We need to talk, about how we talk.
Talking to the people who your use your services and products is great, I think we have got to a point where we all can agree on that. User research is essential. No longer do I find myself selling the need to speak with users. Now the conversation focuses on how this will be done. And how, is a conversation that we don’t have often enough.
In Interviewing Users the author Steve Portigal perfectly articulates the aspects of interviewing that are easily taken for granted. Elements such as writing (and delivering) the introduction of the research interview and the effect that can have on the rest of the interview, the data that is collected and fundamentally on the participant (who for the duration of the interview is under the care of the researcher).
“Let the participant know what to expect by giving a thumbnail outline of the process” Interviewing Users, Steve Portigal
This part of the interview cannot be underestimated. It sets the tone, lets the participant know what is going to happen and what is going to be covered. As a researcher we’re used to speaking to a range of people in labs, or at homes, with cameras on. But this isn’t an everyday occurrence for people. It’s not everyday you’re in an IKEA decked out studio in the city centre with cameras in the corner and some ominous looking one way mirror.
Remember we all agree that researching with the people who use our services is essential, right! This means that without people who want to take part in research we won’t be able to do our work. Conducting a research interview is a service to our participants and they have needs when then come to be interviewed. If we don’t set the scene right we’ll have uncomfortable participants with unmet participant needs. An uncomfortable feeling participant may close up and may not give you the whole story. If this happens you may not get to the root user need of your service. Our participants are not the subject of a test, they are the expert of your service and we’re privileged that they want to talk to us. They’re not being tested.
The introduction phase to an interview is crucial to the wellbeing of your participant and the data that you’re collecting from that interview. I know this, deep down somewhere. But I’ve never sat down and thought through why it is or how it should be phrased. But given it is a crucial factor to the interview we should look at how we write and deliver this section more. What effect is it having? What happens if I introduce the interview differently to my participants? These are topics we should be talking about as user researchers.
I could go on. Sitting down to read Steve’s book made me look and critique how I conduct interviews. The tone I adopt. The way I sit. The way I nod along. The way I ask questions. The way I construct follow up questions. These are all crucial. We know they are as researchers. But it feels like we have stopped talking about this. We’ve focused so much recently in Government at getting user research a seat at the table. But we have that seat now. Let’s make sure that the profession of user research continues to deserve that seat, and lets get more seats.
I’ve looked on in envy in the last few years at the design community. They’re an open community, they share their designs and workings in the open. This leaves them vulnerable to being poked and prodded, it starts conversations though. The outcome of this is hugely positive. The design becomes stronger. We too need to be open about how we conduct research. What method did we use, it’s not enough just to say we interviewed. How did you interview? How were the questions asked? The answers to those 2 questions could change the findings that come out of an interview. It’s not good enough just to say we spoke to some users and they said x so we should do it. We need to talk about how we talk with our users. We need to conduct good quality research because the services we are working on in Government matter, and the findings we bring back from research have an impact on what services we design.
