The goal of UX research democratisation isn’t to make everyone a UX researcher but to make UX research happen everywhere.
User research is critical. We must know we are solving the right problem, for the right user, with the right solution based on the right assumptions. That’s a lot of things we have to get right.
To add fuel to the fire, it’s more common to have too few UX specialists on board than too many of them.
One of the solutions to get adequate research done is to engage the whole team in the process. This approach is known as UX research democratisation.
However, it’s hard to discuss such a vague and broad term. To make it more tangible, I usually distinguish four different types of user research democratisation.
The goal of this article is to present a clear framework that makes conversations about UX research democratisation easier.
The simplest and most common type of user research democratisation is making research artefacts accessible to everyone.
It allows everyone access:
- interview recordings
- survey results
- usability test results
- raw data
- and so on
But access is not everything.
It’s also about building a team culture that encourages using these artefacts to generate insights and kickstart discussions.
Just giving everyone a view access is not democratisation.
Pros
- relatively easy to implement
- doesn’t come with many risks
- a simple way to break silos
Cons
- without any external prompt, teams rarely review research outcomes
When talking about research democratisation, most people seem to mean democratising participation.
The goal of this level is to allow and encourage everyone to participate in the research process, often in a passenger seat.
Team members are encouraged (or even include it in the sprint backlog) to become:
- note-takers during user interviews
- observators during usability studies
- participants in field research
They can also be engaged in post-research activities, such as:
- preparing transcripts from interviews
- timestamping crucial moments during user tests
- fishing for interesting quotes
This level of democratisation helps everyone on the team to be closer to the end user and build empathy without harming the quality of the study.
Pros
- allows everyone on the team to firsthand experience user pain points
- users become more tangible, and it becomes easier to empathise with them
- enables UX researchers to focus on the user, not taking notes
- passively trains team members in UX practices
- builds a higher understanding of UX craft
Cons
- additional time effort for the whole team
- might undermine UX researchers’ credibility (interviews, usability tests, etc., might seem easy from the passenger seat)
- reduces the quality of research artefacts if these are made by non-researchers (e.g. notes)
Democratising user research facilitation allows everyone on the team to conduct research studies on their own.
Although UX researchers still plan and oversee the research process, they focus more on the big picture rather than facilitating every individual study.
Getting to level 3 is worth trying if you need to drastically increase your research capacity or improve the team’s cross-functionality.
However, keep in mind that studies facilitated by non-researchers tend to be lower in quality — there’s more to becoming a UX professional than just facilitating a session.
Tread lightly.
Pros
- increases research capacity, allowing to test more assumptions and hypotheses
- frees up researcher’s time, allowing them to do more strategic, high-level work
- increases the team’s cross-functionality
Cons
- risks unsafe participant experience
- introduces bias and lowers research quality
- requires even more effort from the whole team
The highest possible level of user research democratisation — a holy grail.
Democratising ownership means everyone on the team can plan studies on their own. If a QA is unsure about the latest feature, they can schedule an ad-hoc usability session, or if a developer wants to understand better the problem they are solving, they can arrange a user interview.
It elevates UX researchers closer to coaches and strategic research managers than the ones who plan specific research activities.
Whether such a level of democratisation should even be desirable is another question.
Let’s face it. It probably won’t work in the majority of cases. But for small teams of people with proper research skills, it could bring exciting outcomes. Or at least it’s a pretty interesting theory.
Pros
- raises UX researchers to the role of coaches, teachers and strategic managers
- high team empowerment leading to a boost in motivation
Cons
- reduces the oversight of the UX research process, which might lower its quality
- lack of centralised coordination might lead to a suboptimal research plan and duplicate studies
All these levels require delicate balancing.
You can’t replace the years of training and experience required to do the job well with democratisation. Not everyone can become a researcher.
But on the other hand, you don’t need a professional user researcher for every occasion.
Use various levels of democratisation to free your researchers from mundane, low-importance work and allow them to focus on critical aspects of the job.
Non-researchers could focus on activities which don’t require strong research skills and whose outcomes aren’t game-changing for the product. For example:
- weekly exploratory interviews
- observing sales calls
- reading customer tickets
- conducting moderated usability tests
This would allow your skilled researchers to focus more on the critical work, such as:
At the end of the day, the goal of UX research democratisation isn’t to make everyone a UX researcher but to make UX research happen everywhere.
The goal of UX research democratisation isn’t to make everyone a UX researcher but to make UX research happen everywhere.
