2023 was certainly brutal for research. Across industries researchers seemed to be massively impacted (good article by Lawton Pybus deep diving into it).
Now, whether research was impacted more than other crafts I’ve seen mixed data on — but that’s not the point of this article.
After these layoffs sprang article after article, LinkedIn post after LinkedIn post, podcast after podcast about the current state of research and how to change the craft to mitigate against the risk of research being hit hard by redundancies again. Arguably the most famous of these being The Research Reckoning by Judd Antin.
I’m sure you’ve seen the same stuff right! Research should be more strategic, it shouldn’t be long sighted but middle sighted, and so on. Everyone’s got an opinion.
At first it really wound me up to be honest with you all. But I’m an emotional person so of course it fucking did. I just kept reading them thinking “that just wouldn’t work where I am” or “I could never have tried that at my old job”.
Then it hit me.
These people weren’t wrong. Every single one of them was right.
The problem I had was generalization.
Let me explain what I mean in the longest way possible. Stick with me, it’ll be worth it.
My first senior role was at a company called Fairer Finance. I reported to the CEO and everyone else reported to me. James Daley (the CEO) was exceptional in letting me direct the research, lead the company, and do all the things that someone at that age would never normally get the chance to do. I was working with some of the biggest financial providers in the UK and I was learning what was working for them and what didn’t. I was doing TV and radio talking about research so I knew what I was talking about.
A few years later I was approached to join Capital One. I remember being asked in the interview by the wonderful Zoe Seaman (Head of Design Ops at the time) what changes I’d bring to the role. Fuck me did I suggest a lot. More strategic research, more of this, less of that. I had ideas coming out my arse. I remember the mind-blowing Lola Oyelayo-Pearson sitting down with me in my first week and explaining how much Capital One was its own beast and to take my time to work all the systems and ways of working out. If Lola wasn’t Lola I would’ve remained hell bent on my changes and done it anyway. After 6 months I got Capital One. I got that they needed hard numbers. They didn’t need the complex models I’d tried before. They needed mathematical answers answered quickly and reported succinctly. After a few years I realized what else they needed (such as highly specific and tactical pieces) and I split my team up to tackle these problems.
But here’s the thing; it’s not just that I assumed I could carry the research ideas (such as being strategic) from one job to the other, it wouldn’t even have worked for the different teams I worked with there.
Shopify is the epitome of this.
I change the type of research I do depending on my stakeholder. Some products are nascent. What the Credit team needs is wildly different from the seasoned Capital team needs.
I change the questions I’d ask. With the previous point in mind I’ll change how deep I go on specific subjects. Some need context, some need details.
I change my output format. The way one team consumes information is always different from another. Kazden Cattapan absorbs information like a sponge. He’ll sit through the longest doc I could write and paw through every word. His people lead Farai Madzima doesn’t have as much time to do that. I should rightfully provide something different for Farai.
I’ll change my output. Similarly, some stakeholders love videos, and some love them to be gimmicky. I’ll add games to my interviews to make fun videos afterwards. Would I do this same format if Shopify VP of UX Andrea Mangini asked me to do a project for her? Maybe. But I’d consciously make that decision. I’d take my time and think about what would work best for her.
I’ll change my recommendations. For most reports I will say what I think we should do next. What product changes shall we introduce, or explore adding, or definitely not do. Not every team wants this. Some want the context and some guidance but like to draw their own conclusions. Some want me to be specific (eg. Paula Murmann from the marketing team seems to like when I send random campaign ideas sparked from an interview). Some want the debate. Product lead Kyle Cogger loves working in this way. He wants me to suggest specific concepts and features and then we’ll debate it; discussing why he likes feature 1 but not feature 2, for example. I have a different relationship with other product leads.
The best researchers I’ve ever seen read the room. Adjusting the output, recommendations, and everything in between depending on who is going to consume the research. Multiple different content formats for the same project. Maximising its impact.
So should research be more strategic? I don’t fucking know. I don’t work for your company or your team or your manager. All I know is I spend a lot of time assessing who my stakeholders are and how that affects every single aspect of my projects.
I think this is because I view myself as working in sales. Research is the product I’m trying to sell. Teams don’t have to listen to research but I’m damn sure they’ll be significantly more impactful if they do. But that’s on me to convince them.
The basic rule of sales is ‘listen first’. You don’t always have the opportunity to hear how they’d like the research but you can make that deduction for yourself.
I don’t know what the current state of research is, to be honest. But, as a practice/craft, if we can get better at reading our audience then I have high hopes.
So listen to the podcast, read the Medium articles, and scan the LinkedIn posts. Then decide on which technique/type/format/etc. would work best for that exact stakeholder on that exact project. If that means different types per project then do it. Your success depends on it.
