Communicating UX Research Objectives and Results Convincingly
Overview and learnings from workshops at the UX Insights ’19 Conference in Utrecht.
I attended an inspiring user-research focused conference last week and don’t want to hog the findings for myself. The first day comprised two workshops aimed at bringing your skillset and practice as a UX Researcher forward.
Seven workshops were offered, of which you could choose two. Each workshop was offered twice, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. The workshops I attended were about 20 to 15 people, a size I found effective for discussion.
There was a general group therapy vibe to the day — in a good way! I think this speaks for all of the moderators for creating a space in which people felt open to share and discuss topics that spread across professional and personal aspects.
WORKSHOP 1: A STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK EVERYONE CAN USE: (N)CREDIBLE RESEARCH
In the morning, I attended a workshop hosted by Meena Kothandaraman and Zarla Ludin — two badass researchers from the Boston area and my newfound research heroes. As an introduction, we each went through and spoke about the types of research challenges we face in our daily work (I told you the group therapy vibes were real).
Meena and Zarla then introduced a framework that is useful in thinking about research questions and methods and communicating with stakeholders. The framework is useful for thinking about research questions based on how these questions relate to people or products, and how specific or broad they are. In an ideal world, you would move from discovery (broad questions about people), to exploratory (specific questions about people), to definition (broad questions about product) and to validation (specific questions about product). Using the framework can help us talk about the research objectives, make sure we have clear expectations about findings, and prevent us from trying to do everything at once. In addition, the framework can be useful for highlighting research patterns across your organisation to bring assumptions to light, and identify research opportunities. For example, you might see that your organisation only does research that moves between the definition and validation quadrants (a pattern often seen in agile organisations). Being aware of this, you might be able to have a critical think and talk about the consequences of repeatedly skipping discovery and exploratory quadrants, and eventually make a case for how these types of questions can be incorporated to improve the quality and depth of research and product development in your organisation.
The workshop also discussed the integrity and quality of research and how that is often sacrificed due to a variety of restrictions. Zarla and Meena emphasised we should always start by conceptualising an ideal research scenario before adjusting it to the limitations we encounter (be it time, money, a strong opinion or any other constraint). I found this approach empowering because it gives you creative freedom as a researcher to set up an ideal study, and then it makes the conversation about constraints and the impact of constraints on the quality of data very transparent. For example, I could say ‘This is how I would go about doing this study. I understand we have x, y, z constraints so I would adjust the study design in this way, but this means that we will only be able to answer this part of the question, or that our confidence level in the data drops to x level, or that the generalisability of our findings will be limited. Are we all on the same page about this? Should we proceed in this way when we are all aware of the limitations?’
Meena and Zarla also talked about how there are aspects of a study that are more ‘flexible.’ That is to say, there are aspects of your ideal study (research objective, sample) that you should be more resistant to changing, and other parts of your study (methods, outputs) that can be more easily adjusted. Being flexible about the research question or sample would lead to different outcomes than those desired. However, you might not have the time to write a detailed report, and might still be able to deliver the results in the form of a conversation. Or you might ask your stakeholders for involvement in the field in order to decrease the debrief time. In regards to methods, an idea study might be a mixed methods approach but maybe you are only able to conduct a questionnaire due to the time limitations. Again though, the limitations and consequences of the decisions you are making when setting up the study should be made transparent.
An added benefit of making the constraints being placed on research transparent is that in having these conversations about the limitations of the research, you are educating your teams. In highlighting the ideal scenario and clarifying how the constraints influence the data, your team can learn about setting up research studies, the consequences of the decisions we make, and be more educated for setting up future studies.
We, of course, do not live in an ideal world with endless time, money and resources, and it is reasonable to have to budge here and there when it comes to how we set up our studies. While that may be the case, this should not be a cop-out to sacrifice the quality of our research. We, as researchers, need to own the work we do and how we do it. We need to have transparent conversations with our teams along the way, be clear about the consequences of our decisions and educate our teams along the way. The NCREDIBLE Framework can help us find a clear language for setting up and discussing research objectives and deliverables and teach our colleagues about how to best set up future projects.
WORKSHOP 2: CONVINCING WITH CONFIDENCE
The afternoon workshop I attended was held by Jikkie Has. While this workshop was not directly focused on methods in UX Research, it tackled an integral part of the of a researcher — ensuring your findings are taken on board to influence product decisions. A deep fear and concern of researchers is that their research findings end up collecting dust somewhere in a corporate metaphorical drawer. Working on becoming more convincing is a key skill in making sure our findings see the light of day.
Jikkie first highlighted that in order to be convincing, we have to be confident. As outlined by Jikkie, research on confidence breaks confidence into two parts — ‘dignity’ and competence. I’m not sure if dignity is the right word here but we’ll go with it. Dignity, as described by Jikkie, refers to our mindset and thoughts related to: ‘What will they think of me? Who am I to be saying this?’ whereas competence refers to the technical aspect of how well you can do certain task. You need both dignity and competence to feel confident. Lack of confidence may arise because you do not feel competent enough or because you lack dignity. I found this distinction useful because it gives you a way of understanding what to tackle. If you do not feel competent for example, you know you need to go out and learn more about a certain skill, method or tool. If thoughts related to dignity run through your head, you can assure yourself that you have the competence to tackle this challenge and that you need to have another look at your mindset and focus on your end goal (e.g. ‘I might be uncomfortable presenting in front of this group but my goal is to make sure these findings get heard.’).
Secondly, we covered what is required of communicators and receivers in order for a message to be convincing. Of particular importance for a message to be convincing is that both parties are relaxed and engaged or interested in the topic. If a receiver of information is, for example, very interested in the topic but not relaxed, they will enter a ‘fighting’ mode. If the receiver is not relaxed and not interested in the topic, they detach and do not care about what you have to say. If receivers are relaxed and not engaged, they will follow. Only when a receiver and a communicator are relaxed and interested in a topic, are they able to have an engaging discussion about it, during which they consider ideas rationally.
We then looked at how we have to put ourselves forward in order to be convincing. Here we highlighted that we need to put ourselves across as an authority figure, a friend and a role model, though the balance of these traits needs to be adjusted based on the situation. The main discussion part was related to the role of being an authority. Often, researchers end up delivering data and serving others, when they should be putting themselves forward as an expert in the subject matter and a fellow decision-maker.
Lastly, we went over how information needs to be presented in order to be convincing. Jikkie talked about how we often deliver repetitive PowerPoint reports that just have a background slide, what we did, and what the results were. Instead, her recommendation was to use the SOAP (Situation, Obstacles, Approach, Plan) model to communicate positive information.
When communicating positive information, we should start by outlining the desired situation, mentioning the obstacles that prevent us from already being in this desired situation, describing the approach, and ending with a definition of the plan to move forward or by asking for a decision. However, if the information is negative then we should adjust the order of presentation to start with the plan, outline the consequences of the plan to show people they have been heard or seen, provide advice as to why we are still moving forward despite the disadvantages, and then ending with an outline of the desired situation to drive the point home about why we are continuing down this path.
While it is not very easy for me to think about how to apply this presentation structure directly to my weekly presentation of research results, my main takeaway is to be mindful about how I choose to present information and to think about the type of information I am presenting and my aim in getting my message across.
Both workshops emphasised communication as a core skill of UX Researchers. The NCREDIBLE Framework workshop touched upon the way researchers need to stand up for the integrity of the research we do, and provided a framework that can help us converse about the quality of research and make the consequences of cutting corners transparent. Convincing with Confidence was a more personal take on the skills we need to develop in order to make sure our voice and research gets heard and that we are influencers in product decisions. We, as researchers, are responsible for owning and improving the conversations around research in our organisation — a consideration that should empower us to take control of this power and use it to move ourselves and our teams forward.
Additional workshops included:
- Designing with Data
- Innovative methods to evaluate the dynamics of UX
- Wake up your inner Trendwatcher!
- Using design fiction to explore possible future experiences
- Make the user count: combining insights to understand, predict, and measure UX
A fellow conference attendee outlined his experience of two other workshops here.
What have you found helpful in discussing research objectives and communicating research findings in your organisation?
