Let’s talk about research in the design and engineering process for a second. If we take a look at research like usability studies, or customer development (specifically understanding the people we design for). Instead of seeing subjects for data, we refresh our understanding of the research experience, and design a better, more human way to uncover creative insight.

While more studies are run with more participants than ever, we attempt to ask people to carry out their normal lives while we observe. From this I found an uneasy feeling of faulty-ness in the activity of research. The kind of feeling you get when you buy a brand new dishwasher and use it for the first time. Only, as you pull out semi-clean plates, you notice the pots you hand-washed an hour ago, are sparkling on the bench.

If I think of myself not as the designer for a moment, but as the customer for a particular product or service, and I was the subject of a study. Would I provide valuable data that can ideally help a product team maximise their creativity? Or would I just confirm what they already knew, or inform a pivot on a fact that’s solely based on function? Wouldn't a more creative outcome look more like something of a natural, engaging conversation between people? Communication is something that designers have to be good at. Truly communicating is what we do. We think in pictures, we play with language, metaphors, colours, associate words to ideas and turn engrained concepts upside down.

There is some truth in the phrase I so often hear, “People don't know what they want”, but it can also be an extremely hypocritical standpoint when it comes from a person who makes things for other people. All I'm really thinking about, is that people have ideas, and if you are good designer you can help them by fostering, directing and continually improving ideas using communication as your lathe.

When you are forced to make creative choices, based on the results of research, your limitations set foundations for a certain level of humility. Like a ‘common ground’, letting you communicate from a place anyone can connect with. Research is forcing simplicity into ideas, limitations make for realistic creativity. Your creative output doesn't just shimmer into existence, from a deep, intangible well of creative juices, which only you were born with, and can tap into. Subconsciously people are good at becoming engaged with conversing and communicating simple purity. Yet this simplicity is can be used for highly creative outcomes, imagine what you could achieve if the people participating in your research are alongside you, as you both take a more creative journey towards insight.

I see it like playing music with others, there's a connection and a conversation you are having which isn't in any language that can be written, spoken or read. It’s just a pure human connection. If you design this way with others who work towards solutions to problems others are having, why not talk with the people who your are making the music for? And in a way, invites them on stage with you. Scientific research was built on fact-finding through the harsh reality of observation and objectivity. Design was built on the craftsmanship of learning and growing as a person, through seeing, consuming and communicating creativity.

I think we need to find a way to build more empathy in the way we conduct research. For more connected and human conversations, rather than truths that just ‘confirm’ or rationalise. What about truths that let creativity flourish? What I mean is, we can take facts and insight, sublimate and synthesise them into some kind of solution that helps people, sure. But for unique and empathetic experiences that inspire people, you actually need insight that can only really come from conversation rather than observation. A creatively fuelled conversation. One that takes place with truth already enlisted from the handshake – more often than not, one that leads to engaged dialogue. If you think about about it, this kind of connected thinking between people doesn’t happen often these days.

The pure fact that people know we are studying them, must leave behind a lot of unsaid ideas and miscommunicated artefacts along the road of insight gathering. This must get in the way of what humans can potentially achieve together and collaboratively. Less ‘them’ and more ‘us’. Maybe we should start conducting research for creative achievement, letting data perform a supporting role for a little while, and see what happens.