Reflections: User Research Smoke & Mirrors

This is a reflection article on, User Research Smoke & Mirrors.

A sinister title

The title of the article gives it away. This is an article that discusses deceptive or insubstantial research methods in User Research.

But why?

User Research obviously doesn’t require as much covering up as magic tricks. Smoke and mirrors work well to achieve the effect of illusion, but is it necessary in User Research?

The need for certainty and objectivity

Perhaps the first thing that struck me as I took this module was the vagueness of it. Most other modules you take at the tertiary level have been given the total academic treatment. They have had decades of scholarly academics poring over the subjects and hammering in so-called scientific models and theories.

The subjects that I have taken in University are filled with these theories and scientific models. They aim to allow a sort of rigorous scientific method, to make the vague and unknown more defined on a common plane. Over time, a subject deemed hard to pin down and discuss gets more and more bogged down in models and theories. As it does so, the uncertainty and vagueness of it seemingly diminishes.

Research for User Experience Design is in the process of being “science-tified”. It is a relatively new discipline and has been adopted by the social sciences. The adoption by this pseudo-scientific godfather means that it now has to fit in with its brethren. There are several models and methods for undergoing User Experience Design already in place. I am sure there will be many more to come.

These methods, like the article states, claim to imbue a sense of objectivity into the researcher. This is good, but no so far as design is concerned. Design is widely considered to be more of an Art than a Science. Why put in so much effort to make it a Science? Even so, what are the chances that it will work better?

I wonder if it is possible to compare two similar projects that were undertaken using different approaches – one Art, the other Science. But then again maybe I will be making the same mistake as the advocates of scientific research.

Gut feeling vs. objective research

The points brought up by the article remind me of a famous quote from David Ogilvy, the proclaimed “Father of Advertising”. It goes something like this,

“I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.”

I have this impression this applies to research for User Experience Design too. All projects are client based, and you have to satisfy clients.

The industry now places a lot of emphasis on accountability. You have to explain to your client how your research validates your creative approach. The more scientific and objective your research seems, the better justification it provides. Too heavy a reliance on these research tools can easily make you forget what they were for in the first place.

The guilty speaks

Having said all these self-righteous remarks, I realized that I might have been guilty of doing the same. The projects and assignments throughout this module always required some sort of User Research. Have I been using these tools the wrong way? I realized that I have never taken a step back and looked at my research findings with a doubtful eye. I have never weighted the accuracy of my research findings against my gut feelings.

The feelings of safety and reassurance provided by the seemingly scientific User Research methods are tempting. They can make you easily forget what you were trying to do in the first place. That you are designing a better user experience for the user, not making a foolproof design that satisfies yourself.