The problem with empathy.

There is no problem, unless you're doing it wrong. What? How can I "empathy" wrong, you ask? Empathy has been a steadily rising topic over the last decade+ (Google Trends). And, Fun Fact: empathy searches spike every September.

Maybe it's because kids get back together in the classroom and on the playground where kid-insults get thrown around, and, where, my younger self's go-to-comeback was, "Ya, well it takes one to know one."

Witty.

Here's what most people get wrong about empathy: there isn't just one kind. Empathy is plural. Empathies.

Say what?

A couple of smart people (psychologists Daniel Goleman and Paul Ekman) found that there are three kinds of empathy - cognitive, emotional, and compassionate. But they missed one.

The three empathy types identified were:

• Cognitive
• Emotional
• Compassionate

This is one of those misses with observational or grounded theory research approaches. It's often the study of people, on people, when it ought to be with people.

Cognitive Empathy - "Knowing how the other person feels and what they might be thinking. Sometimes called perspective-taking.”

I think from this they mean to say that with cognitive empathy, you can sense and name the emotions or thoughts that the person is having, either explicit or implied. This might be through their word choice, body language, speech speed, or tone. This is the bare minimum that your qualitative researchers should be able to do.

Emotional Empathy - “When you feel physically along with the other person, as though their emotions were contagious.”

A good qualitative researcher can go there.

Compassionate Empathy - “With this kind of empathy we not only understand a person’s predicament and feel with them, but are spontaneously moved to help, if needed.”

Often, qualitative research has to stop here. We aren't there to provide solutions or recommendations.

I'm adding a fourth.

What I'm calling "Experiential Empathy". This is not just knowing, feeling, and having compassion, but it's a knowing. A real, lived experience that creates a connection between the person who shared, and the person listening. It's understanding and being able to relate to what's being said, but also a knowing of what's not being said. What's being held back. It's a level beyond cognition, emotions, and compassion. It's relational, demonstrating belonging, and a true understanding of the experience.

Here's what that looks like in research. I'm one of a few patient-partners helping a Ph.D. student with study design and analysis for research on patients with endometriosis and infertility experiences. This is not with my researcher hat on (though that helps) but with my patient hat on. In the "No research on us, without us" vein, us patient partners are bringing a lived experience to the table and put our lenses of experience into the work, that a researcher alone might otherwise miss. We're able to suggest what needs to be asked, what patients mean when they say, and what they aren't saying.

You won't regret exploring ways to bring partners into your research projects who add the lived experience, and level up the empathy with experience.

I double-dog dare ya, because it takes one to know one.

‍