such as salaries, benefits, pensions, recruitment and development of managerial staff and more centralised aspects that are managed by the HR function at head office level.

For some time, Lucy has received feedback through the appraisal system and exit interviews that shop floor workers are dissatisfied by the lack of progression to supervisory level positions within the company. In fact, the company had no career progression plans nor a structured assessment of training needs for factory workers, who make up the majority of employees. Training was provided on-site by supervisors, managers and HR managers and off-site by external consultants when a specific skill or knowledge was needed. Equally employees could request to attend a course by choosing from a list of courses provided on a yearly basis. However, although the company was keen for employees to attend training courses, these were not systematically recorded on the employee file nor did they fit in a wider career plan.

Lucy is doing a part-time postgraduate diploma in HRM at The Open University and she has to complete a research project in order to gain CIPD membership. She has fully considered this issue and thought that it could become a good project. It did not come to her mind immediately but was the result of talks with her HR colleagues and her partner who helped her to see an opportunity where she could not see it.

Lucy talked to supervisors and factory workers and she analysed the organisational documents (appraisal records and exit interview records). Having searched the literature on blue-collar worker career development and training she compiled a loose structure (semi-structured) for interviews to be conducted with shop floor employees. At the end of her course she submitted a project which included the development of an online programme that managed a record system for each employee. The system brought together all the training courses completed as well as the performance records of each employee. It became much easier for managers and supervisors to identify the training courses attended by each employee as well as future training needs.

When people are employed in a job, or on a placement, and are undertaking research in the employing organisation they can be defined as (insider) practitioner–researchers. While the position of insider brings advantages in terms of knowledge and access to information and resources, there may be political issues to consider in undertaking and writing up the project. For example, a controversial or sensitive issue might emerge in the collection of data and the insider researcher has to consider carefully how to present it in their writing. Furthermore, while the organisation or some of its members may initially be willing to collaborate, resistance to full participation may be experienced during some stages of the project. If you are carrying out research in your own organisation it is therefore important to consider, in addition to its feasibility, any political issues likely to emerge and whether your status may affect the process of undertaking the research (Anderson, 2013).

Another way that can help you to identify a topic of investigation is through reading a HR magazine (such as People Management , Personnel Today or HR Magazine ), a journal article or even a newspaper. What topics do they include? Are you interested in any of them? Would the topic appeal to your organisation? Could it be developed into a feasible project?

If you develop an idea, however rudimentary, it is worth writing down the topic and a short sentence that captures some aspects of the topic. For example if the topic is ‘diversity in organisations’, you might want to write a note such as ‘relationship between diversity policy and practices’. From here you can start to develop a map of ideas that will help to identify keywords that can be used to do a more in-depth search of the literature. Figure 2 shows the first step in developing the idea.

The figure shows three general approaches that you might take in developing a research project on diversity in organisations. You may decide to focus on one of these aspects and you could brainstorm it and add elements such as relationships with the various other aspects, national and organisational context, organisational sector, legislation, and aspects of diversity (e.g. age, gender, sexuality, race, etc.). Obviously this is an example but you can apply this process to any topic.

If you have an idea of a topic for your project, take five minutes to think about the possible perspectives from which it can be investigated. Having done this, take a sheet of paper and write the topic in the middle of the page. Alternatively, if you are still uncertain about the topic you want to investigate, you might want to think about the role of the HR practitioner and the various activities associated with this role. As you consider the various aspects of the role of HR practitioner, you may realise that one of these can become your chosen topic.

Starting from this core idea, now draw a mind map or a spider plan focusing on your chosen topic.

Mind mapping gives you a way to illustrate the various elements of an issue or topic and helps to clarify how these elements are linked to each other. A map is a good way to visualise, structure and organise ideas.

Now that you have identified your research topic you can move on to work on the research focus. Activity 3 will help you with this.

Develop a research statement of approximately 600 words explaining your chosen topic, the research problem and how you are thinking of investigating it.

You could start by using the mind map you developed in Activity 2. If you wished, you could do some online research around your topic to get a clearer focus on your own project. You might also read a few sources such as newspaper or magazine articles that are particularly relevant to your topic. These sources may yield some additional aspects for you to investigate. If your topic has been widely researched, try not to feel overwhelmed by the amount of existing information. Focus on one or two articles that appear more closely related to your topic and try to identify the specific area you want to focus on.

Once you have researched the topic, consider the research problem and how this can be investigated. Would you need to interview specific people? Would a questionnaire be more appropriate if you need to access a large number of individuals? Would you need to observe work practices in a specific organisation?

Your statement is a draft research proposal and should include:

• an overview of the topic area with an explanation of why you think this needs to be researched
• the focus of the research and the problem it addresses (and possibly the research questions if you have a clear idea of them at this stage, however, this is not essential if you are still developing the focus of your research)
• how the problem can be investigated (i.e. questionnaire, interviews, secondary data).

You may want to show this proposal to colleagues and other contacts who may be interested in order to gain their feedback about the focus and feasibility.

There is no feedback on this activity.

The next section discusses the ethical issues that need to be considered when doing a research project.

4 Research ethics

Ethics is a fundamental aspect of research and of professional work. Ethics refers to the science of morals and rules of behaviour. It is concerned with the concept of right and wrong conduct in all stages of doing research. However, while the idea of right and wrong conduct may seem straightforward, on reflection you will realise how complex ethics is. Ethics is obviously applied to many aspects of life, not just research, and, in business, topics such as ethics and social responsibility and ethical trading are often brought to people’s attention by the media.

As the meaning of what is ethical behaviour is often subjective and may have controversial elements, think about the following questions and make some notes:

• What does ethics in research mean for you?
• Why is ethical behaviour important for you?
• Why should ethics matter in research?

Research ethics is concerned with the prevention of any harm which may occur during the course of research. This is particularly important if your research involves human participants. Harm refers to psychological as well as physical harm. Human rights and the law must be respected by researchers with regard to the safety and wellbeing of their participants at all times. Research ethics is also concerned with identifying high standards of research conduct and putting them into practice. Cameron and Price (2009) suggest that researcher conduct is guided by a number of different obligations:

• Legal obligations which apply not only to the country in which researchers conduct the project, but also where they collect and store data.
• Professional obligations which are established by professional bodies (e.g. British Psychological Society, The Law Society, CIPD) to guide the conduct of its members.
• Cultural obligations which refer to informal rules regulating the behaviours of people within the society in which they live.
• Personal obligations which include the behavioural choices that individuals make of their own will.

In planning and carrying out a research project researchers should consider their responsibilities to the participants and respondents, to those sponsoring the research, and to the wider research community (Cameron and Price, 2009, p. 121). Before embarking on a research project it is worth identifying all stakeholders and considering your responsibilities towards them.

Generally universities and professional bodies have a list of principles or a code of ethics conduct that governs the research process. The principles to be followed in conducting research with human participants, and which you must follow when collecting data for your research project, are outlined below:

• Informed consent : Potential participants should always be informed in advance, and in understandable terms, of any potential benefits, risks, inconvenience or obligations associated with the research that might reasonably be expected to influence their willingness to participate. This should normally involve the use of an information sheet about the research and what participation will involve, and a signed consent form. Sufficient time shall be allowed for a potential participant to consider their decision from receiving the information sheet to giving their consent. In the case of children (individuals under 16 years of age) informed consent should be given by parents or guardians. An incentive to participate (e.g. a prize or a small payment) should be offered only after consent has been given. Participants should be informed clearly that they have a right to withdraw their consent at any time, that any data that they have provided will be destroyed if they so request and that there will be no resultant adverse consequences.
• Openness and integrity : Researchers should be open and honest about the purpose and content of their research and behave in a professional manner at all times. Covert collection of data should only take place where it is essential to achieve the research results required, where the research objective has strong scientific merit and where there is an appropriate risk management and harm alleviation strategy. Participants should be given opportunities to access the outcomes of research in which they have participated and debriefed, if appropriate, after they have provided data.
• Protection from harm : Researchers must make every effort to minimise the risks of any harm, either physical or psychological. Researchers shall comply with the requirements of the UK Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and any other relevant legal frameworks governing the management of personal information in the UK or in any other country in which the research may be conducted. Where research involves children or other vulnerable groups, an appropriate level of disclosure should be obtained from the Disclosure and Barring Service for all researchers in contact with participants.
• Confidentiality : Except where explicit written consent is given, researchers should respect and preserve the confidentiality of participants’ identities and data at all times. The procedures by which this is to be achieved should be specified in the research protocol (an outline of the research topic and strategy).
• Professional codes of practice and ethics : Where the subject of a research project falls within the domain of a professional body with a published code of practice and ethical guidelines, researchers should explicitly state their intention to comply with the code and guidelines in the project protocol. Research within the UK NHS should always be conducted in compliance with an ethical protocol approved by the appropriate NHS Research Ethics Committee.

This guidance has been adapted from, and reflects the principles of, the Open University Research Ethics Guideline. The CIPD’s Code of Professional Conduct provides more information on professional standards in the field of HR.

Look at your research topic mind map and the research statement you wrote for Activity 3. Did you consider ethics? Regardless of whether or not you included ethics in your earlier outline of your research topic, consider what ethical factors could prevent you from conducting a research project on the chosen topic. Write your notes in the space provided below.

Describe at least two types of risks that could be encountered in HR research.

What is informed consent? What factors would you want to know before agreeing to participate in a research study? What should be included in an informed consent form?

This activity added the ethical dimension to the research topic, which was likely to be missed out in a previous outline of the project topic and aim(s). It also compels you to reflect on the specific ethical risks of HR research. There are risks associated with most HR research (e.g. stress can be induced by an interview or questionnaire questions) and it is important to consider them before finalising the research proposal. The activity also encouraged you to consider the elements that should be included in the informed consent form.

The next section considers the research question.

5 Developing research questions

By now you should have a clear direction for your research project. It is now necessary to think about the sorts of questions that you need to formulate in order to define your research project. Will they be ‘what’, ‘how’ or ‘why’ type questions? An important point to bear in mind, as discussed above, is that the wording of a question can be central in defining the scope and direction of the study, including the methodology. Your research question(s) do not necessarily have to be expressed as question(s); they can be statements of purpose. The research question is so called because it is a problem or issue that needs to be solved or addressed. Here are some examples of research questions that focus on different areas of HR. They are expressed as questions but they can easily be changed to research statements if the researcher prefers to present them in that way.

• How do the personal experiences and stories of career development processes among HR professionals in the UK and in Romania differ?
• To what extent do NHS managers engage with age diversity?
• How are organisational recruitment and selection practices influenced by the size of the organisation (e.g. small and medium-sized organisations, large national companies, multinational corporations)?
• In what ways, and for what reasons, does the internal perception of the organisational culture vary in relation to the culture that the organisation portrays in official documents?
• How are absenteeism levels linked to employees’ performance?

The process of producing clearly defined and focused research questions is likely to take some time. You will continue to tweak your research questions in the next few weeks even after you have written your research proposal, read the relevant literature and processed the information. The research questions above are very different but they also have common elements. The next activity invites you to think about research questions, both those in the examples above and your own, which may still be very tentative.

Make notes on the following questions:

• What constitutes a research question?
• What are the main pieces of information that a research question needs to contain?

This activity helped you to focus further on your research aims. What you wrote will guide you towards the development of your research questions. Figure 4 shows that research questions can contain a number of elements.

You should now note down possible research questions for your project. You might have only one question or possibly two. You do not need too many questions because you need to be realistic about what you can achieve in the project’s time frame. At the end of this course you will come back to your question(s) and finalise them.

6 Research strategy

A research strategy introduces the main components of a research project such as the research topic area and focus, the research perspective (see Sections 1 and 2), the research design, and the research methods (these are discussed below). It refers to how you propose to answer the research questions set and how you will implement the methodology.

In the first part of this course, you started to identify your research topic, to develop your research statement and you thought about possible research question(s). While you might already have clear research questions or objectives, it is possible that, at this stage, you are uncertain about the most appropriate strategy to implement in order to address those questions. This section looks briefly at a few research strategies you are likely to adopt.

Figure 5 shows the four main types of research strategy: case study, qualitative interviews, quantitative survey and action-oriented research. It is likely that you will use one of the first three; you are less likely to use action-oriented research.

Here is what each of these strategies entails:

• Case Study : This focuses on an in-depth investigation of a single case (e.g. one organisation) or a small number of cases. In case study research generally, information is sought from different sources and through the use of different types of data such as observations, survey, interviews and analysis of documents. Data can be qualitative, quantitative or a mix of both. Case study research allows a composite and multifaceted investigation of the issue or problem.
• Qualitative interviews : There are different types of qualitative interviews (e.g. structured, semi-structured, unstructured) and this is the most widely used method for gathering data. Interviews allow access to rich information. They require extensive planning concerning the development of the structure, decisions about who to interview and how, whether to conduct individual or group interviews, and how to record and analyse them. Interviewees need a wide range of skills, including good social skills, listening skills and communication skills. Interviews are also time-consuming to conduct and they are prone to problems and biases that need to be minimised during the design stage.
• Quantitative survey : This is a widely used method in business research and allows access to significantly high numbers of participants. The availability of online sites enables the wide and cheap distribution of surveys and the organisation of the responses. Although the development of questions may appear easy, to develop a meaningful questionnaire that allows the answering of research questions is difficult. Questionnaires need to appeal to respondents, cannot be too long, too intrusive or too difficult to understand. They also need to measure accurately the issue under investigation. For these reasons it is also advisable, when possible, to use questionnaires that are available on the market and have already been thoroughly validated. This is highly recommended for projects such as the one you need to carry out for this course. When using questionnaires decisions have to be made about the size of the sample and whether and when this is representative of the whole population studied. Surveys can be administered to the whole population (census), for example to all employees of a specific organisation.
• Action-oriented research : This refers to practical business research which is directed towards a change or the production of recommendations for change. Action-oriented research is a participatory process which brings together theory and practice, action and reflection. The project is often carried out by insiders. This is because it is grounded in the need to actively involve participants in order for them to develop ownership of the project. After the project, participants will have to implement the change.

Action-oriented research is not exactly action research, even though they are both grounded in the same assumptions (e.g. to produce change). Action research is a highly complex approach to research, reflection and change which is not always achievable in practice (Cameron and Price, 2009). Furthermore action researchers have to be highly skilled and it is unlikely that for this specific project you will be involved in action research. For these reasons this overview focuses on the less pure action-oriented research strategy. If you are interested in exploring this strategy and action research further, you might want to read Chapter 14 of Cameron and Price (2009).

It is possible for you to choose a strategy that includes the use of secondary data. Secondary data is data that has been collected by other people (e.g. employee surveys, market research data, census). Using secondary data for your research project needs to be justified in that it meets the requirements of the research questions. The use of secondary data has obvious benefits in terms of saving money and time. However, it is important to ascertain the quality of the data and how it was collected; for example, data collected by government agencies would be good quality but it may not necessary meet the needs of your project.

It is important to note that there should be consistency between the perspective (subjective or objective) and the methodology employed. This means that the type of strategy adopted needs to be coherent and that its various elements need to fit in with each other, whether the research is grounded on primary or secondary data.

Now watch this video clip in which Dr Rebecca Hewett, Prof Mark Saunders, Prof Gillian Symon and Prof David Guest discuss the importance of setting the right research question, what strategy they adopted to come up with specific research questions for their projects, and how they refined these initial research questions to focus their research.

Make notes on how you might apply some of these strategies to develop your own research question.

7 Research design

In planning your project you need to think about how you will design and conduct the study as well as how you will present and write up the findings. The design is highly dependent upon the research strategy. It refers to the practical choices regarding how the strategy is implemented in practice. You need to think about what type of data (evidence) would best address the research questions; for example, when considering case study research, questions of design will address the choice of the specific methods of data collection, e.g. if observation, what to observe and how to record it? For how long? Which department or work environment to observe? If interviews are chosen, you need to ask yourself what type? How many? With whom? How long should they be? How will I record them? Where will they be conducted?

The following list (adapted from Cameron and Price, 2009) shows some of the different types of data, or sources of evidence, available to draw on:

• observations
• conversations
• statistics (e.g. government)
• focus groups
• organisational records
• documents (e.g. organisational policies)
• secondary data.

8 Research methodology

The most important methodological choice researchers make is based on the distinction between qualitative and quantitative data. As mentioned previously, qualitative data takes the form of descriptions based on language or images, while quantitative data takes the form of numbers.

Qualitative data is richer and is generally grounded in a subjective and interpretivist perspective. However, while this is generally the case, it is not always so. Qualitative research supports an in-depth understanding of the situation investigated and, due to time constraints, it generally involves a small sample of participants. For this reason the findings are limited to the sample studied and cannot be generalised to other contexts or to the wider population. Popular methods based on qualitative data include semi-structured or unstructured interviews, participant observations and document analysis. Qualitative analysis is generally more time-consuming than quantitative analysis.

Quantitative data, on the other hand, might be easier to collect and analyse and it is based on a large sample of participants. Quantitative methods are based on data that can be ‘objectively’ measured with numbers. The data is analysed through numerical comparisons and statistical analysis. For this reason it appears more ‘scientific’ and may appeal to people who seek clear answers to specific causal questions. Quantitative analysis is often quicker to carry out as it involves the use of software. Owing to the large number of respondents it allows generalisation to a wider group than the research sample. Popular methods based on quantitative data include questionnaires and organisational statistical records among others.

The choice of which methodology to use will depend on your research questions, the formulation of which is consequently informed by your research perspective. Generally, unstructured or semi-structured interviews produce qualitative data and questionnaires produce quantitative data, but such a distinction is not always applicable. In fact, language-based data can often be translated into numbers; for example, by reporting the frequency of certain key words. Questionnaires can produce quantitative as well as qualitative data; for example, multiple choice questions produce quantitative data, while open questions produce qualitative data.

Go back to the two papers you started reading in Activity 1 and read the methodology sections (they may be called methods or something similar) of both papers.

Now answer the following questions.

• What type of method(s) have the author/s in article 1 used to collect data?
• What method of analysis have these author/s used?
• What type of method(s) have the author/s in article 2 used to collect data?
• What methods of analysis have these author/s used?
• How do you think the methods used in both papers address the initial research aims or questions?
• Why do you think the methods used in both papers are appropriate to address these initial research aims or questions?

If you have chosen two papers based on different methodologies, you should reflect on the link between the ways in which the purposes of the studies were developed and the specific methods that the authors chose to address those questions. In the articles there should be a fit between research questions and methodology for collecting and analysing the data. The activity should have helped you to familiarise yourself with processes of planning a research methodology that fits the research question.

This course so far has given you an overview of the research strategy, design and possible methodologies for collecting data. What you have learned should be enough for you to have developed a clear idea of the general research strategy you want to adopt before you move on to develop your methodology for collecting data and review the methods in detail so that you are clear about the benefits and limitations of each before you collect your data.

9 Further development of your research questions

Before you embark on collecting data for your project, it is necessary to have a clear and specific focus for your research – i.e. the research aim, purpose or question(s). Section 5 gave you some examples of research questions. As a research question does not necessarily need to be expressed as a question (it is called a question because it is a problem to be solved), a study can have one general research aim or question and a few secondary aims or questions. It may also have only one research aim or question. In the case of quantitative studies, a few hypotheses might be developed. These will emerge from gaps in the literature but would have to derive from, and be linked to, an overall research purpose. Section 10 discusses research hypotheses.

The clear development of one or more research questions will guide the development of your data collection process and the tool(s) or instrument(s) you will use. Your research question should emerge from a specific need to acquire greater knowledge about a phenomenon or a situation. Such need may be a personal one as well as a contextual and organisational need. Box 1 gives an example of this.

Box 1 An example of how to develop a research question

As a consequence of government cuts, your arts organisation has to re-structure and this is causing stress and tension among staff. You are involved in the planning of the change initiative and want to develop an organisational change programme that minimises stress and conflict. In order to do so you need to know more about people’s views, at the various organisational levels.

What type of questions would help you to:

• understand the context
• demonstrate to the various research stakeholders (e.g. organisational members and research participants or supervisor, etc.) what you intend to do.

Perhaps you would like to make some notes of your initial ideas and think about how you could apply this process to developing your own research question.

Reading around the topic will help you to achieve greater focus, as will discussing your initial questions with colleagues or supervisor. In the example above, assuming the literature has been searched and several articles on change management and business restructuring have been read, you are likely to have developed clearer ideas about what you want to investigate and how you want to investigate it. Figure 6 shows what the main research question and the sub-questions or objectives might be:

This example is very well developed and would constitute a much larger project than the work-based project you might be doing. However the development of a general question and more specific questions focusing on different aspects should give you an idea of the relationship between the main question and the sub-questions.

In developing your research questions you also need to be concerned with issues of feasibility in terms of access and time. You do not need to be over ambitious but you need to realistically evaluate how difficult it would be to get the data you are planning in the time you have available before submitting the project at the end of the course. You need to plan a project that is neither too broad nor too narrow in scope and one that can be carried out in the available time.

Revisit your research topic and look back at the notes you have made about the topic (including the mind map you developed earlier in the course). Expand and amend where you need to.

Now think about what you need to do to re-write your statement as a research question and write the question in the space provided below.

Write a maximum of four sub-questions or research objectives that will help you to answer the main research question given above. In formulating the sub-questions make sure you consider the scope and the feasibility of the project. Write your questions in the space provided below.

10 Research hypotheses

For quantitative studies a research question can be further focused into a hypothesis. This is not universally the case – especially in exploratory research when little is known and so it is difficult to develop hypotheses – however it is generally the case in explanatory projects. A hypothesis usually makes a short statement concerning the relationship between two or more aspects or variables; the research thus aims to verify the hypothesis through investigation. According to Verma and Beard (1981, p. 184) ‘in many cases hypotheses are hunches that the researcher has about the existence of relationships between variables’. A hypothesis differs from a research question in several ways. The main difference is that a question is specific and asks about the relationship between different aspects of a problem or issue, whereas a hypothesis suggests a possible answer to the problem, which can then be tested empirically. You will now see how a research question (RQ) may be formulated as a research hypothesis (RH).

• RQ: Does motivation affect employees’ performance?

This is a well-defined research question; it explores the contribution of motivation to the work performance of employees. The question omits other possible causes, such as organisational resources and market conditions. This question could be turned into a research hypothesis by simply changing the emphasis:

• RH: Work motivation is positively related to employees’ performance.

The key elements of a hypothesis are:

• The variables used in a hypothesis must all be empirically measurable (e.g. you need to be able to measure motivation and performance objectively).
• A hypothesis should provide an answer (albeit tentatively) to the question raised by the problem statement.
• A hypothesis should be as simple as possible.

If you are planning to do an explanatory quantitative study, you will need to develop hypotheses. You will develop your hypotheses once you have read and reviewed the literature and have become familiar with previous knowledge about the topic.

In this free course, Understanding different research perspectives , the various perspectives (subjective/objective and interpretivist/positivist) that a researcher can take in investigating a problem have been discussed, as well as the issues that need to be considered in planning the project (ethics, research design, research strategy and research methodology). This fits with the first two stages of the overall research process as shown in Table 2.

The activities in this course have guided you through these first two processes.

Acknowledgements

This free course was written by Cinzia Priola.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions ), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence .

The material acknowledged below is Proprietary and used under licence (not subject to Creative Commons Licence). Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce material in this free course:

Course Image: © Kristian Sekulic/iStockphoto.com

Figure 2: © Yuri/iStockphoto.com

4. Research Ethics: CIPD’s Code of Professional Conduct: courtesy of Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)

7. Research and Design: extract adapted from: Cameron, S. and Price, D. (2009) Business Research Methods: A Practical Approach , London, CIPD

Every effort has been made to contact copyright owners. If any have been inadvertently overlooked, the publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.

Don’t miss out

If reading this text has inspired you to learn more, you may be interested in joining the millions of people who discover our free learning resources and qualifications by visiting The Open University – www.open.edu/ openlearn/ free-courses .

Copyright © 2016 The Open University

A monthly newsletter from the National Institutes of Health, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Search form

October 2021

Print this issue

Health Capsule

How Research Works

Have you ever wondered what it means to “follow the science?” Sometimes it may seem like what’s true one day changes the next. But when what we know changes, it often means science is working.

Research helps us understand the world through careful testing. Each advance builds on past discoveries. This process can take a long time. But the end result is a better understanding of the world around us.

In general, the scientific process follows many steps. First, scientists start with a question. They look at past research to see what others have learned. Different scientists have diverse skills and training. They each bring their own approaches and ideas. And they design new experiments to test their ideas.

Next, scientists perform their experiments and collect data. Then, they evaluate what their findings might mean. This often leads them to new questions and ideas to test.

The next step is to share their data and ideas with other scientists. Other experts can give new perspectives or point out problems.

It’s natural to want answers. But it’s important not to draw conclusions based on a single study. Scientists start to form conclusions only after looking at many studies over time. Sometimes, even these conclusions change with more evidence. Science is an evolving process. But it’s the best way we have to seek out answers.

NIH has created a one-page guide to explain more about how research works. Find the guide in English or Spanish .

Related Stories

Artificial Intelligence and Your Health

Pet Dogs to the Rescue!

Artificial Intelligence and Medical Research

Finding Reliable Health Information Online

NIH Office of Communications and Public Liaison Building 31, Room 5B52 Bethesda, MD 20892-2094 [email protected] Tel: 301-451-8224

Editor: Harrison Wein, Ph.D. Managing Editor: Tianna Hicklin, Ph.D. Illustrator: Alan Defibaugh

Attention Editors: Reprint our articles and illustrations in your own publication. Our material is not copyrighted. Please acknowledge NIH News in Health as the source and send us a copy.

For more consumer health news and information, visit health.nih.gov .

For wellness toolkits, visit www.nih.gov/wellnesstoolkits .

Find what you need to study

3.1 Identifying, comparing, and interpreting different perspectives on, or arguments about, an issue

4 min read • january 1, 2023

In this guide, we’ll be talking about identifying, comparing and interpreting different perspectives. In order to evaluate and think critically about different perspectives (which is what the next guide is about), you need to start with these skills.

Let’s break down, one by one, identifying, then comparing and interpreting different perspectives. 

Identifying

Sometimes, it’s pretty easy to see when two different authors have different perspectives on a topic. For example, if they’re directly opposing each other. However, sometimes two authors may agree but for different reasons, or explain their agreement in different ways. Two history professors may think that a certain ruler was a failure, but one might think so because of the ruler’s religious policies while the other might think so because of the ruler’s diplomatic mistakes. 

Almost every individual has a different perspective for the same topic, even if they agree. This is because every individual is unique.

Identifying Factors

Here are some factors to consider when attempting to identify where the difference is between two perspectives: 

Background : What makes these two (or more) writers different from each other? Do they come from different cultures, or have different personal traits like their gender? Do they come from different educational backgrounds? (Even two people who both went to university won’t have the same perspective, because different universities teach the same subject in different ways.) Do they come from different regions of the world? 

Assumptions/Worldview: This category can be difficult to analyze because most argument writers don’t explicitly state what their assumptions are or worldview is. (Sometimes they do, and that can be helpful.) It’s important to keep this category in mind, however, because oftentimes we as humans fail to recognize that not everyone operates under the same assumptions and worldviews as we ourselves do.

External Sources: People may have different perspectives for reasons outside of their own personal characteristics.

For example, an anthropologist and a chemist would approach the same topic very differently because of the field they’re in, and therefore have different perspectives.

One English professor might have been researching a novel by Dickens, and another researching the short detective stories of Arthur Conan Doyle, and as a result their perspective on Victorian Literature, while possibly complementary, are going to be different. 

If two perspectives are fundamentally different or argumentative, it can seem easy at first glance to compare them. However, a deep comparison of two perspectives goes further than just looking at their obvious differences.

Comparing Factors

Here are some places where you can compare two perspectives: 

Main Idea: Is the main idea different? What are the differences and similarities between the thesis statements of the two arguments? This should be a pretty straightforward comparison. 

Methodology: What’s the research approach that these two arguments are taking? 

Line of Reasoning: What claims do these authors make, and what evidence do they use to back those claims up? It’s not uncommon to see two authors use the same piece of evidence when working on the same topic. 

Context of the argument/paper/artistic work: Is the time or situation of the work different? (We covered context in Big Idea 2!) 

Limitations of the argument's research: Does one perspective see things the other perspective misses?

Authorial bias and its effects: This is easiest to see when an author is clearly biased (or biased in a direction that you are not) but to an extent this applies to all works. 

Conclusion: Do the two papers have different results? 

Implications: Are the implications, stated or otherwise, different? 

Interpreting 

As mentioned before, there are many ways to interpret two different perspectives. Indeed, you’re already interpreting perspectives by comparing them and thinking critically about why they’re different! However, you’ll need to take it a step further for your paper and think about how the perspectives work (or don’t work) together. 

Common Perspective Relationships

Oppositional: Perspectives may be in disagreement or directly contradict/argue against each other. 

Concurring: Perspectives may agree with each other.

Complementary: While the perspectives may not explicitly agree with each other, they may work together to prove a larger point. 

Competing: The perspectives may be mutually exclusive. In other words, a world where one is true is a world where the other can’t be true. This is rare for academic works because scholars generally acknowledge nuance and complexity in their writings, allowing for disagreement. However, it does occur sometimes. In this case, it might be best for your research paper to only choose to include one of these perspectives in your final paper. 

Competing could also refer to two (or more) perspectives that are literally competing with each other: for the reader’s attention, or for the reader to accept some call to action or proposed solution. In this case, the perspectives aren’t mutually exclusive. 

Even after all this analysis, a perspective may ultimately not be helpful or clear to you. Some perspectives are ambiguous or not well defined or just not what you need right now for your paper. That’s okay.

In our next guide, we’ll be talking about how to evaluate different perspectives. 

Key Terms to Review ( 1 )

Research Question

Stay Connected

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.

The Importance of Multiple Perspectives

How to Make Behavioural Science Work in Multidisciplinary Teams

• First Online: 20 November 2018

Cite this chapter

• Helena Rubinstein 2  

400 Accesses

Behavioural science can be most effective when deployed as part of a multidisciplinary team. Furthermore, behavioural science is more likely than other functions to need to be part of a multidisciplinary team, as many functions touch on the way people interact with each other and with products and services. This chapter provides a brief overview of the academic literature about the benefits and challenges of working in multidisciplinary teams and describes a case study of how this works in practice. Rubinstein lays out guidelines for making multidisciplinary teamworking effective that include building trust, managing professional identities, coping with different communication styles, managing uncertainty, managing complexity, assessing quality, dealing with time pressures and availability, and the role of the leader.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Alves, J., Marques, M. J., Saur, I., & Marques, P. (2007). Creativity and innovation through multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16 (1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00417.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Budner, S. (2006). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30 (1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x

Collins, B. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision making . New York: Wiley.

Google Scholar  

Cowan, D. A. (1986). Developing a process model of problem recognition. Academy of Management Review, 11 (4), 763–776. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1986.4283930

Edmondson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26 (2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00341.x

Fay, D., Borrill, C., Amir, Z., Haward, R., & West, M. A. (2006). Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams: A multi-sample study of team innovation in health care. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79 (4), 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X72128

Jackson, S. E. (1996). The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. In Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 53–75). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Janssen, W., & Goldsworthy, P. (1996). Multidisciplinary research for natural resource management: Conceptual and practical implications. Agricultural Systems, 51 (3), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521X(95)00046-8

Kanter, R. M., & Summers, D. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Social, structural and collective conditions for innovation in organizations. In Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: Elsevier.

Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (3), 581–598. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331431

Love, P., Fong, P., & Irani, Z. (2006). Management of knowledge in project environments . London: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Majchrzak, A., More, P. H. B., & Faraj, S. (2011). Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organization Science, 23 (4), 951–970. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0677

Mental Health Commission. (2006). Multi-disciplinary team working: From theory to practice . Dublin: Coimisiún Meabhair-Shláinte, Dublin. Retrieved from http://www.mhcirl.ie/File/discusspapmultiteam.pdf

Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Loersch, C., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). The need for cognition. In Handbook of individiual differences in social behaviour (pp. 318–329). New York: Guilford Press.

Ratcheva, V. (2009). Integrating diverse knowledge through boundary spanning processes—The case of multidisciplinary project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 27 (3), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.008

Rose, B. (2016). Managing multidisciplinary teams effectively: Tips for project managers . Innovia Technology.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68–78.

Simon, H. A. (1987). Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion. Academy of Management Executive, 1 (1), 57–64.

Strober, M. H. (2006). Habits of the mind: Challenges for multidisciplinary engagement. Social Epistemology, 20 (3–4), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720600847324

Thompson, E. P., Chaiken, S., & Hazlewood, J. D. (1993). Need for cognition and desire for control as moderators of extrinsic reward effects: A person x situation approach to the study of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (6), 987–999.

Vegt, G. S. V. D., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3), 532–547. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407918

Vissers, G., & Dankbaar, B. (2002). Creativity in multidisciplinary new product development teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11 (1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00234

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Innovia Technology Ltd, Cambridge, UK

Helena Rubinstein

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Rubinstein, H. (2018). The Importance of Multiple Perspectives. In: Applying Behavioural Science to the Private Sector. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01698-2_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01698-2_6

Published : 20 November 2018

Publisher Name : Palgrave Pivot, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-01697-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-01698-2

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

The Coronavirus Crisis

How stories connect and persuade us: unleashing the brain power of narrative.

Elena Renken

When you listen to a story, your brain waves actually start to synchronize with those of the storyteller. And reading a narrative activates brain regions involved in deciphering or imagining a person's motives and perspective, research has found. aywan88/Getty Images hide caption

When you listen to a story, your brain waves actually start to synchronize with those of the storyteller. And reading a narrative activates brain regions involved in deciphering or imagining a person's motives and perspective, research has found.

When you listen to a story, whatever your age, you're transported mentally to another time and place — and who couldn't use that right now?

"We all know this delicious feeling of being swept into a story world," says Liz Neeley , who directs The Story Collider, a nonprofit production company that, in nonpandemic times, stages live events filled with personal stories about science. "You forget about your surroundings," she says, "and you're entirely immersed."

Depending on the story you're reading, watching or listening to, your palms may start to sweat, scientists find. You'll blink faster, and your heart might flutter or skip. Your facial expressions shift, and the muscles above your eyebrows will react to the words — another sign that you're engaged.

A growing body of brain science offers even more insight into what's behind these experiences.

Shots - Health News

Photos: life and work amid the outbreak.

Storytelling Helps Hospital Staff Discover The Person Within The Patient

On functional MRI scans , many different areas of the brain light up when someone is listening to a narrative, Neeley says — not only the networks involved in language processing, but other neural circuits, too. One study of listeners found that the brain networks that process emotions arising from sounds — along with areas involved in movement — were activated, especially during the emotional parts of the story.

As you hear a story unfold, your brain waves actually start to synchronize with those of the storyteller, says Uri Hasson , professor of psychology and neuroscience at Princeton University. When he and his research team recorded the brain activity in two people as one person told a story and the other listened, they found that the greater the listener's comprehension, the more closely the brain wave patterns mirrored those of the storyteller.

Brain regions that do complex information processing seem to be engaged, Hasson explains: It's as though, "I'm trying to make your brain similar to mine in areas that really capture the meaning, the situation, the schema — the context of the world."

Other scientists turned up interesting activity in the parts of the brain engaged in making predictions. When we read, brain networks involved in deciphering — or imagining — another person's motives, and the areas involved in guessing what will happen next are activated, Neeley says. Imagining what drives other people — which feeds into our predictions — helps us see a situation from different perspectives . It can even shift our core beliefs, Neeley says, when we "come back out of the story world into regular life."

Coronavirus Live Updates

'there's no fruit or veg': u.k. nurse makes emotional plea to panicked shoppers.

Your Brain On Storytelling

Listeners, in turn, may keep thinking about the story and talk to others about it, she says, which reinforces the memory and, over time, can drive a broader change in attitudes.

Different formats of information — lists of facts, say, or charts — may be better suited to different situations, researchers say, but stories wield a particularly strong influence over our attitudes and behavior.

In health care contexts, for example, people are more likely to change their lifestyles when they see a character they identify with making the same change, notes Melanie Green , a communication professor at the University at Buffalo who studies the power of narrative, including in doctor-patient communication. Anecdotes can make health advice personally important to a patient, she finds. When you hear or read about someone you identify with who has taken up meditation , for example, you might be more likely to stick with it yourself.

Stories can alter broader attitudes as well, Green says — like our views on relationships, politics or the environment. Messages that feel like commands — even good advice coming from a friend — aren't always received well. If you feel like you're being pushed into a corner, you're more likely to push back. But if someone tells you a story about the time they, too, had to end a painful relationship, for example, the information will likely come across less like a lecture and more like a personal truth.

Neeley has been taking advantage of these effects to shift perceptions about science and scientists in her work with Story Collider. "We try and take everybody — all different people and perspectives — put them onstage, and hear what a life in science is really like," she says.

Solid information in any form is good, Green says. "But that's not necessarily enough." A vivid, emotional story "can give that extra push to make it feel more real or more important." If you look at the times somebody's beliefs have been changed, she says, it's often because of a story that "hits them in the heart."

This story adapted from an episode of NPR's weekday science podcast Short Wave.

• narrative medicine
• storytelling
• personal narratives
• coronavirus

How Psychological Science is Benefiting the World

• Perspectives on Psychological Science

Technological advances have allowed psychological scientists to measure everything from cognitive impairments to everyday decision-making. Now, the scientists are using their research to inform tools, programs, and interventions that are helping to cultivate a healthier, happier, and more sustainable world.

In a special issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science , a journal of the Association for Psychological Science , more than 25 psychological researchers write about expanding their research beyond academic articles and applying it to the betterment of society and the environment.

“Their work spans ways to make the world a better place by considering individuals, relationships and interactions among people, and broad-scale social and national policies,” June Gruber, the journal’s interim editor and an assistant professor at University of Colorado Boulder, writes with her associate editors in an introduction to the issue .

Gruber and her colleagues highlight the importance of psychological scientists’ involvement in addressing societal challenges, including mental illness, isolation and loneliness, sexual harassment, policies that harm vulnerable refugees, lack of concern for animals, and environmental deterioration. The issue highlights how psychological science has helped disadvantaged youth achieve academic success, improved the efficacy of psychotherapy, helped military officers surmount errors and biases in their decision-making, and fostered peace and reconciliation in ethnic conflicts, among other  impacts.   

Among the contributors to the issue are some of the world’s most eminent scientists.

Albert Bandura, widely described as one of the greatest living psychologists, discusses the use of social cognitive theory to change behaviors and create sustainable social and environmental futures.

Acclaimed psychiatrist Aaron Beck describes how his pioneering work on cognitive behavioral therapy has led to one of the most widely used interventions for increasing individual well-being.

University of Pennsylvania researcher and author Angela Duckworth, known for investigating the science of “grit”, examines her path from school teacher to scientist in helping children and adults persist and succeed in the face of challenges.

Stanford University professor Carol Dweck shares how she took her prominent research on mindsets into educational settings and other real-world environments.

Longtime collaborators Kathy Hirsh-Pasek and Roberta Michnick Golinkoff detail their success at designing public spaces to foster learning.

University of Delaware social psychologist James Jones details his research on diversity, race, and racism and his efforts to expand graduate programs for students of color.

Ervin Staub, a well-known researcher on peace and violence, discusses applying his findings to workshops and educational programs for reconciliation in Rwanda.

And organizational researcher and best-selling author Adam Grant calls attention to the importance of disseminating scientific findings to the general public

Gruber and her colleagues say the special issue is intended to inspire future and current scientists who are hoping to make a positive difference in the world.

The issue is available for free to the public online for a short time.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

For a copy of the research article and access to other Perspectives on Psychological Science research findings, please contact: - 202.293.9300

Does Psychology Need More Effective Suspicion Probes?

Suspicion probes are meant to inform researchers about how participants’ beliefs may have influenced the outcome of a study, but it remains unclear what these unverified probes are really measuring or how they are currently being used.

Scientists Discuss How to Study the Psychology of Collectives, Not Just Individuals

In a set of articles appearing in Perspectives on Psychological Science, an international array of scientists discusses how the study of neighborhoods, work units, activist groups, and other collectives can help us better understand and respond to societal changes.

How Science Can Reward Cooperation, Not Just Individual Achievement

Two social scientists propose a different approach to scientific recognition and rewards: shifting the focus away from individual scientists and toward the larger groups in which scientists are embedded.

Privacy Overview

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

New Research Uncovers Why We All See the World So Differently

Cathy Cassata is a freelance writer who specializes in stories around health, mental health, medical news, and inspirational people.

Karen Cilli is a fact-checker for Verywell Mind. She has an extensive background in research, with 33 years of experience as a reference librarian and educator.

Verywell / Julie Bang

Key Takeaways

• A new study gives insight to the area of the brain that plays a part in how we understand others’ perspectives.
• Researchers discuss “naïve realism,” the assumption that your interpretation of people and events is accurate or true over others' interpretations.
• Experts share ways to understand others’ views that can help maintain relationships.

Everyone has their own opinions, views, and ideas about life and the world around them. But why is it often hard to understand and accept others’ take on the same matters?

New research by UCLA Psychology Professor Matthew Lieberman, PhD , sheds light on an explanation by pointing to a part of the brain he calls the “gestalt cortex,” that sits behind the ear and between the areas of the brain that process vision, sound, and touch.

What Does The Research Say?

In his research, which was based on an analysis of more than 400 studies and published in the journal  Psychological Review , Lieberman explains that the gestalt cortex helps people make sense of information that is ambiguous or incomplete, as well as dismiss alternative interpretations.

Lieberman also discusses "naïve realism," which is the notion that people think their interpretation of people and events is accurate or true over other’s interpretation. This can lead to beliefs that other people got it wrong.

Lieberman claims naïve realism may be the biggest driver of conflict and distrust between people. 

While social psychology has analyzed how people make sense of the world, explanation of parts of the brain that play a part hasn’t been revealed.

Although Lieberman states in his research that the gestalt cortex isn’t alone in helping people process what they see, he claims it’s an essential component.

For instance, he says the gestalt cortex includes the temporoparietal junction, which he believes is linked to conscious experience and making sense of situations that people witness or encounter.

Natalie Christine Dattilo, PhD , clinical psychologist and wellness expert, says this notion resonates with her. She explains that the term gestalt means “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

But practically speaking, she says, “it refers to a person’s adaptive capacity to ‘construct their own reality’ and is the way a person makes sense of things in the face of incomplete or ambiguous information.”

Natalie Christine Dattilo, PhD

Most of the time, we fill the gaps with our own biases, assumptions, beliefs, thoughts, ideas, and conclusions.

Because most situations, especially social situations, are filled with incomplete or unclear information (i.e., what another person might be thinking or feeling), she says people fill in the gaps with their own interpretations.

“Most of the time, we fill the gaps with our own biases, assumptions, beliefs, thoughts, ideas, and conclusions,” says Dattilo.

“This is especially relevant and problematic for individuals prone to anxiety or depression , because the tendency would be to fill those gaps with negative, overly personal, catastrophic, or worrisome thoughts and conclusions.”

How The Research Was Done

Subjective construals are personal understandings of situations and the people and objects within them.

Lieberman’s review presents a model of subjective construals that are processed without a lot of effort. He calls these Coherent Effortless Experiences (CEE). Three distinct forms of "seeing" (visual, semantic, and psychological) are discussed to highlight the breadth of these construals.

The review states that the core CEE characteristics are accumulated in the lateral posterior parietal cortex, lateral posterior temporal cortex, and ventral temporal cortex, which are collectively called the gestalt cortex.

The link between subjective construals and gestalt cortex is backed by evidence showing that when people have similar subjective construals (meaning they see things similarly), they show greater neural synchrony with each other in the gestalt cortex.

The researchers conclude that “The fact that the act of CEEing tends to inhibit alternative construals is discussed as one of multiple reasons for why we fail to appreciate the idiosyncratic nature of our pre-reflective construals, leading to naïve realism and other conflict-inducing outcomes.”

How To Accept Others' Perspectives

Understanding areas of the brain that contribute to how we see the world is fascinating, yet finding ways to better accept others’ perspectives may help you navigate social interactions day-to-day. Experts offer the following tips.

Know you’re wired to fill in gaps with biases

Dattilo says there are primal reasons for this. 

“Our brains evolved to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of efficiency because our survival depended on our ability to ‘think quickly’ rather than ‘think correctly’ in the face of a potentially life-threatening situation,” she says. 

However, in modern times, she says people are more likely to experience a “socially threatening” situation, especially in a heightened state of stress and discord.

“This means that we are at least as likely to be wrong in our thinking about other people as we are right,” she says, adding that willingness to be "wrong" for the sake of growth and learning is a valuable mood management skill and promotes greater tolerance for different points of view. 

Realize it’s okay to change your mind

If you’ve held a fairly firm view on a topic and publicly shared it, it can be difficult to express an alternative or opposing view without fear of being seen as “wishy-washy” or worse, says Dattilo.

However, “in actuality, being open and willing to change your mind is considered a sign of emotional intelligence and wisdom,” she says.

Acknowledge others may be right

While it’s hard to think you’re wrong, Julian Lagoy, MD , psychiatrist at Mindpath Health , suggests being open to the fact that in some instances, others' opinions might be better or closer to the truth than your own. 

“We need to always be willing to listen and have some understanding of other people's perspectives, even if we think they are incorrect,” he says.

Learn both sides of the argument

Learning both sides of an argument well, especially the side you disagree with, is one way to gain perspective, says Lagoy.

He points to the famous philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas, who would always learn and understand the opposite point of view so well that he could explain it even better than those who believed that view, even though he disagreed with it.

Chloe Carmichael, PhD , licensed clinical psychologist and author of Nervous Energy: Harness the Power of your Anxiety , agrees and suggests learning three things about the other point of view and not considering them a danger.

“Sometimes people can be afraid that if they learn about an opposing view, they’ll get sucked into that point of view and ‘I’ll abandon my own view’ but the truth is, learning about the arguments on the other side can help us to be more grounded and have firmer feet in why we have the view that we do,” she explains.

Enhance your listening skills

Listening during times when difficult topics are being discussed involves regulating your emotions , being non-defensive, and compassionate , explains Dattilo.

She suggests practicing mindful listening, which is being fully present during conversations and reserving judgment. 

“Try listening to understand, not fix. Most of us are only half-listening, or hearing what we want to hear , or thinking about what we want to say in response, or what advice to give. This is not true listening,” says Dattilo.

Chloe Carmichael, PhD

Sometimes people can be afraid that if they learn about an opposing view, they’ll get sucked into that point of view...but the truth is, learning about the arguments on the other side can help us to be more grounded and have firmer feet in why we have the view that we do.

True listening is an active process of asking questions for clarification or to express interest, being curious, trying to learn something new, or trying to understand someone else’s perspective or reasoning.

“This helps build both emotional and cognitive empathy ,” she says.

Carmichael says to try to ask the person a few questions in order to demonstrate curiosity and willingness to listen and learn about their viewpoint. Then repeat back what they said so they know you are trying to understand them. 

Focus on just the facts

“Just the facts” is a technique therapists use in therapy to help clients minimize putting a “spin” on situations, especially in the face of incomplete or ambiguous information.

To practice it for a given situation that is upsetting, Dattilo suggests writing down the details and what you believe to be the cause of your distress. Then, cross out each detail that contains an opinion, either negative or positive.

“This could also include statements that place blame on another person or yourself, or ‘exaggerated’ terms like ‘always,’ ‘never,’ ‘everything,’ or ‘everyone,’” she says. 

Next, restate the explanations using only facts.

“Ask yourself ‘if there were 100 people here, what could we all agree on?’” says Dattilo.

“You’ll quickly realize how readily we insert our opinions, biases, and judgments into everyday situations and conversations.”

Think of things you have in common 

If you find yourself angry about someone’s point of view or getting over-focused on your differences, Carmichael says to take a deep breath and think about a few things you really like about the person and any bonding features you share.

“It could be ‘wow we sure do differ on politics, but I do enjoy talking about my romantic life or catching up on dating,’ or ‘it’s so nice that this person is a good neighbor to me and we watch each other’s kids or help each other out,’” she says.

What This Means For You

While having your own opinions of the world is natural, a new study explains how an area of the brain plays a part. Finding ways to understand others’ views can help maintain relationships.

Lieberman MD. Seeing minds, matter, and meaning: The CEEing model of pre-reflective subjective construal .  Psychol Rev . 2022;129(4):830-872. doi:10.1037/rev0000362

By Cathy Cassata Cathy Cassata is a freelance writer who specializes in stories around health, mental health, medical news, and inspirational people.

• Relationships

The Importance of Taking the Perspective of Others

Is it difficult to find solutions to problems that satisfy everyone involved.

Posted June 5, 2019 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

In order to resolve conflict constructively, so that all parties are satisfied with the outcome, a person must be able to hold all the opposing ideas, positions, and perspectives in mind at the same time and still function effectively. Successful problem-solving and conflict resolution largely depends on a person’s ability to take the opponent’s cognitive and affective perspectives and understand how the conflict appears to the other person and how that person is reacting emotionally and attitudinally. If a person cannot take the perspective of opponents, then his or her understanding of the issue is limited and incomplete.

When people disagree, there needs to be a realistic assessment of common and opposed interests and conclusions. It is often expected that each party will sacrifice some of the opposed interests so that the common benefits, concerns, advantages, and needs may be met and built upon. To obtain a realistic assessment of common and opposed interests it is necessary to see the situation from the perspective of the other parties. Social perspective-taking is the ability to understand how a situation appears to another person and how that person is reacting cognitively and emotionally. The opposite of perspective-taking is egocentrism or being unaware that other perspectives exist and that one’s own view of the situation or issue is incomplete and limited. Overall (see Johnson & Johnson, 1989), perspective-taking results in more information, both personal and impersonal, being disclosed; increases the capacity to phrase messages so that they are easily understood by the other; increases accurate comprehension of the other’s messages; increases understanding and retention of the other’s information and reasoning; facilitates the achievement of creative and high- quality problem solving; and promotes more positive perceptions of the interaction, the other person, and the joint cooperative efforts. Once people can view the issue and situation both from their own perspective and the other persons’ perspectives, they can more easily find mutually beneficial solutions. Perspective-taking also communicates that one really understands their thoughts, feelings, and needs. It is usually easier to jointly solve a problem when the other people feel understood and respected.

There are five important aspects of perspective-taking. The first is realizing that everyone involved has a unique perspective. No two people will see a situation or issue in exactly the same way.

The second is that a person’s perspective selects and organizes what the person attends to and experiences. Because all experiences are understood within the perspective in which they are viewed, people tend to see only what their perspective allows them to see. Change a person’s perspective and you change what the person attends to and the way the person interprets the events in his or her life. Perspectives, furthermore, can create bias . Out of a mass of detailed information, people tend to pick out and focus on those facts that confirm their prior perceptions and to disregard or misinterpret those that call their perceptions into question.

The third is that people can have different perspectives at different times. As your job role, experiences, assumptions, physiological states, and values change, your perspective will change. When you are hungry, for example, you notice all the food in a room. When you are not hungry, the food tends not to attract your attention .

Fourth, the same message can mean two entirely different things from two different perspectives. A person’s perspective largely determines how a message will be interpreted. The same message may be interpreted as friendly teasing or as hostile insubordination depending on the perspective of the receiver.

Fifth, misunderstandings often occur because we assume that everyone sees things from the same perspective as we do. If we are interested in sports, for example, we often assume that everyone is interested in sports. Or if we like horses, we assume everyone likes horses.

To solve problems and resolve conflicts constructively participants need to understand each other’s perspectives. Doing so will help them get a clear understanding of all sides of the issue, an accurate assessment of their validity and relative merits, and the ability to think creatively to come up with the potential solutions that maximize joint outcomes and fulfill the interests of all participants. All this requires them to see the issue from both their own and the other persons’ perspectives, and keep both perspectives in mind at the same time as they search for a solution. This is difficult, given that different people have different perspectives, each person may have different perspectives at different times, the same message may be interpreted differently depending on the receiver’s perspective, and misunderstandings often occur because we assume that everyone has the same perspective as we do.

Accurately understanding the cognitive and affective perspective of others results in several positive outcomes. First, perspective-taking, by influencing how messages are phrased and received, improves communication and reduces misunderstandings and distortions.

Second, perspective-taking is essential for a realistic assessment of common and opposed interests and an accurate assessment of their validity and relative merits. This understanding is required if participants are to reach an agreement based on deciding which opposed interests need to be sacrificed so that the common benefits, concerns, advantages, and needs may be built on.

Third, a broader view of the issue results from being able to take the other person’s perspective. If you want to influence the other person, you also need to understand empathetically the power of his/her point of view and to feel the emotional force with which he or she believes in it.

Fourth, engaging in perspective-taking tends to improve the relationship with the other person. You are more liked and respected when the other person realizes that you are seeing his or her perspective accurately and using it to create potential agreements that benefit both sides equally.

It should be noted, however, that when the interests of parties are directly opposed, perspective-taking tends to result in increased conflict and disagreement. Perspective-taking is most helpful when there are multiple issues under discussion or when the conflict has multiple dimensions that may be combined in creative ways.

Perspective-taking is the neglected secret of constructive problem solving, negotiations, conflict resolution, higher-level cognitive and moral reasoning, and most other aspects of human interaction. While it is not always easy or comfortable to do, it is essential for building and maintaining constructive relationships. Teaching children how to take others’ perspectives is a needed aspect of schooling and socialization. Becoming skillful in taking the perspective of others will tend to significantly improve the quality of one’s life.

David W. Johnson, Ed.D. , is a co-director of the Cooperative Learning Center at the University of Minnesota.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Behav Anal Pract
• v.8(2); 2015 Oct

The Importance of Research—A Student Perspective

Rachel arena.

grid.252546.20000000122978753Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Magnolia Street and Duncan Drive and West Thatch Ave, Auburn, AL 36849 USA

Sheridan Chambers

Angelyn rhames, katherine donahoe.

As students, we will focus on the importance of an objective ranking system, research, and mentorship to an applicant. We will address points raised in the (Behavior Analysis In Practice 8(1):7–15, 2015) article as well as debate the usefulness of proposed standards of objective ranking.

A Student’s Perspective on Research

A little more than a year ago each of us was madly scrambling to negotiate the process of graduate program admissions. Like many people who go to graduate school, each of us had some history of viewing academic efforts through the lens of “too much is never enough,” and we applied our obsessive habits to the challenge of gathering information about graduate programs. We pored over Web sites and printed brochures. We stalked program faculty at conferences, via email and phone, and during campus visits. We talked to trusted mentors about the programs they respected. When in professional settings, we tried to find out where people who impressed us had attended graduate school, and we sometimes eavesdropped on strangers’ conversations for potentially valuable tidbits about the graduate programs they were considering.

Based on this chaotic and exhausting experience, we agree with Dixon et al. ( 2015 ) that consumers in our field need standardized information about the relative merits of graduate programs in applied behavior analysis (ABA). When we began the process of screening graduate programs, we knew that we were uninformed but we were less sure about what we needed to learn to become better consumers. We suspect that, like us, most college seniors find it difficult to know what aspects of a graduate program are crucial to the training of highly qualified ABA practitioners. To us, the most important contribution of Dixon et al. ( 2015 ) was to emphasize that our field should not abandon students to an uncertain process of self-education.

We agree with Dixon et al. ( 2015 ) that our field is better equipped than outside bodies (e.g., U.S. News & World Report ) to determine what constitutes top-quality graduate training. We were aware that the Behavior Analysis Certification Board publishes the rates at which graduates of various programs pass its certification exam, and we considered this information during our respective searches. Even as undergraduates, however, we knew that there is more to being a capable practitioner than simply passing the certification exam, and we would have appreciated much more guidance from our field than we received.

In the absence of standardized, objective information about graduate programs, prospective graduate students have to rely heavily on hearsay. As we gathered information on program reputations from mentors and colleagues, it occurred to us that this information sometimes says as much about the person providing it as about graduate programs themselves. We learned that some people are impressed by graduate programs that have a reputation for highly selective admissions, but we were not sure how or whether this predicted the quality of training that we could hope to receive. We learned that certain mentors thought highly of certain programs, but different people thought highly of different programs, and it was not always obvious how these opinions related to specific features of the training offered by the programs. We weren’t always sure whether the opinions were generic or had been offered with our individual needs and interests in mind.

Among the features of graduate programs that interested us was the type and degree of emphasis on research. Here, a few words of explanation will provide context for our perspective. As undergraduates, we learned to value evidence-based practices, data-based case management, and the science-based critical thinking that should guide clinical case management. But each of us decided to seek graduate training not just to apply current best practices; we also wanted to contribute to clinical innovation (e.g., Critchfield 2015 ). For various reasons, none of us wished to conduct research for a living, and we chose our program at Auburn University in part because its accelerated, 12-month, non-thesis curriculum would get us swiftly into the workplace where we knew, from past field experiences, our main reinforcers are to be found. Still, program research emphasis was important to us.

Unfortunately, far too much time and effort was required for us to understand that different programs have different types of research emphases. “Research training” comprises not a single repertoire but many. One involves conducting research. Another involves locating and consuming available research on a topic of interest. Yet, another involves translating from research findings in order to develop innovative interventions (Critchfield 2015 ; Critchfield & Reed, 2005 ). It is here that we would quibble with the position of Dixon et al. ( 2015 ), which suggests a one-size-fits-all approach to assessing the research climate at ABA graduate programs.

In order to gain insight about the research environment in graduate programs, undergraduates often compare their own research interests to those of faculty as described on program web sites and as illustrated in published articles. This comparison is most relevant to students who seek to become independent researchers. Our own goal is to become life-long consumers of research. It may not be the full-time job of Masters-level practitioners to conduct research, but in a field that is growing quickly it is pivotal that people like us not be limited to the state of our field’s knowledge at the time we take a certification exam. We need skills for tracking scholarly developments across the full breath of our careers.

We agree with Dixon et al. ( 2015 ) that it is helpful for ABA program faculty to maintain active research programs, but our concern is with what program graduates are able to do with the fruits of research, not how many articles a faculty member can publish. It has been suggested that the process of developing effective and transportable interventions from research findings requires a skill set that is independent of either conducting research or implementing existing interventions (e.g., Critchfield 2015 ; Critchfield and Reed, 2005 ). No skill set seems more relevant to our lifelong professional development.

Yes, we want to learn how to read and critically evaluate research, but we want to learn to do this from faculty who know how to translate and who care about helping us to become translators. Our ideal ABA program faculty member will have the time and inclination to focus on this. We want mentors who can conduct research, but more importantly who will discuss research with us on a regular basis and explore with us how research findings relate to the behavioral processes operating in practice settings. We want mentors whose skills and schedules allow them to provide on-site clinical supervision through which the connections between research and practice can be drawn explicitly.

While we applaud the efforts of Dixon et al. ( 2015 ) to rank ABA graduate programs in terms of program research climate, we stress that this climate has multiple facets. We represent a category of consumer who cares very much about our field’s research foundations, but we wish to harness rather than add to those foundations. Faculty publication counts may not be the best measure of a program’s ability to help us to this. Unfortunately, the program attributes that we particularly value are hard to quantify and thus will be difficult to incorporate into an objective system for ranking programs. Yet, if the purpose of rankings is to assist consumers (Dixon et al., 2015 ), then the needs of consumers like us should not be ignored.

Contributor Information

Rachel Arena, Email: ude.nrubua@0200azr .

Sheridan Chambers, Email: ude.nrubua@5400cms .

Angelyn Rhames, Email: ude.nrubua@7400rza .

Katherine Donahoe, Email: ude.nrubua@4200drk .

• Critchfield TS. What counts as high-quality practitioner training in applied behavior analysis? Behavior Analysis In Practice. 2015; 8 (1):3–6. doi: 10.1007/s40617-015-0049-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Critchfield TS, Reed DD. Conduits of translation in behavior-science bridge research. In: Burgos JE, Ribes E, editors. Theory, basic and applied research, and technological applications in behavior science: Conceptual and methodological issues. Guadalajara, Mexico: University of Guadalajara Press; 2005. pp. 45–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon MR, Reed DD, Smith T, Belisle J, Jackson RE. Research rankings of behavior analytic graduate training programs and their faculty. Behavior Analysis In Practice. 2015; 8 (1):7–15. doi: 10.1007/s40617-015-0057-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Perspectives

What it takes to truly understand other perspectives

• May 16, 2018

Every human interaction we have requires perspective. That applies whether those interactions are internal, with our team, or external, with our customers. Meaningful and impactful communication requires perspective. Influencing others requires understanding their perspectives.

Seriously, every interaction we have with another human requires perspective. It’s why we chose to name our business, Perspective Consulting.

How can we get better at gaining that perspective? Why is it so important? And how can we make sure that those results will last?

Why perspective is important

Ever heard the expression, “perspective is reality?” Perspective is how we as individuals see the world. It is shaped by a huge variety of factors, including:

• socioeconomic status
• life experiences
• beliefs systems
• the assumptions they’ve developed over the course of their life
• upbringing.

If you’ve ever struggled seeing past your own point of view, you understand that to see the world through other perspectives is often difficult.

When we’re interacting with another human being, we are constantly surveying them for all kinds of subtle, unspoken information. We look to ques like tone of voice, body language, and perceived emotions to give us clues to everything that person is communicating. Whether we’ve met someone before or we’re meeting them for the first time, it only takes us seconds to form judgements and assumptions about them. Now more than ever, we make these judgements even if we’ve never met that person at all.

We even make these judgements about people’s minds and about how they reached their opinions. Social science research tells us though, that while making these judgements feels easy, it’s surprisingly hard to make accurate judgements.

Why is that? We tend to overestimate not only our ability to perceive another person.

Perspective getting vs taking

At its simplest, perspective-taking is about looking at things from another person’s point of view. It seems like a great approach, right?

In a study of married couples, one partner was asked to put themselves in their partner’s shoes before predicting their partner’s response. But instead of helping them make better, more accurate predictions, it did the opposite. The exercise decreased their accuracy, but increased their confidence that they predicted correctly. They felt better about their answers, but were less able to understand their partner.

That’s the foible in relying on things like perceptions and using little clues to guess at why other people think or behave a certain way.

The only way to accurately gain insight into someone else’s mind is through something researcher Nicholas Epley calls perspective-getting.

You know that expression, “assuming something makes an ass out of you and me?” There’s quite a bit of truth in it. Perspective-taking is in reality, a lot of guesswork. Perspective-getting, on the other hand, is painfully simple.

Instead of guessing, assuming, and making judgements, the only way to get another person’s perspective is to ask that person to “honestly and accurately” report what’s actually going on in their minds.

How data leads to perspective

Especially in the workplace, the direct approach to working with other people wins. When we listen instead of assume, everybody wins.

There are many ways to listen, including directly asking someone. Sometimes, though, people need help to gain insight into what makes them tick. Behavioral and cognitive assessments can help reveal your team members’ perspectives, personality traits, abilities, drives, and needs. When you understand those things, you better understand their perspective, and you’re better able to work together towards achieving real business results.

Like this article? Share it

Related blog posts, be first in line to receive our newest content.

• How We Help
• Gender in Perspective®
• For HR Professionals
• For Leaders
• For Employees
• Talent Optimization
• Privacy Policy

913.305.6499 [email protected]

Copyright © 2023 Perspective Consulting

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

More people globally see racial, ethnic discrimination as a serious problem in the U.S. than in their own society

Concerns about racial and ethnic discrimination are widespread in most of the 17 advanced economies surveyed by Pew Research Center this spring. Majorities of adults in 14 of these places say discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity is a somewhat or very serious problem in their own society – including around three-quarters or more in Italy, France, Sweden, Germany and the United States. Only in Japan, Singapore and Taiwan do fewer than half say such discrimination is a serious problem.

This Pew Research Center analysis focuses on comparing attitudes about whether racial and ethnic discrimination is a problem within a given survey public and whether it is a problem in the United States. For non-U.S. data, this post draws on nationally representative surveys of 16,254 adults from March 12 to May 26, 2021, in 16 advanced economies. All surveys were conducted over the phone with adults in Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan.

In the U.S., we surveyed 2,596 adults from Feb. 1 to 7, 2021. Everyone who took part in the U.S. survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.

This study was conducted in places where nationally representative telephone surveys are feasible. Due to the coronavirus outbreak, face-to-face interviewing is not currently possible in many parts of the world.

Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses. Visit our methodology database for more information about the survey methods outside the U.S. For respondents in the U.S., read more about the ATP’s methodology .

But even as sizable majorities in these places see racial and ethnic discrimination as a serious problem, even bigger majorities see it as an issue in the U.S. A median of 89% across the 16 non-U.S. publics surveyed describe racial and ethnic discrimination in the U.S. as a somewhat or very serious problem. That includes at least nine-in-ten who take this position in New Zealand, South Korea, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden.

Across most of the places surveyed, younger adults tend to be more likely than older people to see discrimination as a problem, whether in their own society or in the U.S. For example, among Spaniards, 69% of those under age 30 think racial and ethnic discrimination in their own society is a serious problem, compared with 44% of those ages 65 and older. Younger Spaniards are also more likely than older Spaniards to see discrimination in the U.S. as a serious problem – though age-related differences in opinion about American discrimination are less pronounced, both in Spain and elsewhere.

Women in most of the advanced economies surveyed tend to see discrimination at higher rates than men. In the U.S., for example, 80% of women say discrimination against people based on their race or ethnicity is a somewhat or very serious problem, compared with 68% of men. Gender differences of around 10 percentage points are also evident in Canada, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, New Zealand and South Korea, both when it comes to discrimination locally and in the U.S. (though differences for the U.S. are again less pronounced).

In many places surveyed, those on the ideological left are more likely than those on the right to see racial and ethnic discrimination as a serious problem, both in their own society and in the U.S. The ideological gap on this question is widest in the U.S. itself: 92% of those on the left (liberals, in common U.S. parlance) say racial and ethnic discrimination is a serious problem, compared with 47% of those on the right (conservatives), a difference of 45 points. The next-largest ideological gap is in Australia, where 80% of those on the left and 50% of those on the right hold the view that discrimination is a serious problem in Australia. In general, people on the ideological left are also more likely than those on the right to say discrimination in the U.S. is a serious problem.

Attitudes sometimes also differ by educational level, especially when it comes to discrimination in the U.S. In Taiwan, for example, 95% of those with at least a postsecondary degree describe discrimination as a serious problem in the U.S., compared with 77% of those with less than a postsecondary degree. On the other hand, when it comes to perceptions of domestic discrimination, education only plays a role in Singapore, Japan and South Korea, with more educated people more likely to cite discrimination as a serious problem.

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses. Visit our methodology database for more information about the survey methods outside the U.S. For respondents in the U.S., read more about the ATP’s methodology .

• Discrimination & Prejudice
• International Political Values
• Racial Bias & Discrimination

Laura Silver is an associate director focusing on global attitudes at Pew Research Center

Rising Numbers of Americans Say Jews and Muslims Face a Lot of Discrimination

How u.s. muslims are experiencing the israel-hamas war, how u.s. jews are experiencing the israel-hamas war, striking findings from 2023, americans’ views of the israel-hamas war, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy