You and Your UX Research
You and Your UX Research
Moving beyond the grind and making an enduring contribution to the field
At the start of their careers, many UX professionals have grand aspirations.
We want to make technology easier to use, help our organizations become customer-centered, and perhaps even make the world a better place. But the daily grind of UX work can often feel far removed from these lofty ideals, causing many to lose sight of their original vision.
In 1986, Richard Hamming, a renowned Bell Labs research scientist, delivered a seminal talk entitled “You and Your Research,” on why some scientists make significant contributions while others fade into obscurity. And though the methods and goals of user research may look very different, Hamming's wisdom is applicable to anyone striving to do outstanding work.
This article highlights five key principles from Hamming’s speech, offering practical advice for applying them in the context of UX research. By incorporating his ideas into our philosophy as practitioners, we can create lasting impacts for users, teams, organizations, and the UX field as a whole.
Pursue work of significance, instead of relying upon luck
“I will cite Pasteur who said, ‘Luck favors the prepared mind.’ And I think that says it the way I believe it. There is indeed an element of luck, and no, there isn’t. The prepared mind sooner or later finds something important and does it.”
What raises some individuals to the level of “greatness” in their field?
Were they simply in the right place at the right time? Was it pedigree or other circumstances? Hamming challenged this notion, asserting that breakthroughs aren't mere strokes of luck. Instead, he emphasized the importance of intentionally pursuing meaningful work.
Early in my career, I worked for a UX consulting agency with strong quantitative positioning. But a more senior colleague on the team thought he’d be a more compelling candidate for his next role by ramping up his qualitative research skills. Though less frequent, he actively sought out those projects. The initiative paid off, ultimately securing a coveted role for him at a major social media platform. Rather than passively waiting for opportunity to knock, he vocalized his preferences and took steps to align his work with his goal.
I’ve also known graduate students who looked for smaller opportunities that could grow bigger. Rather than waiting for a job offer as a metaverse researcher, for example, they began cultivating expertise in virtual reality systems while still in school. Knowledge and experience built in academia isn’t always 100% transferable to industry roles, but it’s nevertheless a strong foundation to build upon. And it made them more competitive when they sought out internships.
Don't wait for luck to dictate your path. Look for opportunities where you are to advance towards your larger ambition. Small steps in the right direction add up over time.
Intentionally seek important problems
“I started asking, ‘What are the important problems of your field?’ And after a week or so, ‘What important problems are you working on?’ And after some more time I came in one day and said, ‘If what you are doing is not important, and if you don’t think it is going to lead to something important, why are you … working on it?’”
Hamming often posed these challenging questions to his colleagues in the cafeteria. This habit didn’t make him very popular, but it highlighted his belief that meaningful contributions come from tackling important problems. As he succinctly put it, "If you do not work on an important problem, it’s unlikely you’ll do important work."
Defining what constitutes an “important problem” in our context will depend to some extent on the individual. While advancing the field as a whole through public-facing work is one avenue, for many researchers, the focus will be on the team or organizational level.
Depending on one's role and career stage, focusing on high-value projects for stakeholders, starting a team at a startup, or working on projects to improve the organization's UX maturity might constitute important problems.
There will always be urgent tasks demanding our attention, making it all the more important to take a step back. Even if immediate circumstances don’t allow for a dramatic shift, simply posing this question can gradually shift one's focus towards working on problems that matter.
Courageously follow independent thought
“One of the characteristics of successful scientists is having courage. Once you get your courage up and believe that you can do important problems, then you can. If you think you can’t, almost surely you are not going to.”
Hamming champions the courage to pursue independent thought, even in the face of conventional taboos or the fear of failure. By daring to ask "impossible" questions, researchers can unlock breakthroughs where others have faltered.
This ethos extends to the studies we take on as researchers. For example, we often think of the methodologies we use as though they were handed down from on high. Personally, I’ve found that the standard Kano functional/dysfunctional questions can be confusing to participants, and have seen improved results by tweaking and making variations. It often pays to adapt an approach to suit the needs of your project, whether or not it’s the accepted version.
Hamming emphasizes another characteristic shared by great scientists: the ability to tolerate ambiguity. Sometimes, the outcomes of a study may not align with existing theories or previous research. It is crucial to deeply reflect on these apparent contradictions, as they can have profound implications for our stakeholders.
Thinking independently and courageously means embracing the unknown, challenging conventional wisdom, and persisting in the face of complexity — key elements for achieving breakthroughs in research.
Make the most of the time, resources, and limitations you have
“Often the great scientists, by turning the problem around a bit, changed a defect to an asset. For example, many scientists when they found they couldn’t do a problem finally began to study why not. They then turned it around the other way and said, ‘But of course, this is what it is,’ and got an important result.”
We all have a tendency to excuse our failures with less-than-ideal circumstances. But as Hamming points out, great scientists have mastered the art of turning constraints into advantages.
Many teams today lack the capacity to satisfy every request for research. After prioritizing the work, what options do you have for meeting the demand? If used in a principled way, artificial intelligence can help offload or improve certain tasks, like extracting data or wordsmithing reports. Similarly, with the proper guardrails in place, teams might consider training non-researcher stakeholders who are willing and able to assist.
Lack the ideal tech stack? Get creative with what's available. Explore cost-effective tools, and see if you can combine the tools that your organization already uses to meet your goals.
This approach can be applied to any resource that you may lack. Once, when my team faced an impossible deadline, we used our two usability labs in an unconventional way. By staggering our participants’ scheduled interviews across the two, we minimized the impact of no-shows and sessions that went long or ended early. We were able to finish data collection on time and set an internal record for sessions in a day.
Also look for ways that colleagues can balance out your personal strengths and weaknesses. One of the best working relationships in my career was a product manager colleague who was able to act as our champion from the outside.
By embracing limitations and finding strategic allies, researchers can both navigate challenges and achieve meaningful results.
Accept that selling your work is part of the job
“I have now come down to a topic which is very distasteful; it is not sufficient to do a job, you have to sell it. ‘Selling’ to a scientist is an awkward thing to do. It’s very ugly; you shouldn’t have to do it. The world is supposed to be waiting, and when you do something great, they should rush out and welcome it.”
Hamming reminds us that our organizations won't automatically recognize our achievements. To be effective, we have to push both our interests and our value.
Any salesperson worth their salt will take the time to ensure the conversation they’re having is with someone who can advance the deal. Likewise, researchers should be intentional about cultivating relationships with stakeholders who can advance the cause of UX research within the organization.
As you develop those relationships, identify how your work can contribute to your stakeholders’ outcomes, whether through meeting deadlines, shipping features, or achieving performance metrics. By aligning your work to their objectives, you establish yourself as an invaluable part of their success.
We should also lead with the advantages we provide — informing decisions, reducing risk, and creating empathy for the user — rather than our “features” (like a well-executed quantitative benchmark). Rather than focusing on methodology, emphasize the benefits your research offers in solving specific problems aligned with stakeholders' immediate and long-term goals.
Hamming makes a special point here on the importance of informal communication. There will always be the need to give a formal readout, but informal interactions can be more influential on decisions. Don't shy away from speaking up in meetings or offering input, even when your role there may seem ambiguous.
By “selling” the work you do, you help ensure it receives the recognition it deserves.
The bottom line
It can be easy to sit back and put your career on autopilot. That’s even more true during tough economic times. But a key theme running throughout Richard Hamming’s talk is approaching your work with deep intentionality:
Don't rely on luck: Take advantage of present opportunities to build your skills and achieve your goals, whether it's mastering a new subspecialty or working in a specific industry.
Define meaningful work: Identify what "working on an important problem" entails for you, whether through research or team development. Asking yourself this question can guide your efforts, even if you're not currently tackling major issues.
Don't let fear hold you back: Challenge traditional approaches and explore creative solutions, such as digging deeper into conflicting data or embracing alternative methods.
Seek creative solutions within constraints: Look for innovative approaches to meet goals, even with limited resources or staffing.
Advocate for yourself and your work: Build relationships with supportive individuals and assertively communicate your value in decision-making meetings.
The full speech by Richard Hamming covers much more, like navigating bureaucratic hurdles and resisting the urge to conform, and includes personal experiences from his career as a research scientist. If you’ve found this summary intriguing, I encourage you to give the entirety of "You and Your Research" a close read.
In the end, receiving advice is easy, but striving for greatness as a UX Researcher remains a challenge. It falls upon each of us to harness our creativity and resolve in implementing Hamming's strategies to contribute to both our organizations and the broader field of UX research.
But as Hamming notes, “the value is in the struggle more than it is in the result. The struggle to make something of yourself seems to be worthwhile in itself.”
Links for March
How long will this project take? Over at the Quant UX Blog, Chris Chapman shares an approach for answering that question. The principles apply more broadly to all UX research projects.
You forget what it’s like to not know.
discusses the implications of the Curse of Knowledge for UX practitioners — on both our users and our teams.Too many meetings?
offers researchers a framework for planning a meeting and evaluating its success. In short: cultivate meetings that push the project forward rather than spinning wheels.- left an in-house researcher role late last year to pursue the dream of becoming a freelancer. She’s been documenting her journey over on her Substack.
Technological progress is slower than you think. Per Axbom explains how bots have been solving CAPTCHAs — those annoying “prove you’re human” tests — for years, and how ChatGPT actually fails them.
The February issue of the Journal of User Experience is out. And you might enjoy perusing the 2024 preprints for CHI.