What is Synectics?

Synectics Theory holds that the real meaning in a statement  comes from places other than the pure content of the words.

The theory has direct application to qualitative research,  particularly when the objective of this research is to conceptualize, or  synthesize a concept or idea from a body of material on the subject at  hand.  In particular, the theory suggests  that the moderator or group leader in a conceptualization (i.e., ideation)  session will have to install a special set of exercises or probes to extract  the true meaning from the statements of participants from inputs or stimuli  such as subtext, tone, diction, demeanor, depth, cadence, body language,  gesticulation, syntax, repetition, emphasis, and the like.

Typically, a specially trained moderator in such a session  will encourage participants to speak freely about a subject participants regard  as less threatening or problematic than the true subject matter of the  ideation.  Once participants are in a  generative mode with respect to that less threatening subject, the moderator  guides them toward closure and completion (i.e., the solving of an apparent  problem) on that subject.

Through this exercise, the moderator takes careful note of  the unique process by which that  particular group moved toward closure, using semiotic analytic technique, a combination of the disciplines of  syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics.

Remembering this process,  the moderator uses additional probes to guide the group toward the more  difficult subject, at this point avoiding the issue of closure.  The moderator replicates the previous  generative phase and simply builds an inventory of ideas on the subject,  allowing the dynamic or process to continue unobstructed.

At a point the moderator judges appropriate, he or she  refers the group to the inventory of ideas and guides them toward a synthesis  of the ideas.  This allows participants  to avoid the threat or hurt of taking responsibility for a specific idea, its  disapproval, or its defeat.

The trained moderator makes judgments about the relevance of  individual statements to an emerging consensus on the basis of observation of  the original dynamic and a set of rules dealing with four key issues:  generalization, deletion, distortion, and contradiction.  Designed probes help the moderator sort out  these matters when they are not readily apparent.

This final interpretive stage constitutes  “closure” for the ideation process, for the moderator does not ask the group what its areas of  agreement are.  Instead, the moderator  cites the primary elements of the apparent (i.e., interpreted) consensus as  closure and leads the group toward issues of implementation from that  point.  This way of handling the final  stage reduces the number of irrelevant debates about what the group appeared to  agree on and focuses the attention of participants on a more constructive  discussion that simply assumes what these areas of agreement are.