User Research Is Storytelling

I’ve been fascinated by movies since I was a child. I loved the heroes and the excitement—but most of all the reports. I aspired to be an artist. And I backed up the idea that I would get to do the things Indiana Jones did and have interesting activities. I also dreamed up suggestions for videos that my friends and I could render and sun in. But they never advanced. However, I did end up in the user experience ( UX) field. Today, I realize that there’s an element of drama to UX— I hadn’t actually considered it before, but consumer analysis is story. And you must show a compelling story to entice stakeholders, such as the product team and decision-makers, to learn more in order to get the most out of consumer research.

Consider your preferred drama. More than likely it follows a three-act construction that’s frequently seen in story: the layout, the fight, and the quality. The second act provides an overview of the current events and allows you to understand the characters, their difficulties, and issues. The fight begins in Act 2, which introduces the issue. Here, difficulties grow or get worse. The decision comes in the third and final action. The figures learn and change as a result of the resolutions and issues are resolved. I believe that this architecture is also a great way to think about customer study, and I think that it can be particularly helpful in explaining person exploration to others.

Use story as a framework for conducting research

Unfortunately, some people now believe that study is unprofitable. If finances or timelines are strong, analysis tends to be one of the first points to go. Some goods managers rely on designers or, worse, their own mind to make the “right” decisions for users based on their own knowledge or accepted best practices rather than investing in research. That may lead some groups, but that approach can so easily miss the chance to solve people ‘ real issues. To be user-centered, this is something we really avoid. User study improves pattern. It provides opportunities and problems while keeping it on record. Being aware of the issues with your product and reacting to them can help you stay away of your competition.

Each action in the three-act construction corresponds to a specific stage of the process, and each stage is crucial to delivering the full narrative. Let’s examine the various functions and how they relate to consumer analysis.

Act one: layout

The setup consists entirely in comprehending the history, and that’s where basic research comes in. Basic research ( also known as conceptual, discovery, or preliminary research ) aids in understanding users and identifying their issues. You’re learning about what exists now, the obstacles people have, and how the problems affect them—just like in the videos. You can conduct contextual inquiries or diary studies ( or both! ) to conduct foundational research. ), which may assist you in identifying both challenges and options. It doesn’t need to get a great investment in time or money.

Erika Hall writes about the most effective anthropology, which can be as straightforward as spending 15 hours with a customer and asking them to” Walk me through your morning yesterday.” That’s it. Provide that one ask. Locked up and spend fifteen minutes listening to them. Do everything in your power to protect both your objectives and yourself. Bam, you’re doing ethnography”. According to Hall, “[This ] will definitely prove quite fascinating. In the unlikely event that you don’t learn anything important or novel, you can move forward with greater self-assurance.

This makes total sense to me. And I adore how customer research is made so simple. You can only attract participants and do it! You don’t need to make a lot of documentation. This can offer a wealth of knowledge about your customers, and it’ll help you better understand them and what’s going on in their life. Understanding where people are coming from is what action one is really all about.

Jared Spool discusses the significance of basic research and how it does make up the majority of your study. If you can pick from any further user data that you can get your hands on, such as surveys or analytics, that can complement what you’ve heard in the fundamental studies or even time to areas that need more research. All of this information helps to reveal both the state of items and its flaws more clearly. And that’s the start of a gripping tale. It’s the place in the story where you realize that the principal characters—or the people in this case—are facing issues that they need to conquer. This is where you begin to develop compassion for the characters and support their success, much like in films. And presumably, partners are now doing the same. Their love may be with their company, which could be losing wealth because people didn’t complete certain tasks. Or perhaps they have empathy for people ‘ problems. In any case, work one serves as your main strategy to pique the interest and interest of the participants.

When partners begin to understand the value of basic research, that is open doors to more opportunities that involve users in the decision-making method. And that can help product teams become more user-centric. Everyone benefits from this, including the product, stakeholders, and users. It’s like winning an Oscar in movie terms—it often leads to your product being well received and successful. And this might serve as a motivator for stakeholders to carry this out with other goods. Knowing how to tell a good story is the only way to convince stakeholders to care about doing more research, and storytelling is the key to this process.

This brings us to act two, where you iteratively evaluate a design or concept to see whether it addresses the issues.

Act two: conflict

Act two is all about resolving the issues you first raised. This usually involves directional research, such as usability tests, where you assess a potential solution ( such as a design ) to see whether it addresses the issues that you found. Unmet needs or issues with a flow or process that are making users uncomfortable could be the causes. More issues will come up in the process, much like in act two of a movie. It’s here that you learn more about the characters as they grow and develop through this act.

Usability tests should typically consist of five participants, according to Jakob Nielsen, who found that that number of users can typically identify the majority of the issues:” As you add more and more users, you learn less and less because you will keep seeing the same things again and again… After the fifth user, you are wasting your time by observing the same findings repeatedly but not learning much new.”

There are also similarities to storytelling here: if you try to tell a story with too many characters, the plot may become lost. Having fewer participants means that each user’s struggles will be more memorable and easier to relay to other stakeholders when talking about the research. This can help convey the problems that need to be solved while also highlighting the worth of conducting the research in the first place.

Usability tests have been conducted in person for decades, but you can also do them remotely using software like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or other teleconferencing software. This approach has become increasingly popular since the beginning of the pandemic, and it works well. You might interpret in-person usability tests as a form of theater watching as opposed to remote testing. Each has advantages and disadvantages. In-person usability research is a much richer experience. The sessions can be had by stakeholders with other stakeholders. Additionally, you get real-time reactions, including surprises, disagreements, and discussions about what they’re seeing. Much like going to a play, where audiences get to take in the stage, the costumes, the lighting, and the actors ‘ interactions, in-person research lets you see users up close, including their body language, how they interact with the moderator, and how the scene is set up.

If conducting usability testing in the field is like watching a play that is staged and controlled, where any two sessions may be very different from one another. You can conduct usability testing in the real world by creating a replica of the environment where users interact with the product and conducting your research there. Or you can go out to meet users at their location to do your research. With either option, you can see how things work in context, how things develop, and how conversion can take a completely different turn. You have less control over how these sessions end as researchers, but this can occasionally help you understand users even better. Meeting users where they are can provide clues to the external forces that could be affecting how they use your product. In-person usability tests add a level of detail that is frequently absent from remote usability tests.

That’s not to say that the “movies” —remote sessions—aren’t a good option. Remote sessions can reach a wider audience. They make it possible for much more people to participate in the research and to observe what is happening. Additionally, they make the doors accessible to a much wider range of users. But with any remote session there is the potential of time wasted if participants can’t log in or get their microphone working.

The advantage of usability testing, whether conducted remotely or in person, is that you can ask real users questions to understand their reasoning and understanding of the problem. This can help you identify issues as well as understand why they were initially issues. Furthermore, you can test hypotheses and gauge whether your thinking is correct. By the end of the sessions, you’ll have a much clearer understanding of how useful the designs are and whether or not they fulfill their intended purpose. The excitement is in the second act, but there are also potential surprises in the third. This is equally true of usability tests. Unexpected things that are said by participants frequently alter how you view things, and these unexpected developments in the story can lead to unexpected turns in your perception.

Unfortunately, user research can occasionally be viewed as wasteful. And too often usability testing is the only research process that some stakeholders think that they ever need. In fact, if the designs you’re evaluating in the usability test aren’t grounded in a thorough understanding of your users ( foundational research ), there isn’t much to be gained by conducting usability testing in the first place. Because you’re narrowing the scope of what you’re receiving feedback on without understanding the needs of the users. As a result, there’s no way of knowing whether the designs might solve a problem that users have. In the context of a usability test, it’s only feedback on a particular design.

On the other hand, if you only do foundational research, you won’t know whether the object you’re building will actually solve the problem you might have intended to solve. This illustrates the importance of doing both foundational and directional research.

In act two, stakeholders will hopefully be able to observe the story develop during the user sessions, which reveal the conflict and tension in the current design’s highs and lows. And in turn, this can encourage stakeholders to take action on the issues raised.

Act three: resolution

The third act is about resolving the issues from the first two acts, whereas the first two acts are about understanding the context and the tensions that can compel stakeholders to act. While it’s crucial to have an audience for the first two acts, it’s crucial that they stay for the final act. That means the whole product team, including developers, UX practitioners, business analysts, delivery managers, product managers, and any other stakeholders that have a say in the next steps. It allows the entire team to discuss what is possible within the project’s constraints, ask questions, and discuss user feedback together. Additionally, it enables the UX design and research teams to clarify, suggest alternatives, or provide more context for their decisions. So you can get everyone on the same page and get agreement on the way forward.

This act is primarily told in voiceover with some audience participation. The researcher serves as the narrator, who depicts the issues and what the product’s future might look like given the lessons the team has learned. They give the stakeholders their recommendations and their guidance on creating this vision.

In the Harvard Business Review, Nancy Duarte describes a method for structuring presentations that follow a persuasive narrative. The most effective presenters employ the same methods as great storytellers: By reaffirming the status quo and then revealing a better way, they create a conflict that needs to be resolved, writes Duarte. ” That tension helps them persuade the audience to adopt a new mindset or behave differently”.

This kind of structure is in line with research findings, particularly those from usability tests. It provides evidence for “what is “—the problems that you’ve identified. And your suggestions for how to deal with them are “what could be.” And so forth and forth.

You can reinforce your recommendations with examples of things that competitors are doing that could address these issues or with examples where competitors are gaining an edge. Or they can be as visual as quick sketches of a potential solution to a problem. These can help create momentum and conversation. And this continues until the end of the session when you’ve wrapped everything up in the conclusion by summarizing the main issues and suggesting a way forward. The denouement of the story is where you make the main points or problems and what they mean for the product. This stage provides stakeholders with the next steps and, hoped, the motivation to take those steps!

While we are nearly at the end of this story, let’s reflect on the idea that user research is storytelling. The three-act structure of user research contains all the components for a good story:

Act one: You encounter the protagonists ( the users ) and the antagonists ( the issues affecting users ). This is the beginning of the plot. Researchers might employ techniques like contextual inquiry, ethnography, diary studies, surveys, and analytics in act one. These techniques can produce personas, empathy maps, user journeys, and analytics dashboards.

Act two: Next, there’s character development. The protagonists encounter problems and challenges, which they must overcome, and there is conflict and tension. Researchers might employ heuristics evaluation, competitive benchmarking, and usability testing in act two. The output of these can include usability findings reports, UX strategy documents, usability guidelines, and best practices.

Act three: The protagonists win, and you can see what a better future might look like. Researchers may use techniques like presentation decks, storytelling, and digital media in act three. The output of these can be: presentation decks, video clips, audio clips, and pictures.

The researcher plays a variety of roles, including producer, director, and storyteller. The participants play a small part, but they are significant characters ( in the study ). And the stakeholders are the audience. However, the most crucial thing is to get the narrative straight and to use storytelling to research users ‘ stories. In the end, the parties should leave with a goal and an eagerness to fix the product’s flaws.

So the next time that you’re planning research with clients or you’re speaking to stakeholders about research that you’ve done, think about how you can weave in some storytelling. User research is ultimately a win-win situation for everyone, and all you need to do is pique stakeholders ‘ interest in how the story ends.