Using the naive inquirer to politely disagree

When we are studying, we tend to assume that our lecturers and supervisors know more than we do. We are in a junior - lower - power position, learning with our 'master', on our way through our journeyman work. However, having more power does not mean that our lecturers or supervisors know everything. We all have limits to knowledge, and are prone to our own biases. Our own egos can get in the way - as either the learner or the learned - of being truly open-minded.

Open-mindedness has been termed having a 'beginner’s mind', which comes from the Zen Buddhist construct, 'shoshin' (Finzi et al., 2019). Those with beginners minds are open, without preconception, and are eager to learn - having a child-like approach - intersecting with the naive inquirer construct. A "naive enquirer is someone who sees the world as a benign place which is full of diverse treasures to be revealed to [them]" (Good, 1986, p. 7), and who "asks simple, basic naive questions to uncover 'taken-for-granted' assumptions and reveal new/different perspectives" (Taket & White, 2000, p. 166). Naive inquirers have a child-like approach to learning.

I was reminded of this when I read: 

"I have [...] experience with a more senior colleague who would not admit they were wrong even after confronted with a lot of evidence. I [...] was intimately familiar with the research problem at hand and they had just some very superficial knowledge of it, which probably led to their mistake. I suspect that at some point they realized they were wrong but were trying to hold the upper ground ('I'm right because I'm the more senior person') and 'win' the argument. [...]  I [...] cannot write a statement on a paper that I know to be wrong just to avoid hurting somebody's ego. [This appears to be] about stubbornly persisting on one's mistake even when confronted with evidence and given the time to think about it" (Miguel, 2017).

Ouch. When we notice that egos may get in the way of learning, taking a truly child-like approach to asking questions - if we are truly open to learning and being persuaded by the arguments of the other person - may allow a real discussion and debate about the actual issues. The discussion is not about the fixed positions that we have taken, but instead allows us to take a growth mindset approach (Dweck, 2006).

Contrasting views should be able to be discussed academically, based on the available scientific evidence. Sometimes multiple views are partially correct, and the naive inquirer stance looks at evidence of all viewpoints and explores all sacred cows on their merits. 

However, if we descend into argument, then we have failed in being the naive inquirer: our ego has arisen with its flaming sword of justice. A real discussion should not be about participants being 'wrong', or about 'admitting their mistakes'. 

Academic papers should be about scientific evidence. I think that Miguel's best bet is to get someone higher up the food chain to discuss the issues with this senior academic - or alternatively, in simply submitting the paper containing the error, and trusting the review process to highlight what is incorrect.

Tricky.

Sam

References:

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Baltimore Books.

Finzi, B., Lipton, M., Firth, V. (2019, February 4). A beginner’s mindset. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/leadership/beginners-mindset-decision-making-for-leadership.html

Good, M. (1986). The Playback Conductor Or How Many Arrows will I Need? [Psychodrama certification thesis: Centre for Playback Theatre]. http://www.playbacktheatre.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/playbackconduct-good.pdf

Miguel. (2017, March 22). How to deal with a colleague who won't accept they're wrong. Academia. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/86852/how-to-deal-with-a-colleague-who-wont-accept-theyre-wrong/86854#86854

Stuck, F. (1889). The Guardian of Paradise [Der Wächter des Paradieses]. Munich; Museum Villa Stuck.

Taket, A., & White, L. (2000). Chapter 8: Pluralism in the facilitation process. In Partnership & participation: Decision-making in the Multiagency Setting (pp. 145-182). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.