Since my previous post, I have been thinking a lot about perspective and perception. An article by Steven Wiley, “The Problem of Perception”* in the recent issue of The Scientist* made me want to explore this further. Call it thinking out loud, because I don’t claim to be an expert.

Wiley describes his experience of how scientific controversies arise from differences in how researchers interpret data. He states:

“In science, we do not gather facts. We make observations. Our interpretation of observations is only as good as our assumptions and conceptual frameworks.”

I would take this further and state that this isn’t true only in science. It is a human trait to apply our personal paradigm and the information available to interpret the situation at hand. But, what if we don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle? Obviously, our analysis and actions end up being flawed.

One of my mentors had a mantra: “Take the information available, make the best decision you can, and fix it later. It is more important to be agile than accurate in business.” He didn’t mean that we should always make mistakes, but he understood that in order to act quickly, we would occasionally have to make decisions based on a partial view of the situation. This would necessarily lead to the occasional error in judgment; however, since we moved rapidly, the negative effect of an error would be mitigated by our response to correct it.

Therein lies the crux of the challenge – recognizing the error in observation and interpretation.

Most people are entrenched in their opinion and are unable to recognize or appreciate a differing position. It is all about perspective. Whether it is boss vs. employee or graduate student vs. professor, each individual has a different perspective of the situation and generates an opinion of the other without knowing all of the information. Even if they knew everything, which in many human resource situations they do not, how they interpret the information they have colours their reality and impacts how they perceive the outcome.

I have experienced this first hand. Once upon a time I worked for an early stage company that was going through its death throes. I was in a unique position where the staff perceived me as ‘one of them’ and I also worked with the management team as an observer. I got to see the quintessential childhood game of telephone (AKA Chinese whispers) – how a message gets distorted through gossip and misinterpretation. In this situation, the staff did not have all of the information available to the management team and made assumptions about the state of the company and the security of their jobs based on their perception of events. After the company was defunct, I talked to many people outside the company and learned a great deal about external factors and how others perceived the sequence of events. This opened my eyes to seeing a scenario from many different perspectives.

In science, as with everything, there are several sides to an argument – your side, my side, and the truth (which might include your perspective, my perspective, a combination of the two, or something entirely new).

Be willing to consider the alternatives and you might learn something new.

*Current articles from The Scientist are available with a free registration

While some of the comments are specific to US-based researchers, one of my favourite blogs touched on a topic close to my heart yesterday. FemaleScienceProfessor wrote about how difficult it is for (some) graduate students to understand the inherent challenges of grant funding and supervising.

A long time ago, when I was in an academic research position, there was uncertainty about the continuity of our funding and rather than wait around I went looking for new opportunities. Ironically, the grant funding came through in spades, but I had started my path onto a new adventure – working for the government. I don’t regret my choice, but I occasionally wonder at the diversions my path would have taken to get me to the same place I am today.