Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
questions to enhance discovery, much like a trial lawyer or a crime detective,
which embrace a strong sense of doubt and skepticism which challenges con-
ventional thinking. To prove one's thesis, it must stand up to a barrage of
skepticism supported heavily by evidence. Such is the nature of scientifi c
inquiry. This sounds rather simple, but there is a “catch,” often unexpectedly
ensnaring research teams, which are the realm of “human” systems.
The paradox is that scientifi c analysis and human behavior abide by very
different operational rules of engagement. The poignant critical and “logical”
analysis that facilitates scientifi c research often destroys human relationships
and the ability to co-create, generate synergies, and produce breakthrough
thinking.
The way we ask scientifi c questions, when applied to people, can be accusa-
tory, threatening, distrusting, or even insulting. Seldom are scientists made
aware of this important distinction and its corollary: the need to appreciate
people while never lowering scientifi c standards. In Figure 2.4, the different
types of questions are charted to help illustrate the distinct differences.
Quadrant I describes questions that qualify as “open inquiry.” Questions of
this sort tend to let people explore opportunity, possibility, and joint creativity.
(A version of this type of question is called “appreciative inquiry.”) Human
interaction tends to be very positive when faced with questions in this context.
Many of these types of questions can be used from a scientifi c perspective to
break deadlocks in thinking or shift paradigms.
Quadrant II works well in forensic work, but it is accusatory in nature. The
questioner is not an “ inquirer ” but rather an “ inquisitor. ” Something ' s wrong,
someone has run afoul, and the inquisitor will fi nd out who is at fault. Similarly
+ Inquiry
￿ Data Driven
￿ Problem Centric
￿ Collaborative, Possibility Centric
￿
￿ Principle Driven Creativity Based
￿ Challenges Thinking
￿ Non-Threatening
￿
￿ Analytic/Specialization
￿ Inside Same Paradigm
￿ Knowledge Based
Appreciative of Learning
￿ Win-Win, Spontaneous
￿ What's Real
Example: What time did the
Example: What shifts in thinking
experiment end?
would help crack the code?
IV.
I.
Open
Closed
￿ Antagonistic/Confrontational
￿ Blame Centric, Accusatory Driven
￿ Fear Based, Threatening
III.
II.
￿ Endless Loop (constantly asking for more
data, information, alternatives)
￿
￿ What's Wrong, Win-Lose
￿ Defensive or Offensive
￿
￿ Analysis Paralysis (never taking action)
￿ Consensus Absurdum
(Has everyone agreed to this?)
￿ Challenges Individual, Assumes
Guilt, Failure, Incompetence
￿ WitchHunting, Negative, Veiled Attack
￿ With Us? Or Against Us?
Example: Why didn't you finish the
Example: Tell me all you know about why
experiment on time?
this went wrong?
-Inquisition
Figure 2.4
Inquiry versus inquisition—open and closed questions.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search