FIELD NOTE 01 / SIX01
Psychology
What did each person notice, assume, remember, or expect?
Psychology begins with a useful distinction: what a person does is observable; why they do it usually requires inference. In the illustrative shop scene, the customer requests one product. The shopkeeper checks the shelf and says it is unavailable. The customer then asks about an alternative. None of those actions, by itself, reveals an emotional state. A visitor who immediately labels the customer “frustrated” has supplied a story that the scene did not provide.
An interpretive hypothesis is that expectations influence what comes next. A shopper expecting guaranteed stock may evaluate the answer differently from someone exploring several options. Attention matters too: the customer may care about price, function, the brand, time, or something outside the shop entirely. Research on judgment under uncertainty offers ways to think about the shortcuts people sometimes use. It does not authorize us to project a specific shortcut onto this imaginary shopper.
The psychological lens is strongest when it makes uncertainty explicit. Instead of “the customer is upset,” we can ask what reply, expression, or later choice would distinguish disappointment from simple information-gathering. We might find that no emotional explanation is needed. That is a worthwhile finding. In ordinary interaction, respectful curiosity is more informative than confident mind-reading.
FIELD NOTE 02 / SIX02
Organisational behaviour
What system made this exchange easy or difficult?
Organisational behaviour asks how people coordinate within roles, structures and routines. A small family shop is not merely a setting for individual choices; it is a working system with purchasing practices, supplier relationships, scarce shelf space, memory, trust, and often overlapping responsibilities. When an item is absent, a systems question becomes possible: where did information about demand travel, and where might it have stopped?
One hypothesis is that replenishment did not happen quickly enough. Another is that the shop deliberately chose not to stock a slow-moving item. The same visible exchange is compatible with both. Weick’s work on organisational sensemaking is useful for asking how people notice signals and collectively decide what they mean. It should not be reduced to a claim that every customer request reveals a hidden organisational failure.
Good field observation would examine repeated patterns: which products are requested but unavailable, how requests are recorded, who can reorder, what happens when a substitute is offered, and how decisions change as evidence accumulates. This lens helps resist the temptation to praise or blame a person before looking at the constraints around their work. Its own danger is bureaucratic overreach: imposing elaborate process controls where a quick conversation already works well. The better intervention may be as modest as a notebook at the counter.
FIELD NOTE 03 / SIX03
Economics
Which trade-off would make each possible decision sensible?
The economic lens asks what choices are possible when resources are limited. A small shop cannot stock every conceivable item. Shelf space, working capital, refrigeration, delivery reliability and attention have opportunity costs. The absence of one product may therefore be a rational assortment decision rather than an operational mistake. Conversely, it might be a missed opportunity if customers ask for it often enough.
Herbert Simon’s work on bounded rationality is a helpful reminder that decision-makers rarely have perfect information or unlimited time. A shopkeeper choosing inventory may rely on rough demand estimates, supplier terms and local knowledge. That approach can be reasonable without being mathematically optimal. We should distinguish economic constructs from measured quantities: we do not know this product’s price, profit margin, frequency of demand, or replacement cost.
The customer’s request for an alternative opens a second question: what makes two products substitutes in this context? Similar packaging is insufficient if use, quality, trust or budget differs. A useful experiment might record which alternatives are accepted, with consent and without pressuring customers, then compare patterns across several weeks. Economics brings constraints into view; it becomes a poor master narrative when it treats relationships as nothing but transactions. A lost sale, a useful explanation and a preserved relationship can all belong in the analysis.
FIELD NOTE 04 / SIX04
Ethics
What response respects everyone affected?
Ethics asks not only what works, but what ought to guide an action. When a product is unavailable, the shopkeeper could exaggerate an alternative’s similarity, hide a meaningful difference, or give the customer a clear account of their choices. The observable case tells us only that an alternative was requested. It does not tell us what the shopkeeper should sell, whether anyone misled anyone, or which values are in conflict.
An ethics of honesty suggests that important product differences should not be hidden merely to close a sale. Respect for autonomy suggests that a customer should be free to refuse the replacement. Care suggests noticing time pressure or accessibility needs without using them to manipulate. These are normative considerations: arguments about what should matter, not measurements of the people in the scene. Reasonable moral frameworks can emphasize duties, consequences or character differently.
Careful ethical thinking also asks who bears the cost. A policy that always gives away a replacement may help one customer while being unsustainable for a small business. A policy that always maximizes margin may undermine long-term trust. We cannot solve that trade-off without concrete facts. The practical question is modest: can an alternative be described honestly, offered without pressure and declined without embarrassment? This lens provides a moral compass, but it should not become a courtroom for judging strangers from three lines of observation.
FIELD NOTE 05 / SIX05
Storytelling
Which story does the observer begin telling, and what did they leave out?
Storytelling organizes events into a sequence that feels meaningful. An observer might describe the exchange as “a customer disappointed by a failing shop,” “a quick improvisation that saved the sale,” or “an ordinary question about stock.” Each phrase adds a frame. The first imports failure and disappointment; the second imports success; the third stays close to observable action. None is automatically false, but the first two require evidence the scene does not supply.
Narrative is not the opposite of truth. It can help people remember constraints, imagine alternatives and understand what an interaction means to different participants. The discipline lies in separating quoted dialogue from interpretation. Who is made the protagonist? What became the turning point? Is an outcome missing? Which details get quietly smuggled into the account by a colourful adjective?
Try rewriting the same moment from the vantage of the customer, shopkeeper and a neutral note-taker, while forbidding invented interior monologues. The exercise reveals how easily a narrative can outrun its record. A moving story is not proof of a mechanism, and a boring report is not necessarily shallow. Sometimes the responsible ending is “we do not yet know.” This lens is most useful when it makes frames visible instead of making one preferred frame invisible.
FIELD NOTE 06 / SIX06
Sensory design
How did the environment help or hinder finding a next step?
Sensory design studies how environments communicate possibilities. A shop is a physical interface: shelves group objects, signs name categories, light reveals labels, distance makes some products easier to reach, and the counter creates a place for dialogue. The customer’s request for an alternative invites a design question: was the next option visible, understandable and easy to compare?
Don Norman’s account of everyday design emphasizes discoverability, feedback and the relationship between a person’s goal and the available actions. That framework can inform a shelf label as readily as a digital control. Yet the case offers no description of shop lighting, background noise, packaging, accessibility, smell or layout. A vivid interpretation of the “sensory atmosphere” would be fiction unless identified as an imagined design variation.
We can nevertheless propose a modest field test. Mark appropriate substitutes with clearer category information; ask whether people can identify a suitable option; compare observed navigation before and after the change. Ask customers what actually matters to them rather than assigning them a universal sensory profile. Design can reduce unnecessary search, but it cannot solve every problem. It may even distract from an important ethical question if persuasive presentation pushes a poor substitute. The best environment offers clarity without coercion, including a clear way to say “no thanks.”
INTERDISCIPLINARY SYNTHESIS / 07
Six lenses do not make six truths.
The six lenses are not six competing verdicts. They are six different questions about one incomplete record. Psychology investigates perception without mind-reading. Organisational behaviour looks at routines without automatically blaming a worker. Economics reveals scarcity without reducing people to transactions. Ethics asks what ought to be done without pretending that values settle the inventory ledger. Storytelling inspects how accounts are framed. Sensory design asks what the setting makes possible.
Their productive friction is the point. Economic efficiency can conflict with fair disclosure; a moving narrative can obscure uncertainty; better signage can still display a misleading alternative. A lens earns its place by revealing relevant uncertainty, generating a discriminating observation, or changing a defensible decision. If two lenses disagree, do not vote on which sounds cleverer. State the shared facts, write the conflicting hypotheses, and ask which new observation could meaningfully separate them.
You do not need to “use all six” in every encounter. More interpretations are not always better. Start with the smallest useful question and keep the right to conclude that an ordinary event was simply ordinary. Refraction is a practice of intellectual humility: change the angle of your attention, but do not quietly change the facts.