What a Facebook Group Taught Me About Answering Questions

Across the classes that I teach, I devote quite a bit of attention to the topic of formulating and delivering good questions. Whether it’s my Counseling students learning to ask effective probing questions to future clients or my Cross-Cultural Psychology students practicing how to appropriately inquire about another person’s cultural background, gaining the skill of asking questions is an important learning outcome.

But it strikes me that I do not spend nearly as much time teaching students about the flipside of asking questions—namely, answering them. That is, what are effective and ineffective ways to respond to queries posed by another person? I can certainly turn to some general principles of good communication as a broader connection (e.g., LaRay Barna’s [1994] work on intercultural communication), but there is something nuanced about the particular type of communication effort to satisfy another person’s uncertainty, curiosity, or just a practical need to know.

As I started to take mental notes on important principles to keep in mind when answering questions, I found inspiration in an unlikely setting: a Facebook group for dog owners.

My family recently welcomed a puppy into our home. Because we have little to no experience in raising a dog, we joined a large Facebook group that was created online for overwhelmed dog owners like us to ask training- or behavior-related questions. So far, we have utilized the group to pose a few different questions about behavioral concerns (e.g., excessive play-biting). We posted our questions on the Facebook page thinking that there would be quick answers; each time we posted, we were surprised by the wide-ranging responses not only in content but also in the way that the responses were worded. This was true for the majority of the questions that other people in the group posted as well.

This is Bijou, the latest addition to my family

Paul Youngbin kim

After having read through many responses to questions posted on the Facebook group page, with a reasonable level of confidence I can name and describe common types of unhelpful responses or answers—“profiles” of ineffective answers, if you will. Below, I briefly describe these, with the hope that the observations that I share can help you make connections to settings in which you regularly find yourself responding to questions. Perhaps you are an educator like me, and you would like to continue to explore ways to satisfy the intellectual curiosity of your students. Or you might be an intercultural expert and you would like to expand your toolkit in addressing questions about culture, especially those sticky and difficult ones. It doesn’t have to be in a professional setting; perhaps you are thinking about the upcoming holiday gatherings with family, and you know that there will be some tough questions directed your way by some family members.

Here are the common types of unhelpful answers that I observed on the Facebook page:

Answers that

1. Impose an agenda. A while ago, I posted what I thought was a pretty straightforward inquiry on the Facebook group page: “What are some ways to keep my dog off the couch?” In response, a few responders commented, in essence, “Why would you not want the dog on your couch? They are a part of your family. Just let them hop on the couch.” I do not doubt the sincerity of these responders in offering what they believed was an important perspective. But in doing so, they brushed aside my need captured in my question and inserted their own agenda in how they responded.

Sometimes, our own passion about a topic gets the best of us in answering questions. In my own teaching, like some people on the Facebook group, I sometimes feel tempted to override a student’s question with a “better” one (e.g., “Actually, maybe you should be wondering about this instead…”). I might even justify the redirection in my mind by telling myself that I know better as the teacher and therefore I am helping the student, just like the Facebook responders likely did in offering their responses. But the Facebook group experience is a good reminder that answering a question well requires me to set aside my own preferences and passions to meet the needs of the questioner.

2. Assume shared context. Some folks respond to questions assuming that the questioner shares the same context as them. One example from the Facebook group is when a response is provided assuming that the original poster is located in the same geographic location as the responder, only to be found out that they are not; they might be literally on the other side of the globe. A response that presumes, for example, that everyone in this world has equal access to a dog park (or that a dog park is even a thing) is imposing a shared context that is likely to be incorrect.

In counseling, trainees learn about the importance of checking one’s own external frame of reference and relying on an internal frame of reference to be able to empathize with the client’s experience (Nelson-Jones, 2015). To utilize an external frame of reference is an approach that is akin to assuming that the contextual factors are fully shared between the questioner and responder; it is important that, instead, an internal frame of reference is replied upon, even if it takes more time and effort to figure out what the questioner might be saying. LaRay Barna (1994) also write about something similar—the assumption of similarities between communicators that can serve as a barrier in intercultural communication.

3. Lead with credentials. Some commenters like to cite one’s own credentials to justify why their responses should be valued above others. In the Facebook group, a common refrain goes something like, “I have worked as a dog trainer for x number of years, and this is what I think…”, with the implication that whatever follows that statement should be accepted wholeheartedly. I have observed some outlandish or questionable suggestions from those claiming that their training justifies their responses.

In my setting, this type of responding is akin to someone saying something like, “Well, I took Cross-Cultural Psychology and so that legitimizes my response,” or the cringe-worthy “My best friend is _________, so I can’t be racist.” Or in my world of those with highest degrees in their fields, justifying perspectives with “I have a doctorate, so take my word for it.”

4. Over-rely on resources. Sometimes well-intentioned responses include an abundance of links to books, articles, blogs, videos, and other materials. It is not uncommon to see a response on the Facebook group page in which the entirety of the message is a series of links. There is a time and place for sharing published materials in response to questions, of course. But many times, the sharing of links, without context, can be equivalent of throwing down a stack of books on a student’s desk and walking away. A more helpful way of responding would be to provide personal commentary, even if brief, that accompanies the shared resources. How might the shared links be helpful in light of the original question?

I shared four ineffective ways of responding to questions on a Facebook page, making connections to teaching, to diversity, equity, and inclusion work, and to everyday living. But let me conclude with a brief summary of what I have personally found to be most helpful, based on my experience of posting questions on the dog Facebook group page.

In a nutshell, the most helpful answers have been those that achieve the difficult balance of the empirical, theoretical, and experiential; those that not only include resources but a personal commentary of what specifically was beneficial for the responder; those that offer a few different options (try this; if it doesn’t work, try that); and those that are clearly being articulated by experts but also reflect humility in their tone.

For those of you who find yourself regularly answering questions from others, such as questions stemming from genuine curiosity, skepticism, or simply the need to know, I hope that some of the principles that I have outlined here are helpful in thinking about your own postures and actions in the art and science of answering questions well.

Questions arise about Upper Pottsgrove’s use of open-space funds to pay back general fund

UPPER POTTSGROVE — Questions are being publicly raised about the township’s planned use of open-space tax revenues to reimburse the general fund for paying off a bond, answers to which may have an impact on the status of the Smola Farm property on which the township hopes to build its controversial township complex.

The plan to use that property has raised objections and fueled a lawsuit over the past year and the questions raised Monday by one of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit, and a township commissioner, have added another wrinkle to the issue.

Courtesy of Upper Pottsgrove Township

At Monday night’s commissioner meeting, Commissioner Cathy Paretti asked Township Solicitor Eric Fry to investigate the legality of transferring more than $243,000 from the open-space fund to the general fund this year, and another similar payment laid out in the 2024 budget, which was unanimously adopted Monday night and will not raise taxes.

“I’ve been thinking about this for two months,” Paretti said, asking if another resolution or vote is required. She was referring to Resolution 747 adopted on July 18, 2022 and for which she voted. “I’d like you to look at that and make sure it’s legal.”

“I’ll look into it,” Fry replied.

The relevant passage in that resolution reads: “allocation of appropriate assets from the open-space fund to the general fund in accordance with the repayment of open-space fund debt structure in Fulton series 2013 bond.”

Resolution 747 was passed in regards to the township’s use of the proceeds of the sale of its sewer system to Pennsylvania American Water, which was completed in April of 2022.

The “Fulton series 2013 bond” refers to a re-financing of a 2008 bond which was used to purchase the Smola Farm, according to an Oct. 12 legal response filed by the township in the proceedings of the lawsuit seeking to stop the construction filed in February by residents Matt Murray and Nathaniel Guest.

“It does not appear that any funds from the Township’s Open Space Tax Ordinance were used to purchase Smola Farm,” attorney Andrew Bellwoar wrote on behalf of the township in the October filing. “Although a check from the Open Space Fund was presented during the purchase of Smola Farm, the purchase was largely funded by a bond in 2008 (and later refinanced by a 2013 bond). Finally, the sale of the sewer was used to pay off the 2013 bond. (See Resolution 747). Thus, Smola Farm was purchased substantially with the full faith and credit of the Township — the account the bond funds were routed through is irrelevant.”

But if the open-space fund is being used to refund the township general fund for paying off that bond, are open-space funds ultimately financing the purchase of the Smola Farm property? Murray certainly thinks so and said so during Monday’s meeting.

“You said paying off the open-space debt entitled you to use the (Smola) property as you wish,” Murray said. “The truth is you did not pay off the debt, you simply changed the lender from Fulton Bank to yourself.”

Should the court — which recently rejected requests from both sides to either dismiss the lawsuit or find in the plaintiffs’ favor — decide that open-space funds were in fact used to purchase the property, it will confirm a central tenant of the plaintiff’s contention that the township is violating state law if it builds the complex there.

Murray also pointed out that while a bond was taken out in 2008 to pay for the purchase of the Smola Farm as “permanently protected open space;”  as it is described in the township’s own Open Space Plan; from 2009 until the 2013 re-financing, it was revenues from the open space fund that were making those debt payments. And now, even the re-financing is ultimately being paid out of the open space fund if the township moves forward with this finance plan. “You can’t have it both ways,” Murray said.

“In actuality, when we paid off the entire proceeds of the debt we had, it was the 2013 bond,” said Commissioners’ Chairman Trace Slinkerd. “It was a little over $3 million total of what was borrowed, paid by the slow yearly payments.”

Of that bond repayment, $1.7 million came from the general fund, he said “and under resolution 747, the board has the authority to determine how it wants that $1.7 million to be paid back to the general fund,” Slinkerd said.

There is currently $1.48 million in the open space fund and “actually, the open space fund will not have $1.7 million for several more months yet,” Slinkerd said. “If we paid that off, there would be zero in the open space fund, but again, we wrote that (resolution 747) so we can determine how we want the $1.7 million paid back.”

“And also because of the way we paid off the debt,” Slinkerd said, “we saved a little more than a quarter of a million bucks on all the interest we would have paid.”

But Murray charged that in fact, the township will charge the open space fund interest on what the general fund is owed, at least this year.

Murray pointed to page 23 of the 2023 budget which shows $243,153 being transferred from the open-space fund to the general fund and pointed to a note on that budget line which reads “principal $195,000. Interest $48,153 (per debt resolution schedule and Resolution 747).”

“Is what you’re doing even legal?” Murray asked — a question that Paretti would also like answered.

“We don’t charge interest. What we’re re-paying is the $1.7 (million) we paid off,” said Slinkerd.

He said the township “mirrored the wording that the 2013 bond went through. (Township Manager) Michelle (Reddick) designed the flow until we decided how we want to allocate that. It gives us maximum flexibility.”

But that design may also result in the township paying interest on that debt this month, at least as it’s laid out in the 2023 budget.

Reddick told the commissioners that the transfer of $243,153 to the general fund is “already approved” because it is part of the 2023 budget, as well as a similar payment in the 2024 budget.

“I’m prepared to make that transfer as I always do in December, so if that’s going to change I need direction on that,” she told the commissioners. “As far as I’m concerned the transfer needs to be made because its part of the 2023 budget and also part of the 2024 budget.”

She received no such direction publicly Monday night.

“It’s pretty much money from the left pocket into the right pocket,” said Commissioner Don Read. “That’s how I view these funds.”