When you perform qualitative interviews with the general public, you realize two things very quickly: The world is not black and white, and people for the most part are torn on where they stand.

As researchers, we must try to understand the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of the public or a target audience as defined by the clients, organizations, and movements we work for. In that work, we find ourselves using qualitative and ethnographic methods to dig deeper into the sometimes surface-level quantitative data we receive.

In the past year alone, I’ve participated in at least twenty-five research projects in which we were tasked with understanding the mindset of the American public as it relates to a specific social issue. We found ourselves engaging with rural, urban, and suburban individuals who often strike an interesting balance on issues — between what they grew up with, learned, or even experienced in their earlier lives, and the complexity of today’s issues in a world where technology, connection, and relationships are being created and built at varying levels.

This means that many individuals are neither “pro” nor “anti” about most things. They often reflect a spectrum of support as they work through their personal decisions about whether to support, oppose, or even take no stance on an issue.

This spectrum in the face of the challenges of life, family, economics, community, and exposure to real incidents tells a very human story of struggle — a story we don’t see reflected as the norm. Instead, we often hear about the super-activist who organized a march for hundreds of thousands. We hear about the major donor who contributed large sums of money to an issue they view as a pivotal, “root cause” opportunity. In these cases, the individual is well on a path toward a pro or an anti position.

But what about the individuals who say in research interviews, “I understand and hate that this is happening, but how do I address it?” “How do we deal with the livelihoods of those that either agree or disagree?”

This is the real struggle of the American public: how to deal with issues in a way that’s not black or white, all or nothing, even though that’s how society often presents them. “Are you with us or against us?” “If you’re not already a supporter, we need to move on.”

What if, instead, we were to create a more moderate entry for those in the middle — those who are just starting out on their own journey toward an anti or pro position to learn and grow?

The most urgent issues today, including the one your organization is focused on, are complex and can encompass many perspectives and shades of opinion. It’s our job, then, to engage with a wider range of individuals than ever to truly understand how these issues affect people.

Here are three things to consider before you try to understand — and ultimately shift — your audience’s mindset:

1. Meet individuals where they are, not where your demands expect or need them to be. Before you ask them to take action on an issue, create an entry point where they can begin their journey to understanding the problem better. This helps both you and your audience avoid a rush to judgment and allows mutual understanding to grow, a crucial step in meaningful engagement. If they’re not on your side at the start, find common ground and begin the conversation there.

2. Ensure meaningful experiences. Don’t just tell your audience about the challenges and opportunities related to your issue. Create or share existing opportunities where they actually get to witness the challenges firsthand. Being told about illiteracy is one thing, especially after much repetition and saturation of a message through marketing efforts; seeing someone who cannot read struggle to get through a typical day is another.

3. Enable individuals to start with a step taken in private that leads to public action. To be seen as more approachable, some people prefer not to be the biggest or loudest voice on an issue. These individuals may feel just as strongly as the most vocal audience members but wish to express themselves privately or sit with information or an experience for a bit. Create ways for them to do so, such as talking at home about the issue and discussing ways you and they can act together before stepping out, if they prefer.

In each of these approaches, you are recognizing that some members of the public still need time and space to move along their journey at their own pace before reaching a pro or con position. That’s OK and normal, so create that space and time for them. Until they can see themselves among your supporters, your message will fall on deaf ears. By taking these three steps, you’re laying the groundwork for more successful research, conversions, and action.

Derrick Feldmann (@derrickfeldmann) is the founder of the Millennial Impact Project, lead researcher at Cause and Social Influence, and the author of The Corporate Social Mind. Read more by Derrick.