The importance of good questions

Introduction

Of the various methodologies available to explore the nature of academic work and the types of settings best suited to supporting it, perhaps the most useful tool is the question. Good questions act as keys to unlock, often with surprise for both interviewer and interviewees, what has been assumed, half-sensed, forgotten or ill-formulated. Possible outcomes of bringing this buried knowing to the surface include honouring time-proven solutions, discarding outdated myths, formulating new understandings and creating new choices.

Here are some of the questions we’ve found most useful in deepening awareness and understanding for both interviewer and interviewees.

Type one questions - finding out who needs to be involved, and why

On first acquaintance, these questions seem to be about roles, responsibilities and decision-making powers, but the answers they prompt suggest they’re really about values - who we believe ourselves to be and what’s important to us. Encouraging interviewees to talk about these things can lead to important insights and greater project clarity.

1a: Who’s the client?

The client is often less obvious than one might expect and may change several times throughout project. Several different stake-holders may think of themselves as the primary client as most projects incorporate many areas of responsibility - organisational, academic, operational (business as normal), financial (matching available funds) and asset management. Clients may include students, academics, department/faculty head, estates and executive management. Where there is confusion, asking who the client should be for this particular issue, or for this particular stage of the project, can be hugely clarifying - and sometimes surprising.

1b: What's really important about this project?

There are several aspects to this question, including inviting project participants to develop a clear understanding of what's important to them personally, to articulate this to other participants, to accept what's important to other participants, to work towards a shared understanding of what their project is about. Accepting what's important to others is not the same as agreeing with them.  It simply means accepting the reality of different priorities. This can be difficult, especially where we perceive a particular view as being threatening to our own. Perhaps paradoxically, the way to resolve this discomfort is to focus on areas of agreement rather than difference.

 

Type two questions - identifying requirements

Questions here are commonly focused on practical information around numbers, adjacencies, amounts and types of space. They have a tendency, often unintentionally, to reinforce the status quo. Yet, project requirements sometimes change in the time lapse between preparation of project brief and handover of completed project, and they almost certainly change several times throughout the finished project's lifetime (50+ years for new build, 20+ years for fit-out). It is only when we look at things afresh that we can begin to think about what might be, rather than what already is.

2a: What do you do?

Asking "what do you do?" rather than "what do you want?" allows people to reflect on day-to-day activities through self-observation, group-reflection, diary-logs, observational studies and so on. This approach is particularly useful in situations where initial opinions might be rather fixed about the required solution. It encourages a diagnostic rather than prescriptive approach, inviting interviewees to recognise the possibility of more than one solution to effectively serve the activities identified.

2b: What's changing?

Adopting a loose-fit approach to both organisational and building requirements is likely to be more effective than seeking a tight-fit solution based on current or predicted needs. Questions that suggest movement, such as "what are the most significant changes experienced in the past five years?" and "what are the most important developments likely to emerge in the next five years?", tend to encourage a loose-fit approach.

 

Type three questions - managing expectations, both positive and negative

Here we are concerned with questions that rarely get asked but are often alluded to in emotive discussions around "factual" issues. When sufficient courage is present to ask, and answer, questions concerning deeply felt hopes and concerns, ways can be found for truly creative and innovative work to emerge. The most tragic feedback to receive, once a completed project has been put to the test, is one of regret - "if only we'd known then what we know now, we'd have been willing to take more risks, for the things we most feared haven't come to pass."

3a: What exactly is it about this idea that worries you?

People sometimes say "no" to an idea because they can't yet see how it'll work in practice. A way of ensuring new ideas are not rejected without any real consideration is to check whether the verdict is related to "what" (i.e. the idea/concept) or "how" (i.e. operational issues). If the latter, the opportunity to talk about these issues helps to elaborate the idea so that a more informed decision can be made.

3b: What if that which you most fear doesn't actually happen?

We're struck by how insistent some people can be that it's all going to turn out horribly wrong, often without any real evidence to support these predictions. This question allows for people to develop a more evidence-based view. It also encourages people to stop and consider what might happen if things did, in fact, turn out rather well.

3c: What might be a risk worth taking?

The focus here is on allowing people to express their hopes and concerns, so that they can find ways of exploring, measuring and managing the risks identified. What things need to stay the same, why? What things need to change, why? What degree of change can people comfortably manage? What kinds of experiments might people be willing to support?

3d: What would you most regret this project not achieving?

Perhaps the most powerful question of all, this is based on Mark Twain's observation that, in looking back on our lives, we tend to regret the things we haven't done more than those we have.

 

Keep asking..

Question-based methodologies are essentially about accepting the multiple ways in which any project situation is likely to be viewed and seeking to improve communication by inventing better questions. By better, we mean informative for both interviewee and interviewer. Just as those posing questions hope their interviewee will be open to new understanding, feelings and action, interviewers too should be open in the same way. It is our belief that such openness leads to more informed decision-making and more effective project results.

Occasionally, despite having considerable skill and goodwill, an interviewer may find s/he is unable to resolve conflict or facilitate desired change. The question they might then ask is "what would happen if I saw this problem as intractable?" And the answer they might come to is "I wouldn't feel frustrated because I'd recognise my limitations and I'd be able to carry on to the best of my ability". Because projects rely on both conscious and unconscious collective endeavour.