Framing research integration
How some recent framework critique sessions have stirred some thinking on integration of research work
This morning I had the honour and privilege of sharing a framework in development for constructive critique.
Jan Chipchase, ‘the Indiana Jones’ of research in my eyes, decided to host a Euro friendly version of his Framework Critique session. An open forum for people to share frameworks they are working on, and get input from peers.
I had attended the first one when it was my Friday night. And got some great input on a framework I had quickly developed over 4 years ago. I just hadn’t used as much as my more popular Shaping frameworks.
The framework itself was one around qualitative research competencies. Helping people self reflect on their own skills, confidence levels and growth potential.
I’d created it initially on a project to understand the different leanings and comfort levels of two collaborators on a project. It was paired with a research dichotomies tool designed to tease out range of leanings around research.
But I had rarely used it in my Shaping workshops, although I have shared with a few people over the years. Part of me was tentative to share it after Tomomi and Dave’s amazing Research Skills framework work with the research and ResearchOps community. And Emma Boulton has also done great work compiling and sharing the ‘Eight Pillars of User Research’ framework.
Typically, I don’t do a lot of research around the frameworks I develop. Starting out with a hunch based on what I have experienced and observed over the years. And then I iterate and evolve it in use alongside feedback. That’s ‘bad research’ you could say. I’d just say ‘I’m not that kind of researcher/strategist/designer/coach/connector’. Especially for my own stuff. Why is that, I wonder?
Despite this, the opportunity to get some critique on my frameworks was too good to be missed. And there was an opportunity to see over the shoulders of others’ frameworks in progress. Including Jan’s. And people in his orbit.
After sharing and discussing one of Jan’s frameworks, I went up second to share mine and getting the feedback.
After some tech problems today, and some different ones a couple of weeks ago, we got going. It happens. It’s ok. People understand. Or at least they should, because it can or will happen to you. If it hasn’t already.
Today, I shared some background on the provenance, before whizzing over the previous session’s feedback and my noodling.
Then, I invited attendees to fill one out on themselves. I decided to evolve the framework to be more freeform and allow multiple dimensions to be plotted over the visual grid.
The use of enjoyment, competence and relative time spent as multiple dimensions being inspired by the Leadership functions chart I co-developed with Martina Hodges-Schell.
Over the years, this has been evolved based on some users of the tool sharing great examples of how they used it in different ways.
I asked them to use the competence framework first, because typically I don’t invite feedback on the framework itself. And I believe the feedback is more valuable after having used it.
Just realised as I write this, that I could have framed it as a piece of ‘research’, like one of the reviewers of my book suggested. But that would have probably triggered my imposter phenomenon in a negative way given the attendance.
I got some great ideas of how to use the framework within a group. Particularly on-line, but could be doable in-person as well I reckon.
I just had an idea that I need to capture. Something to do with shapes, transparent paper, and overlaps I could use in a workshop setting.
I digress… Or do I? Well yes, I do digress generally, but this is relevant…
Whether the specific feedback is taken on board or not, the ideas and the insight can stir. And so those comments could have triggered a whole new thought path or many. My mind is now going to how I can integrate tracing paper into my book.
To be honest, today I was less interested in new ideas. I have plenty of those. But more the challenges of comprehension, relatability, and fit to experiences attendees had.
However, as I know all too well, the needs are implicit in the explicit idea. With great research skills, you can definitely probe what the real needs and related challenges are. We just didn’t have the setup for that today. So I was happy to get some ideas, and lesser input on the foundational challenges.
The thing I was really struggling with, and a couple of attendees called out was the concept of ‘integration’. I had initially separated integration and translation out. But I wasn’t really happy with the naming of them.
The concept emerged out of crit session 1. The work of translating research into useful material for others and having impact was called out by contributors.
Integrating research synthesis into different teams, products and services being an area where there is often a lack of competence or experience.
Or at least recognition that it was an important missing element.
Previously I had aspects covered by Research Design, Verbal Communication and Verbal Communication. But the communication competencies weren’t specific enough to Researchers. Most professional people benefit from those. At least verbal communication (both written and spoken).
So I noodled for a little bit last night and today on bringing the concept in under Translation and Integration competence categories.
I strongly believe in the value of researchers translating their findings, insight and recommendations into content and formats that work for their audiences.
Research translation so key, and yet so lacking
I remember fondly the first time I saw Paula Zuccotti since uni when she was at Seymour Powell presenting at a Lowey Group morning session. She not only communicated with brilliant video clips of people trying to find their soap, or using mayonnaise in different ways. But she also developed clear visual frameworks to guide the strategy and design.
BTW, Paula is incredible. Buy her book, and if you have formative open-ended research in different cultures, then definitely hire her. Or Jan.
This framework translation was something I dove into with greater interest at Plan when I worked there. I realised I was drawn to the guidance of a bespoke framework to communicate what was learned in the research to guide designers better than consuming a long presentation of bullets, verbatim quotes and maybe some video. YES, AND to that of course, as it has its place.
Framework purity pushed to its limits
I also realise how much we have have laboured the framework development in the past. And how I am a bit more flighty and careless with the rigour these days. Not carefree, but maybe a bit flippant at quality and robustness. Maybe that rigour sometimes felt like navel gazing and the sort of pedantic IA purity that very few really cares about.
Many of those frameworks and the ones developed by people like Paula and my boos, Kevin at Plan, and all the people they have worked with I am sure were valuable for a long time. And so the care can matter. And can be worth it. But I would suggest, not always.
Playing in the imperfection
For me, and especially the Shaping Design toolkit I use, I prefer playing in the imperfection. Not being overly reductive. And not trying to be 100% right. I realise that was a fools errand in the UX and Tech industry.
So many of my tools have at least one or two categories I am not fully comfortable with. Not intentionally incorrect, but intentionally not corrected.
Integration over initial impact
And this brings me to the point of integration. It’s a word I currently associate with coaching and therapy. Especially maybe some form of psychedelic therapy where the power is in integrating the learnings into your life. But it’s also a very generic word.
We integrate a lot. Apparently anyway. But do we?
In the world of qualitative research, I have seen (or not seen, but known) a lot of output from studies end up in drawers, lost on file systems, or just lost between past employees and the new ones. I bet you are aware of that too if you work in this space. Lots of potentially wasted effort, money and attention.
One client who I had worked with a couple of times before was commissioning some research as part of a service design project I was involved in. I had asked for learnings from previous, adjacent research but they didn’t know of anything. Through my attendance at various public events, and an in-house event I attended at the same org where that research was presented, I knew there had been some research that would be relevant. And I knew the freelance researcher who had conducted some of it.
Build on the before
As with any project, I have realised that it’s worth asking what had come before. So that your work can build upon it. Filling any gaps. Or using relevant learnings. Rather than just dismiss them because someone at the time had dismissed them. Or because someone hadn’t ‘integrated’ the work into their knowledge base, product, or cultural awareness. Too often I have experienced researchers wanting to start from scratch when there is a body of work from before. I find it arrogant to assume that they might be able to do it better with less money, time, and attention, when they could just build upon it.
Now, I know that many great people in the ResearchOps community will talk about how insight repositories, knowledge databases, or other filing systems and ingredient databasing can help. And I am sure they can.
I am also pretty confident that those who work in-house, will probably be familiar with alternative ways where research learnings* can live on beyond the study itself.
*I’m not sure how to name the category of insight, observations, findings, frameworks, opportunities, recommendations.
I don’t have the answers. In my experience it’s complex. As an external consultant my clients often don’t want to pay for ‘that’. Although one experiece I had involved me doing different versions of the research findings and strategy presentation multiple times. To different audiences. It felt unproductive, but actually necessary in retrospect. And I believe it was valuable. My client at the time often mentions how valuable the work was. But not sure if it was the presentation deck, the stuff on Miro, or something else. To be honest, it’s rare to get the feedback loop of what’s valuable. Whether doing research, strategy, or more conceptual design work. One reason being is that it’s hard to get an accurate read on what is valuable at the time of communication. Another being that it’s hard to engage months or years later to see what impact it had. Maybe I should ask him next time we speak.
The move to in-house to see things through
And I know this is one reason why so many designers, researchers and product people wanted to move in-house. To see more of the work ‘live on’. To be integrated into the product or service strategy, touch point design and more.
I know my best work was when I was around to see how to adapt the early thinking and work into later design and delivery.
So, whatever it’s called, I believe Integration is key. Like with therapy. Like with coaching. Like with strategy and design. And probably so many more things.
What are the competencies of integration?
But what are the competences of integration for a qualitative researcher?
I mean, I can relate a whole bunch of human, team, technical, communication skills to how you might integrate better.
But what is pertinent as a technical competence for qualitative research? Or is that the wrong frame?
I haven’t thought about this for long, but here are some initial things that occur for me.
- Contextual awareness: appreciation of audience, stakeholders, environment
- Curiosity: ability to probe and be interested in what resonates or not
- Persistence: the ability to repeat key messages again and again to the same and different audiences
- Storytelling: the use of narrative to connect to people’s memory and emotions better
- Strategic: the ability to understand where you might want to get to
- Relatability: being able to connect the information to others value, incentive and language systems
- Adaptive: the ability to adapt outputs to different audiences, based on feedback and what seems to land
I’m curious about this. So some questions to think on:
What do you think the skills and competencies of ‘integrating’ research learnings into an organisation, a product, service or team might be?
Those that are beyond other typically valuable skills ie, specific to qual researchers?
And not methods. Or tools. Or canvases.
What are the skills that make the practice of integration?
And what could be better names or frames for ‘integration’? Or is the relatability to coaching, therapy and psychedelic integration a valuable one?
Or am I barking up the wrong framework here?
-
Thanks to the following contributors from the first framework crit sessions, including Jan himself:
Jan Chipchase
Cecilia Lorena Brady
Claudia Sosa from Mexico working at Sofia, a healthcare insurance startup.
Uri Fridman modern adversary.com
Greg Hamilton
Jose Ramón Texeira
Caroline Ward
Liza Pemstein
Fernanda Enriquez
angelique
Chuck Swain [Chuck Swain]
Tony D
