How to listen

The following two listening exercises are based on work by Yanna Lambrinidou. They help you to conduct in-depth interviews about a wicked problem with people who can be considered marginalized in our society. The first exercise, “Anatomy of In-Depth Listening,” prepares you to conduct an actual interview. Such an interview forms then the core of the second exercise, “In-Depth Listening on wicked problems.”

On the surface, the interview is about diverse perceptions of wicked problems. The main objective of the exercise, however, is to experience how difficult it is to talk to people who are not trained in academic conversation — to understand them, and to listen to them.

Please note that the instructions below are written for purely educational projects. In case you want to use them for a research project, you will need approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Exercise 1: Anatomy of In-Depth Listening

Exercise 2: In-Depth Listening on wicked problems

Stakeholder Interview

Writing a report

Exercise 1: Anatomy of In-Depth Listening

This exercise brings attention to an experience we go through multiple times a day but usually without noticing: conversing with others. How do conversations look and feel like when they involve deep listening? How do they look and feel like when they do not? What might be some of the impacts of listening versus not listening on us, on others, and on the dynamics between different people or groups? What might be some of the larger social ramifications of listening versus not listening? How might these insights pertain to relationships between techno-scientific experts and diverse populations affected by scientists’ and engineers’ research, decisions, products, and practices?

Once you complete Steps 1-4 below, you will have a good list of descriptors characterizing conversations that involve in-depth listening and conversations that do not. Please keep this list handy and consult it for “Do’s” and “Don’ts” before you conduct your in-depth interview in Exercise 2 (or before you enter an important or difficult conversation)!

Step 1: Please think about a conversation in which you felt deeply listened to by the person you were addressing. It doesn’t matter if this conversation took place as part of a personal or professional encounter. Focusing on behaviors, observations, feelings, and circumstances you recall, make three lists of the following in about a page:

  1. Any pertinent characteristics of the exchange (e.g., your relationship with the listener, cultural similarities/differences between yourself and the listener, environment in which the exchange took place).

  2. Any behaviors, verbal or non-verbal, of your listener that convinced you s/he was deeply listening (e.g., things s/he said or didn’t say, ways in which s/he spoke, facial or emotional expressions, body language).

  3. Any impact the conversation had on you – reactions you recall during and/or after the exchange (e.g., thoughts, feelings, cognitive/emotional/physical responses).

Step 2: Please think about a conversation in which you recall deeply listening to the person addressing you. As in Step 1, make five lists of the following in about a page:

  1. Any pertinent characteristics of the exchange (e.g., your relationship with the speaker, cultural similarities/differences between yourself and the speaker, environment in which the exchange took place).

  2. Any reasons that compelled you to deeply listen (e.g., circumstances inside or outside the conversation that influenced your participation/motivation in the exchange).

  3. Any behaviors you engaged in, verbal or non-verbal, that enabled you to deeply listen and/or may have communicated you were deeply listening (e.g., things you said or didn’t say, ways in which you spoke, facial or emotional expressions, body language, intention).

  4. Any impact the conversation had on you – reactions you recall during and/or after the exchange (e.g., thoughts, feelings, cognitive/emotional/physical responses).

  5. Any reactions – verbal or non-verbal – you saw/heard in the speaker related to the conversation’s impact on him/her.

Step 3: Please think about a conversation in which you did not feel deeply listened to by the person you were addressing. As in Steps 1-2, make three lists of the following in about a page:

  1. Any pertinent characteristics of the exchange (e.g., your relationship with the listener, cultural similarities/differences between yourself and the listener, environment in which the exchange took place).

  2. Any behaviors, verbal or non-verbal, of your listener that convinced you s/he was not listening deeply (e.g., things s/he said or didn’t say, ways in which s/he spoke, facial or emotional expressions, body language).

  3. Any impact the conversation had on you – reactions you recall during and/or after the exchange (e.g., thoughts, feelings, cognitive/emotional/physical responses).

Step 4: Please think about a conversation in which you did not deeply listen to the person addressing you. As in Steps 1-3, make five lists of the following in about a page:

  1. Any pertinent characteristics of the exchange (e.g., your relationship with the speaker, cultural similarities/differences between yourself and the speaker, environment in which the exchange took place).

  2. Any reasons that kept you from deeply listening (e.g., circumstances inside or outside the conversation that influenced your participation/motivation in the exchange).

  3. Any behaviors you engaged in, verbal or non-verbal, that kept you from deeply listening and/or that may have communicated you were not deeply listening (e.g., things you said or didn’t say, ways in which you spoke, facial or emotional expressions, body language, intention).

  4. Any impact the conversation had on you – reactions you recall during and/or after the exchange (e.g., thoughts, feelings, cognitive/emotional/physical responses).

  5. Any reactions – verbal or non-verbal – you saw/heard in the speaker related to the conversation’s impact on him/her.

Step 5 (Optional): Exchange of reflections with your classmates

To multiply the insights you gain from this exercise, learn about your classmates’ experiences of listening. You can exchange notes in class and/or create a collective document online featuring the lists above, to which you can all insert your answers (using your name or anonymously). This document could offer you invaluable ideas on how to create a successful and rewarding in-depth interview (or conversation).

Go to top

Exercise 2: In-Depth Listening on wicked problems

Stakeholder Interview

To be conducted in pairs or by maximally three people.

1. Two goals

  1. To elicit your interviewee’s:

    • Definition of the problem

    • Identification of the moral questions that the controversy raises

    • Needs and concerns

    • Positive and negative experiences with techno-scientific experts

    • Assessment of if and how his/her perspective has been represented in dominant conversations on topics of general concern

    • Why is it that their perspective has been represented in the ways it has?

    • Views on viable, preferable, and/or morally sound solutions

    • Beliefs about what actions he/she wants to see taken next and by whom

    • Experiences with, and expectations of, engineers and scientists involved in cases like yours.

  2. To strengthen and expand your existing understanding of the case.

Do not push for getting responses to all these questions. Do not rush your interviewee through these points just to achieve all these goals. The main objective of this version of the exercise is to practice listening.

2. Preparation

  • Consult your list of “Do’s” and “Don’ts” for deep listening from Exercise 1 above.

  • Make a list of the questions you want to ask (use the list under “Two goals” above as your guide). Keep in mind that your goal is to deepen your understanding of your interviewee’s perspective by asking all the questions you need to ask in order to gain full clarity on your interviewee’s position. Your goal is not to “win” an argument, persuade your interviewee you are right, “catch” them in the wrong, look for problems in their thinking, or try and determine if you agree or disagree with their views.

  • Be sure to phrase your questions in open-ended (who, what, when, how) and non-judgmental ways (e.g., “I would like to understand better your position on […]. Can you tell me how you see things?” or “I am hearing you say […] and […], but I’m having a hard time putting the two together. Can you help me understand how you think of these things?” versus “Can you explain how you can believe […]?” or “Do you believe […] or don’t you?” or “Can you defend your position in a way that makes sense?”). Think of your interviewee as a teacher. Be prepared to pose follow-up questions during your interview. Your interviewee is likely to say or allude to things that you do not fully understand, in which case you will want to respond with non-threatening requests for elaboration and/or clarification.

  • A description of how you plan to approach possible interviewees (Where? What will you say?), the list of questions you want to ask, and how you plan to conclude the interview is called an interview protocol. See below for things that should be part of such a protocol. Share your interview protocol with your instructor and other teams to get constructive feedback.

3. Interview

Leave campus and approach people on the streets or in places you are familiar with, such as a public library, your church, or a farmers market. The goal is talk to someone who might represent a marginalized community. However, you should only walk in areas in which you feel safe.

  • Ask community members respectfully whether they had time for an interview of about 15 minutes.

  • Be sure that you focus on listening and on understanding your interviewee’s perspective. Do not judge them and don’t try to assess whether you agree with them or not. The goal is to learn from them.

The interview should take between 15 and 30 minutes. If you cannot get someone to talk to you that long, approach several people.

Do not record the interview by any means. Do not write down the interviewee’s name or any personal information that might allow someone to identify this person. Doing any of this would raise privacy and data security issues. You can take notes but keep in mind that the main goal is listening.

  • State your name and the purpose of your interview. Explain which specific controversy you are studying and why you would like to explore this individual’s views.

  • Ask your interviewee if he/she has any questions and if he/she gives you permission to proceed with the interview. If your interviewee consents, go ahead. If not, thank them for their time.

  • Maintain a friendly and conversational, but professional and structured, tone as well.

  • Follow your interviewee’s train of thought and adapt your questions accordingly. Although you want to have your questions answered, be flexible enough to switch their order as needed or adjust them to accommodate new information you receive.

  • Do not interrupt, except when absolutely necessary to guide the direction of the interview.

  • Don’t challenge or antagonize your interviewee. If there is something they say that you don’t understand, ask more questions. Do not assume that their reasoning is faulty.

  • Don’t use the interview as an opportunity to share your own views. If your interviewee asks about your opinion, seek their permission to continue with the interview and to respond when it is over. At that time, feel free to share your views candidly, but thoughtfully and respectfully.

  • When you ask for elaboration and/or clarification, you might sometimes want to assure your interviewee that your request does not come from a place of disagreement – that you just want to make sure you understand fully what they are saying.

  • Ask thoughtful questions that encourage deep thinking.

  • Be authentic, sincerely curious, genuinely respectful, and caring.

  • Empty your mind of judgment and distractions, stay on your toes, and listen.

  • Do not close the interview until you feel confident that you have understood fully your interviewee’s perspective.

Please note: If your interview turns out to be rushed, or short on time, or seems to lack depth and substance, approach someone else for another interview.

Go to top

Writing a report

Summarize the interview with clearly marked titles and subtitles and submit it (use the list under “Two goals” above as your guide). Your analysis should include answers to the following questions:

  1. Describe the person you interviewed in general terms, and note where you met them.

  2. What did you hear? Characterize the interviewee’s perspective on the issues they talked about and reflect on the question whether you can see in the interviewee the knowledge claims, beliefs, world-views, values, customs, or practices of a certain culture represented.

  3. How do you see your own cultural background in comparison to that of the interviewee?

  4. What does the notion of “marginalized population” mean to you after conducting the interview? In this context you might talk about power differences between stakeholders; the question of who dominates public conversations; and your thoughts about the relationship between techno-scientific experts and the populations they may affect.

  5. How did the interview expand your prior understanding of the case?

As an addendum: The lists you created in Exercise 1.

Go to top

Thanks to …

The material above has been adapted from Lambrinidou, Y. (2017). Learning to Listen (Based on the older L2L assignment published at the Online Ethics Center for Engineering 4/28/2016: www.onlineethics.org/Resources/38201/35627.aspx). Retrieved from https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8b6f6a895c6072aca8)

See also:

Lambrinidou, Y. (2016). On Listening, Science, and Justice: A Call for Exercising Care in What Lessons We Draw from Flint. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(22), 12058-12059. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04634.

Thanks also to Zach Piso, University of Dayton, who helped to refine this adaptation.