I recently came across this great 2017 article on Slate by Tim Requarth called “Scientists, Stop Thinking Explaining Science Will Fix Things” and it prompted me to think a bit about the problems I’ve faced in my career presenting research data. If my audience is made up of people who are in a fairly applied role of utilizing data to guide their everyday affairs (a group that, for me, often includes nurses, middle managers, marketing professionals and salespeople), they are able to hear the information, file it away in their mind, and find a use for at least some of it.
But if the audience is made up of people who have advanced degrees, who are academically trained, who deal with data themselves or who consider themselves successful due to their smarts, I’m often wary that the presentation is going to get derailed if I’m not extra-careful about how I explain the findings. It’s not that I feel like the work can’t stand up to their scrutiny – I love discussing the finer details of our research! It’s that I’ve found that some folks within these audiences can hear some data that confirms their own point of view and then leap to unfounded conclusions that not only fly in the face of what’s being presented, but become a major distraction.
The technique I’ve evolved over the years is to present my key findings early and often in a storytelling format alongside my evidence (rather than waiting until the end of the presentation to sum things up), and this Slate piece gives me some assurance that I’ve probably found a best practice for sharing information. Here’s a summary of what Requarth argues in the piece:
- Scientists in just about every field have long struggled to explain scientific research to those who aren’t scientists, and the problem has traditionally been thought to be due to a deficit model that suggests non-scientists would fall in line with general scientific consensus if they’d take the time to become more expert in the available evidence. This has led a lot of scientists to try to teach the world about their field through presentations meant to enhance audience members’ scientific literacy.
- Yale psychologist Dan Kahan challenged this thinking in a 2010 study and a later 2014 study where he demonstrated that those with higher levels of scientific literacy were actually slightly more likely to express an opinion that might go against the scientific consensus if their beliefs went against the evidence. (His focus was on climate change, and he found those with conservative political views tended to understand, but reject, scientific consensus on the topic.)
- Another paper from 2010 by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler suggested that trying to correct scientific misperceptions can lead to something called a “backfire effect” that causes members of the target audience to double down on their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.
- When science becomes politicized, this effect can be magnified because scientific evidence can be rebranded as a form of elitism (as Daniel Engber argues in this piece).
- Scientists should seek to connect their findings and evidence to emotions. This can be accomplished through techniques such as good storytelling, gaining an audience’s trust through building rapport and articulating the benefits of understanding the topic without encroaching on an audience member’s deeply-held beliefs.
- Appealing to values over intellect is key to connecting with an audience. Establishing some common ground helps the audience to be less skeptical of the presenter and to become more engaged with the argument.
- Scientists should avoid being debunkers to myths, as they create a dynamic where the audience may remember the myth as being an equally valid point of view.
- While scientists can benefit from classes and workshops about communication and advocacy, their focus should be on learning to communicate science in a strategic manner if their ultimate goal is to change minds.
In my own career, I’ve found that the best style for presenting marketing research is to anticipate where my audience will be most sensitive and defensive and to consider how I’d want to hear what I have to share if I were in their shoes. In my early years, I was oblivious to this, and I’ll never forget the time I was giving a research presentation and someone in the audience started sobbing because much of what I was saying needed to improve fell on her shoulders and it was absolutely crushing her to hear it in front of her peers. Yikes.
Satisfaction data in particular are almost always an opportunity to remind us that we’re not perfect, and few people like to be told that no matter how hard they try, they aren’t as good as they’d like to be. It’s very easy to approach satisfaction as an unobtainable ideal and to demoralize (rather than empower) an audience of front-line workers or managers by telling them that while they’re putting their hearts and souls into their job, there’s a group of customers who feel they stink at everything they do.
What I’ve realized is that a very resonant story in modern culture is not, “you stink and you need to train harder to get better,” but rather, “you are already doing the right thing, but if you tweak your approach you’ll be even more successful.” Consider popular films and TV shows like Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, The Mandalorian, or the entire Marvel Cinematic universe – these aren’t stories about people who need to fundamentally change to be successful, but rather, about people who are already on the right side with the right capabilities and the right perspective who simply need to find the right way to prevail.
And so, I present satisfaction data by:
- Acknowledging that it’s critical because we asked participants to tell us how the organization could do a better job of serving them. “If we just asked them why they like you, it wouldn’t be worth your time and trouble,” I explain.
- Establishing early on the ratio of good to bad feedback. I often find that there are at least 4 or 5 positive comments for every negative comment, and so I highlight that.
- Sharing positive feedback as a victory and critical feedback as an opportunity.
- Being careful to avoid framing areas of disconnect as a moral failing and instead explaining them as an opportunity to hear a different point of view.
Of course, if an audience needs to hear a stronger message because they are doing the wrong thing, I’ve learned it’s not a good idea to sugarcoat it; once I have built some rapport and gotten them past being defensive, I’ll be quite frank with them about what needs to change. But even then, I shift the message from “You are already doing the right thing” to “It’s not too late to turn around to the better path you were on, because the warning signs suggest you need to.”
In addition to avoiding telling an audience that they stink, I’ve also found the following messages don’t resonate well and tend to make people feel defensive (in some cases, with good reason!).
- “Everything you know is wrong, and I’m here to tell you what’s right”
- “I’m just here to tell you about the data. It’s up to you to figure out what to do with it.”
- “If you don’t improve in these areas, you’ll be out of business before you know it.”
- “There’s a right way and a wrong way to do things, and you’re doing too many of them the wrong way.”
- “You should feel bad about this awful feedback you received.”
In the end, whether it’s about presenting scientific research or opinion research, almost no one likes to be told that that they’re wrong, but many people do like to be challenged if they can feel safe and secure in the process. Regarding – and appealing to! – their emotions can not only make the medicine much more palatable, but also increase the potential that their minds might be open to new perspectives.
We hope this article has been helpful to you, and we want you to know that we’re here to be a resource however we can be on anything you’d like to know about marketing research!
Please feel free to check out our other articles, watch our Youtube Channel, connect with us on LinkedIn or Facebook or to contact us. We’d love to hear from you!