Seeking the Truth: A Framework for Information Consumption

Over the past five months I’ve worked in Yangon and explored the city center, industrial zones, towns and villages. I’ve spoken with business owners, investors, and business intermediary organizations, government policy and aid agencies, and local and international nonprofits. I have judged business plan competitions, visited factories, lunched with workers, given talks and launched an executive program on innovation. And I’ve tried to soak in all there is to learn about this fascinating country at such a dynamic time of transition.

You might think I’d have a clear sense of what is going on here, where opportunities are, and the path the country should take moving forward. I do have a more complete understanding of Myanmar than when I arrived. But I am also more aware of how many layers there are to any “truth” in this rapidly changing country.

So Cool It’s Hot

For the first time in decades influential global players are flocking to Myanmar. During a recent dinner with people who have been living here for years, several stories surfaced about individuals who had successful careers in the west as well as Asia, and had quit their jobs and come to Myanmar. They come because it is “the coolest country in the world.” With this coolness comes new attention from well-known management consulting firms and market researchers assessing opportunities for investment. Nonprofits are looking to expand here. Social enterprises are looking to replicate.

Overall, Myanmar becoming part of the global economy is a great thing. However, the frenzy of new attention — and the accompanying sound bites, headlines, and market reports — can make it hard to get at the whole truth of what is really happening on the ground.

An Information-Reality Disconnect

I often witness a disconnect between the assessments and recommendations you read about in reports and hear about in conferences, and my experience of reality. In many cases reports cite a methodology such as this: “Interviewed 75 + people including government, political parties, foreign governments, UN agencies, international finance institutions and nonprofit organizations.” Other times there is no specific methodology cited, as in “Much of the material comes from conversations….” Conversations with what criteria? In which sectors? How many? Thoroughness and “realness” seem lacking.

We all know interviews have limitations.

Consider three challenges of basing expert recommendations on interviews. One, when walking into an interview and meeting someone for the first time it is almost impossible to have developed deep trust. The result is a conversation that is guarded, with information being released that is usually only a partial truth. Two, by nature, selected interviewees are just a subset of the whole and in most cases, a more elite subset. Three, the people writing the reports usually aren’t living in Myanmar. A local friend recently said to me in frustration, “Some of these reports are written by people who have never set foot in the country!”

This same surface approach to assessment carries over to conferences and convenings. I see that many of these conversations fail to connect with the real work happening here to meet local needs and manage Myanmar’s rapid-fire transition into the 21st century.

Ultimately these reports and convenings provide value in the form of broad landscape overviews, citations of hard data when possible, and a particular perspective. This type of information is a helpful starting point to get oriented about the landscape here and elsewhere. But I want to raise the red flag and warn consumers of information not to hang our critical thinking hats on the hook as soon as we scan a report or step into a conference. Remember that information gathered through selective interviews is innately incomplete. So how can we get a more complete picture?

A Framework for Greater Understanding

I’ve developed a process to inform my own approach to evaluating information. Reading reports and listening at conferences puts me in a passive role. To better understand the credibility and completeness of information I need to move beyond listening to engage, contribute, and test the assertions and ideas I hear. Here in Myanmar I’ve seized the opportunity to do that first hand when I can – shopping where the locals shop, exploring where factory workers live, engaging with entrepreneurs about their work and challenges, and contributing or assisting in real programs and operations so that I experience how things actually work, not just what people say. In the end I piloted an executive program to test what I had learned and my hypotheses. There is nothing that increases knowledge more deeply than action on the ground.

When I need to rely on other researchers and authors, which we most often do, I use this process to assess how much they have grappled with the local reality. Getting out from behind the telephone and computer provides the chance to test hypotheses through action before writing them as fact. Knowing the method through which a report has been researched can make us better consumers of information, aware of the boundaries around the slice of truth presented. This positions us to make more informed choices about how to apply what we learn.

I’m sharing this tool with you because I think it can inform you as a consumer of information. I know it’s rare to have an opportunity for an extended stay in a foreign country, or to get immersed in the communities that we work to serve. We rely on others to gather facts and report on the action. So you can use this framework to consider how the info you read was gathered, and to encourage deeper engagement with the facts before you accept compiled interviews as “truth.”

Watch out for sources whose methodology stops at research and listen. The reports, meetings, and events that result from these steps may not have engaged deeply enough with the issues. Ask your sources: Have you engaged in any way? Have you provided tech assistance? Have you tested or piloted this collaboration? Knowing the extent of connection between the information’s author and the source will help you to know how grounded, realistic and tested the conclusions are.

Ultimately, making decisions on perceptions is risky.

So what does all this mean? In sum, it is important to take stock of what you are basing your decision on whether you are an investor, a philanthropist, a business or an individual wanting to make a difference.

• Know the limits of what you read or hear at formal events. Such data can provide a fine starting point, but may not have engaged deeply enough with the issues to be a fully reliable reflection of reality.

• Get out and walk around. Get out of the car, off of the paved roads and out of the commercial centers to step beyond the places where your hosts take you. Visit the back streets, the outskirts of the industrial zones, and the places you are not supposed to see. It’s blocks from the hotels and behind the factories where you can learn what’s really happening – who has electricity? What’s the status of sanitation? What goods and services exist?

• Start small and learn. By digging in and engaging on real issues you will learn more than you can from any report. Actually piloting a hands-on program gave me the opportunity to witness the reality of organizational capacity compared to what had been said in interviews, revealed to me during scheduled site visits, and stated on paper in an application.

The good news is that to be smarter consumers of information we just need to ask questions and remember not to trust too completely in second hand information. When we can’t be out in the field ourselves, we need to encourage those we rely on for information to do real work and visit real places where they can experience candid moments that give flesh to formal accounts of the “truth.” Such engagement and action builds confidence that our plans and expectations are rooted in what is real – and that’s good too.