When We Say “Research,” We Really Mean…: Avoiding Overuse of “Research” in UX/Human-Centered Design

Research is the process of investigating something systematically to reach new conclusions or develop new facts. But, it’s all too often that we overly commit to using the word research to help us make a point in the UX and human-centered design domains. I’m guilty of using the word research when referencing anything related to research. Once I started paying attention to when and how I used this term, I was surprised at how often I relied it in lieu of characteristic language.

While overusing a simple term — one that arguably many people believe they understand — may seem inconsequential, I found that it was having an impact on people’s perceptions of the actual work research requires. There are several places that we default to the word research, where another word may provide a more meaningful service. When we replace these descriptive terms with the catch-all, “research,” we lose two things. First, we lose the nuance of language, which is crucial for researchers to demonstrate and encourage (as we are often the storytellers of human experiences). Second, we become ineffective communicators of the layers of effort it takes to actually execute the work (setting false expectations of research processes, which can result in pinched timelines and budgets).

If you feel like you are using “research” a lot, try out some of these better terms instead.

Instead, use the word “study.”

NO
“In our upcoming research, we aim to learn about people’s realities and challenges with making financial decisions.”

OK
“In our upcoming study, we aim to learn about people’s realities and challenges with making financial decisions.”

While research is a process of fact-finding and conclusion making, a study is a contained project hinged on specific objectives. By the time we develop an objective or hypothesis, we have made certain assumptions about how they should be addressed. Research, at this point, is too broad a term to use.

Instead, reference your methods.

NO
“We are going to run some research to test our prototype.”

OK
“We are going to conduct usability tests to evaluate our prototype.”

In this case, we can replace research with a more accurate term, “usability test.” The method is more illustrative of the actual work, and allows teams to imagine the planning, capturing, and analysis of data. As a side note, avoid using terms like “run some”; it’s too casual and can subconsciously invoke images of speed and agility — which is not always the best way to think about all methods. I like the word “conduct.”

Instead, remember where in the research process you are.

NO
“Our team went to people’s homes to do research.” or “We did research in the lab.”

OK
“Our team went to people’s homes during data gathering.” or “Data gathering was done in a lab setting.”

The moment of data collection is most vulnerable to being lost in the “research” ether. Referencing actual steps in the research process (alignment, planning, data collection, analysis, reporting, etc.) provides a sense of time and place — the backbone of describing what the effort/actual work looks like.

Instead, focus on the learning opportunity.

NO
“We need to do research on people’s financial behaviors.”

OK
“We need to learn about people’s financial behaviors.”

It’s all too often that the word research can stall a conversation — it can feel like an unnecessary diversion for teams with strong intuitions or agendas. While UX and HCD teams are often the bearers of course-correcting habits of human-centered insight priorities, they can also be alienating. Researchers should inspire moments of reflections and alignment more so than simply be the designers of studies.

Instead, hone in on the benefits/outcomes.

NO
“The research made us more connected to our customers.”

OK
“Hearing firsthand people’s experiences, emotions, and motivations made us more connected to our customers.”

Once we as researchers attach our value solely to the process of research, we start to cheapen it. The market demand for research processes fluctuate, but the need for teams to be more empathic or purposeful in their decision-making is not. In these cases, try to detach the word research from bigger values and benefits of doing research. This gives credit to the team’s contributions as opposed to the ever-changing processes and demands associated with research work.

Take a moment and reflect on your use of the word research (and perhaps other terms that are thrown around in your context). Practice replacing research with these other simple terms, audit your emails or proposals, and find more descriptive language that allows research to remain procedural and broad.