The problems with weaponizing research
I’m not sure how we got here (I’ve got a few theories), but I’ve noticed the UX and product design industry as a whole has fallen into the unfortunate tendency of weaponizing research. Rather than having measured discussions around design and enabling designers as trusted (and expert) partners, we tend to wield research as a singular crutch to “back-up” our choices, or as a solution to settle any dispute around design decisions, big and small.
Product manager and designer disagree on a design direction? Let’s go validate it with users! Engineer thinks the table should behave differently than designed? Better go ask users what they think. What do you mean this design isn’t good? We validated it with users and it was fine.
It happens in interviews on the regular, too…
”Tell me about a time you and a key stakeholder disagreed on a design choice. How did you handle that?”
“I took it to users to validate it.”
I’ve been guilty of this myself in the past as well. But this is not the way. All of this is just wrong, wrong, wrong. It devalues research. It devalues design. And it perpetuates design as the wobbly leg in the three-legged product-engineer-design stool that can only be trusted if we prop it up with a user. It might give us a seat at the table, but do we get to eat?
Instead of using research as a weapon, we should view it as a tool. We should be regularly engaging with customers - formally, informally, using various approaches to understand the problem space. Research matters. It is important. But we have to approach it in the right way, for the right reasons.
From there, we can imagine the possibilities of design. We can combine creativity with design principles and established design patterns, and yes, research data to create experiences that solve real problems.
We do not need to validate every single pixel or every single decision. Because the validation of those decisions comes from experience and design expertise. Design is a craft. Design is an art. Design is a science.
How and when did our industry devolve into feeling like it’s just a bunch of opinions thrown together into some pixels that constantly need checked and rechecked, and only can be taken seriously if validated? And why are we okay with this?
Good design comes from good choices and deep understanding of both users and principles.
It does not come from validating all decisions with users. (As an aside: can we please wipe “validating the design” from our lexicon entirely? It used to mean something different than what it means in today’s design environment, and at this juncture, it’s doing us no favors.)
How can we make this happen? How can design be taken seriously and not rely on the weaponized misuse of research?
A few ways —
Do the right research: know your users, know your industry, know your product (and know your stakeholders). Use various methodologies - interviews, card sorting, co-design sessions, analytics, contextual inquiry, a/b testing - there are a whole host of methods here that help uncover problems and needs in a way that will make design easier. And yes, usability testing is one such method. But usability testing is not “validation.”
Rely on design expertise: use well-established design principles and design knowledge (and know when to break from the principles gracefully). Know when and what you should research (and when you shouldn’t).
Tell the story: articulate the decision clearly, with reasoned principles woven together with knowledge of the problem you’re solving and who you’re solving it for.
Research isn’t a crutch. It’s not a weapon. It’s not a replacement for design expertise. It’s a (very important) tool in our design toolbox that we should use to make us better designers and to create meaningful solutions.
Obligatory disclaimer: all opinions in this blog post and otherwise, are my own and not endorsed by or reflective of any employer, past or present.