Breaking the Fourth Wall in UX Research
In the user experience (UX) research process, a guideline often serves the function of a human’s heart: it becomes a vital organ that beats and resonates with the purpose of the research itself through multiple questions, tasks, or tests. Most researchers also expand their efforts to create a more systematic framework to assess both the quality of the product and quantify the usability of the experience (Salas et al., 2019).
Despite its importance, we can argue that not all guidelines must be rigid and attend to certain attributes that are meant to quantify the effort. Rooting back to the basic assumption of interviewing as a method, a semi-structured interview — mostly used in UX research — gave both the interviewer and the interviewee very little freedom. Thus, it is important to acknowledge the method’s restraint and reflect on what could be developed further.
If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
–Albert Einstein
The aforementioned quote highlights the importance of fluidity in research, in this case, its application to UX research. To put it in Schostak’s (2006: 92) words, an interview “…is not a simple tool with which to mine information. It is (rather) a place where views may clash, deceive, seduce, enchant”. It suggests that one should be open to how the user responds, to seek the particulars between the answers, or even being open to rethink the whole purpose of the product.
Rethinking the whole purpose of the product might seem scary–especially if you imagine throwing the hours under the bus and having to redefine the product’s purpose again, even starting from scratch. Nevertheless, as daunting as it might sound, this is an instrumental step in creating a user-centered solution. It takes a further step from merely taking on the user’s suggestion to creating a tailored experience for users (Rahman et al., 2024).
It is understandable that, as researchers, we tend to stick to the product's particulars and arrange the answers based on the development priorities. However, in order to achieve that instrumental step, we need to actively remind ourselves about the fluidity aspect of research. Taking in the term from a theatrical convention called the ‘fourth wall,’ researchers need to acknowledge the imaginary wall that might form between them and the user.
These practical steps might help UX researchers break the fourth wall with users and conduct reflective yet engaging interviews with their respective users:
1. Knowing when to be silent
Silence is undeniably awkward. Researchers sometimes developed the tendency to keep talking to maintain the conversation flow when conducting an interview. However, this could lead to (unintentional) undermining response to the user, even making an unconscious pitfall. As Leech (2002) suggests: just ask, then be quiet. Give the user time to process their answer. These meaningful seconds of silence will let the user know they are also taking control of the conversation flow and give the impression that the researcher is genuinely listening.
2. Read between the line
Collecting data through an interview is not a mere Q&A session. It is an art of interaction — despite the guidelines, the execution always comes back to the researcher’s hand to provide balance, address errors, and adjust the needs. Therefore, it is critical to read the user’s nonverbal gestures.
Do they look confused? Do they stutter? And if so, at which point did they stutter?
Taking notes of these non-verbal gestures is proven to enrich the insights gathered from the research, especially in noting the areas within the product itself. For example, a moment of stuttering followed by a positive response may be up for questioning. Researchers may take up on these cues for follow-up questions and probes — since the user is under no obligation to tell us the truth, researchers should actively gauge the information.
3. Acknowledge the positioning
An often neglected point is that an interview session could be intimidating for the users. The researcher could be perceived as someone with a certain knowledge of the product, while users with various backgrounds are important to give a diverse perspective on the research, those who came from non-tech have the tendency to take the ‘middle ground’. Thus, the user may develop a form of inferiority during an interview.
It is beyond the researcher’s control to change that, but the researcher could acknowledge the dynamics of positioning that happen during the interview. To address this, the researcher should avoid using complicated jargon or technical terms and use open-ended questions when creating the guideline.
Additionally, to acknowledge the positioning, the researcher could reassure the user that their perspective is significant with a simple introduction.
UX research requires a balance between structure and adaptability. As Einstein emphasized, embracing the uncertainty inherent in research is crucial.
By breaking down the metaphorical fourth wall between researcher and user, and employing practical strategies, researchers can conduct more insightful and engaging interviews. Ultimately, by letting the users know that they are also taking control of the wheel, UX research transcends mere methodology to creating a more meaningful product.
References
Leech, B. L. (2002). Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews. PS: Political Science & Politics, 35(4), 665–668.
Rahman, W., Abdelkader, A., Lee, S., Yang, P., Islam, M. S., Adnan, T., … & Hoque, E. (2024). A User-Centered Framework to Empower People with Parkinson’s Disease. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 7(4), 1–29.
Salas, J., Chang, A., Montalvo, L., Núñez, A., Vilcapoma, M., Moquillaza, A., … & Paz, F. (2019). Guidelines to evaluate the usability and user experience of learning support platforms: A systematic review. In Human-Computer Interaction: 5th Iberoamerican Workshop, HCI-Collab 2019, Puebla, Mexico, June 19–21, 2019, Revised Selected Papers 5 (pp. 238–254). Springer International Publishing.
Schostak, J. (2006). Interviewing and representation in qualitative research. McGraw-Hill Education (United Kingdom).
Find this helpful? You definitely need to read more articles by our Katalis here and don’t forget to click that follow button!
