Tag: 100 questions

This post is part of my 100-question challenge, where I review work from researchers, coaches, and counselors to identify questions that support participants to reflect and find solutions to their problems. Learn more about this challenge here. These are questions 73-92.

I have just completed a course on “Gaining insight through movement,” a foundational module on Emergent Knowledge. Emergent Knowledge is a process that supports participants in thinking outside of the box and accessing their own knowledge. By asking repetitive questions and encouraging participants to explore the space around them, the process allows for iteration and the connection of disparate pieces of knowledge. One of my colleagues described it beautifully as taking a question for a walk. This questioning system is somewhat unusual, perhaps a little odd, but, in my experience, it allows for some interesting insights.

I am using this technique for my own self-reflection and find it very helpful. I have not yet tried to incorporate these questions in an interview setting because I believe to be beneficial to be face-to-face to gather information through this process, as the artifacts used can be seen and collected at the end of the activity. In pandemic times, we are restricted to online interviewing, and that is somewhat limiting as participants go off-camera while exploring their space. 

In a coaching setting, online works well, but the coach does not always see the client and does not always know the content of the coachee’s exploration. For this reason, to use in an interview session, a few modifications would be necessary, which I will discuss later. First, I will describe the process as designed for coaching.

The first element of this approach is to generate psychoactivity in the space. This initial process is focused on ensuring that the person and their goal or topic are in the best physical space to start the process of emerging knowledge. To that end, the practitioner will ask a few questions from the list below:

“And are you in the right space?”

“And is [goal] in the right space?”

“And are you at the right height?”

“Is [goal] at the right height?”

“And are you facing the right direction?”

“And is [goal] facing the right direction?

”And are you at the right angle?”

“And is [goal] at the right angle?” 

“And are you in the right position?”

“And is [goal] in the right position?”

“Are you the right amount of distance from [goal]?”

“And is the goal at the right distance from you?”

Once the participant and their goal are in the right space, this section is closed with:

“And, what do you know now?”

From there, the participant is invited to explore the space around them. By asking participants what they know from different perspectives, different aspects of knowledge emerge. We promote this process by repeating the questions about six times:

“And is there another space that you could go to from that space there?”

“And what do you know from that space there?”

This process is similar to the Power of Six, discussed previously, except that it adds the spacial dimension. This process can be finalized with an action plan, in which action-related questions follow. For instance, you may ask:

Is there a space that knows about what action you want to take?

[client moves to the space]

What’s the first action that you know that you could do from this space?

How will you do that?

When will you do that?

Is there anything else you would like to do?

I find this technique very powerful to think through things when I am feeling stuck. However, to use this in an interview setting, I believe some modifications may be needed. One option is to use this method before the formal part of the interview to allow participants to think more deeply about the topic without researcher intervention. This way, the knowledge shared at the end of the process is more meaningful to participants and researchers. Another alternative is to capture the data generated throughout the process. However, some contextualizing conversation needs to happen before engaging in this process so the researcher can make sense of the participants’ process. 

I am curious to see how this works and am looking for opportunities to try it in a research context. I am also started to read Insights in Space, hoping to get more ideas. In the meantime,

Is there a space that knows about the next steps for you?

This post is part of my 100-question challenge, where I review work from researchers, coaches, and counselors to identify questions that support participants to reflect and find solutions to their problems. Learn more about this challenge here. These are questions 60-64.

I just finished reading Time to Think, by Nancy Kline. The book was recommended to me by my Clean Language teacher, Angela Dunbar, as it makes a good argument for the importance of allowing people to think for themselves.

We, academics, love to think. But we are not very good at listening and letting others think. When we interact with students, we want them to think for themselves, but more often than not want to show them our great thinking, rather than giving them a chance to do some thinking themselves.

Nancy Kline argues for creating Thinking Environments in schools, organizations, and families, so we can all think better. A Thinking Environment has the following components (p. 35):

1. Attention – listening with respect and interest
2. Incisive Questions – questions that remove limiting assumptions
3. Equality – treating each other as thinking peers
4. Appreciation – keeping a ration of five appreciations for each criticism
5. Ease – freedom from rush and urgency
6. Encouragement – moving beyond competition
7. Feelings – allowing emotions to be expressed
8. Information – providing a full and accurate picture of reality
9. Place – physical spaces that say people matter
10. Diversity – recognizing the value of the difference between people

Incisive Questions

While I believe all of them are important, I particularly liked the notion of Incisive Questions. Incisive questions are questions that remove assumptions that limit ideas. By replacing limiting assumptions with a freeing assumption, incisive questions invite fresh new thinking.

Kline proposes the following process for using effective incisive questions (p. 166).

Following the identification of a goal (we have discussed the process of identifying a goal here), ask:

“What might you be assuming that is stopping you from achieving your goal?”

The participant may identify multiple assumptions. If that is the case, ask:

“Of these assumptions, which do you think is limiting you the most?”

Kline suggests that assumptions come in three types:

1. Facts – I am not the boss; he is.
2. A possible fact – the boss will think I am stupid.
3. A bedrock assumption about the self (I am stupid; I am not worthy; I have no power) or about life (it is not all right to get it wrong; certainty is achievable; I have to have all the answers).

Of those, the bedrock assumption is the most dangerous and limiting. Incisive Questions are designed for dismounting bedrock assumptions. Thus, if faced with a fact or possible fact, we need to dig deeper until a bedrock assumption is uncovered. A good question here is:

“That is possible/true. But what are you assuming that makes that stop you?”

Once we have a goal and a bedrock assumption, we are almost ready to craft an incisive question. The structure of the incisive question is:

If you knew + freeing assumption + goal

A freeing assumption is the positive opposite of the bedrock assumption. Again, in line with the idea that participants’ words are best, it is best to ask participants what that is.  Then we are ready to construct our incisive question.

For example:

Q: What might you be assuming that is stopping you from achieving your goal.

A: The boss will think I am stupid.

Q: That is possible. But what are you assuming that makes that stop you?

A: I am assuming that I am stupid.

Q: What would the positive opposite of stupid be in this context for you?

A: Intriguing

Incisive Question: If you knew that you are intriguing, how would you handle this [goal]?

Then, repeat. Ask the incisive question multiple times until no new answer emerges. As discussed in a previous post, when we repeat a question multiple times, we give participants a chance to explore their thinking and find answers beyond the obvious. She suggests writing the question down and giving it to the participant to continue exploring the question beyond the session.

Nancy Kline goes on to caution about the tense used in crafting incisive questions. The present tense should be used to state a new positive assumption (you are intriguing) and the hypothetical tense to propose a new way of thinking. If you knew that you are…, how would you…

Incisive questions can be a powerful tool to add to the transformative interview toolbox as it gives participants a chance to think about their problems in a new positive light. It also offers researchers insight into limiting assumptions around a particular topic. I will definitely try it.

What may you be assuming that is stopping you from using transformative interviews?

This post is part of my 100-question challenge, where I review work from researchers, coaches and counselors to identify questions that support participants to reflect and find solutions to their problems. Learn more about this challenge here. These are questions 55-60.

Marilee Adams, in her book “Change your questions, change your life: 12 powerful tools for leadership, coaching, and life,” advocates for the power of questions to facilitate change. Her most basic argument is that questions can change thinking; it is only through better questions that we can find better answers. She quotes Albert Einstein (p. 27):

“We can’t solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” 

She argues that there is a choice we make moment by moment a judger and a leaners mindset. A judger mindset is focused on blame, automatic reactions, and win-lose relating. On the other hand, a learner mindset is a mindset of solution-focused, thoughtful choices, and win-win relating.

She illustrates this choice in a choice map. Of most interest to researchers concerned with supporting participants, good questions can help move people from a judging mindset into a learning mindset. These switching questions may allow participants to consider solutions to their problems and support a learning and thoughtful mindset.

I found the following switching questions particularly helpful:

1. What assumptions are you making?
2. How else can you think about this?
3. What are your choices?
4. What actions make the most sense?
5. What can you learn?
6. What can you do to make the best of this time?

I also found the idea of switching from a judging to a learning mindset to be a good reminder for interviewers. As we listen to participants’ experiences, it is worthwhile remembering to adopt a mindset of learning and curiosity as opposed to judgement. Rather than quickly reacting with solutions or judgements about participants’ challenges, adopting a learning attitude may help us  learn from them and support them in making sense of their experiences in new ways.

Consider your last interview: were you in a learner or judger mindset?

This post is part of my 100-question challenge, where I review work from researchers, coaches and counselors to identify questions that support participants to reflect and find solutions to their problems. Learn more about this challenge here. These are questions 42-54.

The population I work with faces many undisputable challenges and barriers. As a researcher, problems and difficulties are alluring as it gives me material to write about and propose solutions. The issue with problem-talk, though, is that they are unhelpful. The participant understands their problems very well. They are immersed in their challenges and often stuck. By dwelling on their problems, we are not helping them to find better solutions. On the other hand, by focusing on the solution, they can find greater motivation and resources to make the changes they need.

Despite my coaching and research training and my desire to do solution-focused interviewing, I find that it is not easy to shift away from the problem talk into a desire or goal. That is why I am excited about a tool I have recently learned a tool at my clean language course. The P-R-O, problem-remedy-outcome, is a very simple tool to help differentiate from a problem, or the trickier remedy, which is a problem disguised as a solution, and the desired outcome. It also proposes questions to help move from a problem to an outcome. The P-R-O is well explained by Penny Tompkins and James Lawley here.

Problem

A problem is something the participant does not like. For example, “I can’t get a job in my field.” When presented with a problem, a question to move towards an outcome is:

• And when [problem] what would you like to have happen? For example, “And when you can’t get a job in your field, what would you like to have happen?”

Remedy

A remedy is a means of eliminating something undesirable and describe how the participant expects to solve the problem. For example, “I want to stop wasting my time with menial work.”

When presented with a remedy, a good question is:

• And when [remedy], then what happens? For example, “And when you stop wasting your time with menial work, then what happens?”

Outcome

The desired outcome describes what the participant wants. They are not a solution to a problem. An outcome is something that has not yet happened, contains a desire or need, and does not contain any reference to the problem. For example, “I would like to work on something I love.” 

Once an outcome is identified, you can proceed with a line of questioning to develop the outcome. In the clean languagetradition, that involves exploring the outcome symbolically to create an embodied understanding. In more traditional approaches, it may include transforming the goal into a S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Specific) goal.

Developing S.M.A.R. T goals

In his book “Coaching Questions: A coach’s guide to powerful asking questions,” Tony Stoltzfus proposed some helpful questions to lead participants towards more concrete goals or outcomes (p. 37). They are listed below.

Specific: the goal is clear

• What exactly do you want to accomplish?
• What will it look like when you reach your objectives?

Measurable: there is a way to establish progress

• How can you quantify this goal, so we will know when you have reached it?
• How could you state this objective, so your progress towards it is measurable?

Attainable: it is dependent only on the participant and can be achieved

• Is this goal within your capability?
• Are there any barriers or circumstances that preclude reaching this goal?
• Does this goal depend on anyone else’s choices? How can we reword it, so it depends only on you?

Relevant: this goal is a priority

• Why is this goal important to you?
• On a scale of one to ten, how important is it to you to reach this goal?

Time-specific: there is a clear deadline

• By when will you reach this goal?
• When will you start?

And what would you like to have happen?

This post is part of my 100-question challenge, where I review work from researchers, coaches and counselors to identify questions that support participants to reflect and find solutions to their problems. Learn more about this challenge here. These are questions 26-28.

In addition to using Clean Language, David Groove has pioneered a series of clean interventions to help clients access their own knowledge and resources. Of those, The Power of Six is a particularly intriguing method in its power and simplicity. The basic premise of the Power of Six is that through repetition, deeper knowledge emerges. In his book “The power of six: A six-part greed to self-knowledge,” Philip Harland provides a simple yet profound visual (p.41). 

The idea of repeating the same question, again and again, may seem too simple to yield any benefits, but this is now my favorite self-reflecting tool. I am always surprised at what comes up if I am willing to dig a little deeper. It is worth a try!

The first question may follow a client’s stated goal or desire or even start a session: What do you know (about that)?For example, the participant may express a need to express her feelings better. That would be followed by “And what do you know about that?”.

This question is then followed by five times, “And what else do you know about that?” After these six questions, the set is concluded with “and NOW what do you know about that?”. This repetitive questioning may be an excellent tool to dig deeper into participants’ understandings in a research context. For example, we have used this tool to better understand immigrant women’s work challenges with COVID-19. Below one example:

This iterative process of questioning facilitates the integration of disparate pieces of knowledge until a new integrated understanding emerges. The participant above started stating the obvious (it is hard to find a job), explore her feelings (draining and exhausting), and recognized that things are now looking more hopeful. She concluded by reaffirming to herself that she needs to keep trying.

In my own personal practice, I find that sometimes multiple rounds of questioning are needed, as each round may surface a new need or idea worth further exploration. Using this as a research tool, we found that some people benefited from it and provided more in-depth answers through the process. However, some did not understand the idea behind the method and stopped soon after the obvious answers were given. That is a reminder of the importance of briefing participants before engaging in the technique, so they feel comfortable with the idea. 

If you are curious about this method, you may want to try the iterator here. 

And what do you know about that?

This post is part of my 100-question challenge, where I review work from researchers, coaches and counselors to identify questions that support participants to reflect and find solutions to their problems. Learn more about this challenge here. These are questions 20-25.

As I implement Transformative Interviews principles in my research, I have found that some interviews did not work as well as others. I have learned a few things in the process:

1. Framing the conversation is critical. Research participants want to tell us what they think we want to hear. They do not know what to expect from the conversation. Clearly outlining the dual goal of supporting the participants while learning about their experience and setting expectations about how the conversation will evolve helps create a structure and make participants more comfortable. 
2. Pre-interview preparation is vital. I have found that sending an email before the interview brief outlining the interview’s goal and identifying a few things for the participant to think about helps make the interview time more efficient. For instance, it helps to collect basic demographic data and invite the participant to come to the meeting with a goal or desire to guide the conversation. This way, the interview can be more in-depth and more meaningful.

Here an example of an email I have sent before interviewing.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in our study. The purpose of the conversation scheduled for xxx is twofold: One, we will explore the challenges you are facing regarding xxx, and two, you will together look for ways to help you cope with your current situation. 

To that end, you will work together to articulate a developmental statement, which is a behavioral, process-oriented statement that would help you deal with this situation better. This statement is a sentence that would typically start with “I would like to be better able to…”. This exercise should help you identify and articulate the challenges you are facing to xxx and develop skills or competencies to help you better deal with these challenges.

You don’t have to do anything until we talk. However, the closer you are to articulating your statement, the more beneficial the conversation, as we will focus more of our time working on a path forward. 

Coaches sometimes have a pre-session form or questionnaire to collect some information and make the interview most meaningful. Here some pre-interview questions that can be helpful to provide input to the interview (see Tony Stoltzfus’ Coaching Questions: A coach’s guide to powerful asking questions for more ideas):

1. Please briefly tell me about yourself
2. In regard to (topic of the study), what is a priority for you right now?
3. In the short term, what objectives do you most want to work on or pay attention to?
4. What major changes have taken place in your life in the last six months that have impacted your experience of (topic of the study)?
5. The problems or challenges I most want to overcome right now are…
6. What I most would like to discuss in our meeting is…

(I did not envision that this post would contribute to the 100-questions challenge, but here we are, six pre-interview questions to make the most of a transformative interview session).

However, not all participants will respond as well to transformative interviews, just like not everyone benefits from coaching. 

1. The participant must be willing to engage in some type of self-reflection and introspection. A few participants, hearing that the interview is meant to support them, may expect to receive some answer or guidance to solve their problem. I had a participant that wanted very factual information and advice and was resistant to engage in self-reflection.
2. The participant needs to feel accountable for part of their experience. Some participants see the interview as an opportunity to vent and tell the researcher how the system is wrong. These participants need to be stirred towards a solution-based conversation, which is not always easy. Preparing participants prior to the conversation and explaining and framing the conversation are critical steps for preparing participants and making the most of the interview.

To attract and prepare participants for a successful interview, the research design needs to maximize the fit between the research question and the needs of research participants. This is easier said than done. In inductive qualitative studies, the research question is not always clear from the start. Of course, we have a starting question, but the “real” research question may emerge only when we are well into the fieldwork. For a transformative design to be effective, it is helpful to narrow the question to a specific phenomenon or issue that is equally relevant for researchers and participants. 

For example, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we engaged in a study to understand how the pandemic affected international students and how they could cope better. The transformative interview approach worked well because the problem was very clear – how students coped with the lack of mobility – and helpful to participants. However, when we used the same approach to look at immigrants’ work experiences, we realized it was too broad and difficult to focus efficiently on a goal or desire that was informative. As a result, participants had too much to say about their challenges and barriers and would take all the allotted interview time before identifying a goal. We have since narrowed the focus of the study to make it more manageable (how immigrants are making sense of the job market virtually).

In summary, Transformative Interviews require more up-front work to frame and narrow the study, so the conversations are productive. This preparation may help identify participants that are better fit for the study and more likely to benefit from the process, as well as focus the conversations on topics that are likely to inform the research.

How can you better position your study?

This post is part of my 100-question challenge, where I review work from researchers, coaches and counselors to identify questions that support participants to reflect and find solutions to their problems. Learn more about this challenge here. These are questions 8-19.

Lately, I have been exploring Clean Language as a method for coaching and interviewing. I first learned about Clean Language at a seminar with Beata Marciniak at the SIETAR USA in October 2019, who presented it as a good method to bridge cultural differences in a coaching session. I then read Clean Language: Revealing Metaphors and Opening Minds, by Wendy Sullivan and Judy Rees as well as Metaphors in Mind: Transformation through Symbolic Modelling, by James Lawley and Penny Tompkins. The more I read, the more it intrigued me. Now I am taking a course with Angela Dunbar at The Clean Coaching Centre and am taking the opportunity to practice some clean language skills.

The Clean Language method was developed by David Groove to help clients deal with traumatic memories. Clean Language assumes that people’s experiences are organized symbolically. To access this unconscious symbolic organization, Clean Language facilitates a process of eliciting symbols and metaphors. Clean Language also assumes that the client is capable and resourceful. Through the Clean Language process, the goal is to model the clients’ symbolic representation of their situation to identify resources that can be leveraged or assumptions that can be dismantled. For example, it may be that the client experiences their situation as if locked in a cage. Through Clean Language exploration of this cage, she finds a key hanging by the door and discovers that the door can be opened.

On the surface, Clean Language is pretty simple. There are 12 basic questions (below) that the practitioner repeatedly asks (there are a few additional specialized questions for expert practitioners). And most of the session revolves around a couple of questions. However, there is much more to this method than meets the eye. The questions require the participant to engage in deep introspection, almost in a trance-like state. The practitioner’s goal is to stay as clean as possible to avoid intruding or polluting the clients’ symbolism. A good clean session is one in which it seems as though the practitioner is not there. The practitioner’s role is not to share his or her insights but to hold a process that helps the participant find their own knowledge.

Using clean Language is deceptively hard, as I am learning in my own practice. First, it requires exquisite listening. When listening, it is essential to pay attention and remember the clients’ exact words and repeat them back instead of paraphrasing or summarizing. That requires a complete focus on the client. Second, it requires the sensibility to identify which of the symbols or words the client has asked will be most fruitful to explore.

In terms of using clean Language for research, Tosey and colleagues make a good case. However, they caution, and I agree that it requires significant training to use the method correctly. Even for those not prepared to fully dive into Clean Language, we can learn a few things from it to make our work cleaner.

1. We can use the participants’ words as loyally as possible. Avoid paraphrasing or interpreting. I am finding that hearing our own words back provides reassurance and a feeling of being heard.
2. Use come clean questions strategically. The words of Clean Language questions are as clean as they can be. Even if not using the method, borrowing some of the questions will help avoid research interference in the interview process.

Given that the conversation is highly symbolic, the use of Clean Language for research purposes is limited to situations where the symbolism can inform the research question. However, Clean Language is a good tool to address symbolism when it emerges and engage with participants in ways that support them and foster introspection. It also helps to keep the researcher’s views out of the conversation when that is desirable.

12 Basic Clean Questions

1. (And) what kind of X (is that X)?
2. (And) is there anything else about X?
3. (And) where is X?  or (And) whereabouts is X?
4. (And) that’s X like what?
5. (And) is there a relationship between X and Y?
6. (And) when X, what happens to Y?
7. (And) then what happens? Or (And) what happens next?
8.  (And) what happens just before X?
9. (And) where could X come from?
10. (And) what would X like to have happen?
11. (And) what needs to happen for X?
12. (And) can X (happen)?

In these questions, X and Y represent the participants’ words. The questions always start with “And” and often entail repeating the participant’s words. For example, if the participant says she feels like she is in a cage, the practitioner follows up with, “And, when I feel like I am in a cage, what kind go cage is that cage?”

Clean Language conversations follow a different structure, and it is helpful to watch a demonstration, like this one by James Lawley, to understand it fully.

12 more questions to the 100-Question Challenge. The complete list is here.

You may try to explore the power of these questions through a self-guided process starting with:

And when interviewing at your best, that is like what?

Here the list of questions so far!

Solution-Focused Interviewing

1. What would you like to change about this?
2. What would be helpful for us to talk about now?
3. What difference will reaching this goal make in your life?
4. How important is this goal to you? On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 represents minimum importance, and 10 represents great importance, what number would you assign this goal? How did you get to that number?
5. The exception to the problem: Tell me about a time when the problem did not happen? What was different then? What did you do or think differently?
6. Preferred future: these questions explore how things will be different when the problem is solved. When this issue is resolved, how will your situation be better for you? Suppose tonight, when you went to sleep, a miracle happens, and this problem is solved. When you wake up tomorrow morning, what would be different? How would you be different?
7. Coping questions: how have you managed to cope with this problem as long as you have? What have you done to keep this situation from getting worst?

Clean Language Questions

1. (And) what kind of X (is that X)?
2. (And) is there anything else about X?
3. (And) where is X?  or (And) whereabouts is X?
4. (And) that’s X like what?
5. (And) is there a relationship between X and Y?
6. (And) when X, what happens to Y?
7. (And) then what happens? Or (And) what happens next?
8.  (And) what happens just before X?
9. (And) where could X come from?
10. (And) what would X like to have happen?
11. (And) what needs to happen for X?
12. (And) can X (happen)?

Pre-Interview Questions

1. Please briefly tell me about yourself
2. In regard to (topic of the study), what is a priority for you right now?
3. In the short term, what objectives do you most want to work on or pay attention to?
4. What major changes have taken place in your life in the last six months that have impacted your experience of (topic of the study)?
5. The problems or challenges I most want to overcome right now are…
6. What I most would like to discuss in our meeting is…

The Power of Six

1. What do you know (about that)? 
2. And what else do you know about that? (5 times)
3. And NOW what do you know about that?

Problem-Remedy-Outcome

When presented with a problem, a question to move towards an outcome is:

1. And when [problem] what would you like to have happen? For example, “And when you can’t get a job in your field, what would you like to have happen?”

When presented with a remedy, a good question is:

1. And when [remedy], then what happens? For example, “And when you stop wasting your time with menial work, then what happens?”

SMART Goals

Specific: the goal is clear

1. What exactly do you want to accomplish?
2. What will it look like when you reach your objectives?

Measurable: there is a way to establish progress

1. How can you quantify this goal, so we will know when you have reached it?
2. How could you state this objective, so your progress towards it is measurable?

Attainable: it is dependent only on the participant and can be achieved

1. Is this goal within your capability?
2. Are there any barriers or circumstances that preclude reaching this goal?
3. Does this goal depend on anyone else’s choices? How can we reword it, so it depends only on you?

Relevant: this goal is a priority

1. Why is this goal important to you?
2. On a scale of one to ten, how important is it to you to reach this goal?

Time-specific: there is a clear deadline

1. By when will you reach this goal?
2. When will you start?

Integral Theory Quadratic Assessment

Experience: Individual-Interior

1. What are your strengths?
2. How would you describe your mood/feelings?
3. How do you make decisions (for example, do you use logic and reason, or do you trust or gut and heart)?
4. In general, how satisfied are you with (your life/job/situation)?
5. In general, how much control do you feel you have over your (life/situation) and how you feel?

Behavior: Individual-Exterior

1. Please describe your habits/patterns (as it relates to the topic under investigation).

Culture: Collective-Interior

1. Please describe your relationships with friends, family, and coworkers (as it relates to the topic under investigation)
2. How do you identify yourself ethnically? How influential is your ethnic culture to you?
3. What values are most important to you (as it relates to topic)?

Social systems: Collective-Exterior

1. Describe your current (relevant – work, home) physical environment.
2. What aspects of your life are stressful to you?
3. What type of support system do you have?
4. What is your educational/professional background?

Switching Questions

1. What assumptions are you making?
2. How else can you think about this?
3. What are your choices?
4. What actions make the most sense?
5. What can you learn?
6. What can you do to make the best of this time?

Incisive Questions

1. “What might you be assuming that is stopping you from achieving your goal?”
2. “Of these assumptions, which do you think is limiting you the most?”
3. “That is possible/true. But what are you assuming that makes that stop you?”
4. If you knew + freeing assumption + goal

Probing Questions

1. What feelings do you have about this?
2. What are the other players in this situation? How are they involved?
3. What do you want? What is your objective?
4. Give me a concrete example of that.
5. What did you mean when you said X.
6. What was most significant to you about this situation?
7. Give me some background: what led to this situation?
8. What excites you about this?

Moving through Space

1. And are you in the right space?
2. And is [goal] in the right space?
3. And are you at the right height?
4. Is [goal] at the right height?
5. And are you facing the right direction?
6. And is [goal] facing the right direction?
7. And are you at the right angle?
8. And is [goal] at the right angle? 
9. And are you in the right position?
10. And is [goal] in the right position?
11. Are you the right amount of distance from [goal]?
12. And is the goal at the right distance from you?
13. And what do you know now?
14. And is there another space that you could go to from that space there?
15. And what do you know from that space there?
16. Is there a space that knows about what action you want to take?
17. What’s the first action that you know that you could do from this space?
18. How will you do that?
19. When will you do that?
20. Is there anything else you would like to do?

This post is part of my 100-question challenge, where I review work from researchers, coaches and counselors to identify questions that support participants to reflect and find solutions to their problems. Learn more about this challenge here. These are questions 1-7.

I just finished reading the book “Solution-Focused Interviewing: Applying Positive Psychology – A manual for practitioners” by Ronald E. Warner. The book is an amazing resource for health practitioners, such as doctors, therapists, and social workers, to empower clients to find solutions to their problems by focusing on their strengths. It is also very useful for researchers seeking to employ more strength-based and solution-focused questions in their research approach.

Like transformative interviews, this approach assumes that participants are experts in their own lives and have strengths and resources to solve their problems. The interviewer’s role is to help the participants become aware of these strengths and resources to be empowered to take action.

A fundamental paradigm shift is to move away from “problem-talk.” This approach rejects the assumption that in order to find a solution, we need to understand the problem better. Instead, it shifts the focus to what is wanted or desired in order to engage in a solution-talk.

Warner proposes a tri-phase model for the solution-building process. The first phase involves establishing rapport with the client/participant, which he calls the empathy phase. This stage involves active listening and reflecting skills with the purpose of developing trust and demonstrating that the participant’s feelings are acknowledged and validated. However, he maintains it is not desirable to further explore or expand on these negative feelings.

A second phase, the goal-setting phase, involves defining a goal – what does the client want to happen. Some helpful questions at this stage that translate well to a research environment may be:

• What would you like to change about this?
• What would be helpful for us to talk about now?

As I have learned in my own interviewing, defining a goal is harder than it seems. Warner suggests that a well-formed solution-focused goal has three characteristics:

• The goal needs to be broken down into small achievable steps
• Goals need to be expressed in behavioral terms – they need to clearly articulate a doing for the person
• Goals need to be expressed in positive terms – what is wanted more of, not what is not wanted (I want to increase my fitness as opposed to I want to lose weight)

At this stage, it is also helpful to understand the importance of this goal or desire and how motivated they feel to pursue it. Some useful questions may be:

• What difference will reaching this goal make in your life?
• How important is this goal to you? On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 represents minimum importance, and 10 represents great importance, what number would you assign this goal? How did you get to that number?

The third phase of this model, the goal-striving phase, is focused on determining how the goal can be achieved. At this point, the participant begins to consider other ways of approaching their situation that may be more beneficial. Several questions can be helpful here:

• The exception to the problem: Tell me about a time when the problem did not happen? What was different then? What did you do or think differently?
• Preferred future: these questions explore how things will be different when the problem is solved. When this issue is resolved, how will your situation be better for you? Suppose tonight, when you went to sleep, a miracle happens, and this problem is solved. When you wake up tomorrow morning, what would be different? How would you be different?
• Coping questions: how have you managed to cope with this problem as long as you have? What have you done to keep this situation from getting worst?

In a research context, it may be that some problem-talk is necessary to advance the research goals of the study. However, moving beyond the discussion of the problem and engaging in a solution-building conversation is likely to benefit research participants and facilitate the identification of broad solutions.

Warner cautions to the importance of giving participants time to consider these questions. Answering solution-focused questions require reflective thought as we are asking participants to think about their problems in different ways. That means developing comfort with silence and reassuring participants that it is okay to take time to think things through before responding.

I strongly recommend reading the book and keeping it close by for ideas of questions. For now, I have identified seven main types of questions that can help researchers move beyond the problem-talk into a solution-focused mindset.

How motivated are you to implement solution-focused questions in your research?