It wasn’t until I took part in a research session as a participant that I appreciated how adept our user researchers are at creating a safe environment.
As a content designer, I’m always very grateful to my user research colleagues for sharing their insights and knowledge.
I’ve observed quite a few research sessions since joining Sparck, and have admired how they’ve handled unexpected technical issues, and how they make carefully scripted discussions feel totally natural and relaxed.
What I didn’t consider fully was the steps they take to make sure that all participants feel comfortable, safe, and able to provide their views without judgement.
My experience as a research participant
I joined a research session as a participant myself a few weeks ago.
When the opportunity came up I decided to go for it because was curious about a couple of things. First, would they filter me out as a participant?
It’s generally not good practice to have people participating in user research on tech products who themselves work in tech. We’re not objective, we have our own biases, and we bring too much knowledge to the table.
They didn’t filter me out, which brings me to the second question I had: how do other organisations handle their research sessions compared to Sparck?
In this case, the researcher introduced herself and mentioned that there were “a few invisible observers present” who were taking notes.
The session then proceeded as normal until, suddenly, 45 minutes in, a new voice spoke up without introducing themselves.
They wanted to know why I’d made a certain choice when looking at a webpage and once I’d answered, they thanked me and disappeared back into the ether. I was taken aback but carried on with the session.
It wasn’t until afterwards, when I had time to reflect, that I realised I felt a strange sense of vulnerability.
It was an odd feeling but I could trace it back to the moment when the unknown observer spoke up unannounced.
I also realised that, at the start of the session during introductions, the researcher had not covered the usual bases I was used to from Sparck-led user research sessions.
There was no reassurance that my views were valid regardless of what they might be, no mention that it would be absolutely fine if I needed to step away from the session for a few minutes, or that it was OK if I wanted to skip any question for any reason.
It was just “Hi my name is…” and away we went.
Details matter in user research
Prior to this incident I’d noticed Sparck researchers going through these assurances and had thought in a distant way that, sure, this could be a nice way to ease participants into the session.
I now realise just how important they are and, more generally, how important it is to make users feel safe throughout the process.
I’m a content designer with prior knowledge of how research works and I felt a little vulnerable while being asked my thoughts on a new weather app.
I can’t imagine how someone might feel if they experienced something similar when being asked about a healthcare experience they might’ve had, or their experience of social services.
I asked my colleague Cecilia Mir, an experienced user researcher, for her views on why interruptions like this might be a problem. She said:
There are a few reasons. First, it interrupts the flow of the conversation, and can make the participant go off on a tangent. During user research, time is often limited, and that's one of the reasons we use scripts. We need to keep the interview focused! And, secondly, it can make users feel as if they are being tested. They tend to get nervous and will be less likely to open up.
That last point feels a bit like what happened to me. Was I doing it wrong? Were they annoyed at me? What was this mysterious voice saying about me from behind the safety of ‘mute’?
Yes, but what’s in it for us?
From a selfish content design point of view, of course we want the best quality user research we can get, and making our users feel secure during sessions is a great way of helping to achieve that.
But it’s much bigger and more important than that: if a session leaves someone feeling shaken or uncomfortable, we’ve failed as human-centred designers and researchers.
Implications could range from causing reputational damage to our clients to causing lasting emotional distress for a participant.
This is why Sparck has extensive safeguarding guidelines laid out for all planned research sessions. Our responsibility to protecting participants begins before ever speaking to them, from risk and harm analysis, to obtaining informed consent.
It continues well after the sessions, too, through following GDPR regulations and ensuring identity confidentiality, and into any research playbacks. They’re always handled with the utmost respect for participants’ dignity and privacy.
I asked Cecilia how she goes about preventing observers from interrupting or throwing a session off track. She said:
I brief observers before the sessions and explain why I would prefer them to be off camera, so I can manage their expectations. As an alternative, I suggest they can send their questions for the participant over whichever messaging service we’re using so I can slip them into the conversation naturally, when it’s convenient. In general, though, if observers have been involved in creating the interview script, this shouldn't be a problem.
As a human-centred design business, arguably our most valuable asset is access to research participants.
It is only by ensuring their safety and security at all times that we can gain true insight into their needs and problems.
Trust and openness is earned and I am proud to work with user researchers who strive to do that every single day.
