TL;DR: Examining the key skills that UXRs need to effectively deal with ambiguity and failure in research.

The voice of the user

As a UX researcher, you are the voice of the user within your organization. Your job is to deeply understand the needs, wants, and desires of the people you are designing for, and then use that understanding to inform the design of products and services that will improve their lives.

However, UX research is also an iterative process that requires a great deal of flexibility and adaptability. It’s a field where the unexpected is the norm, where user behavior can shift on a dime and data sets are never complete. But that’s what makes it so thrilling, right?

Sure, many usability textbooks will tell you to simply master the art of empathy and teamwork. But what happens when the research findings you uncover contradict the opinions of those in charge? Or when you’ve been tasked with studying a product that you know deep down is bound for failure? These situations require additional skills. It’s a delicate dance, but one that can ultimately determine the success or failure of a project.

In UXR, the unknown is your playground. Ambiguity and uncertainty are not something to shy away from, but something to embrace. In this article, we’ll dive into the three key skills you need to master these icky situations and turn them into opportunities for growth.

“Oh sh**!” Embracing ambiguity in the research plan

Many junior UXRs tend to treat their research plans as declarations with unbreakable truths and instructions that need to be followed. It’s true, a strong methodology and research plan will keep you focused and on track, and ensure you’re gathering the right data you need to make informed decisions. And yes, it’s important to have a clear understanding of the goals and objectives of your research upfront so you can stay focused and not get sidetracked.

But research projects rarely go as planned, and it’s important to be able to pivot and adapt as new information comes to light. This might mean changing research questions, tweaking methods, or even starting over from scratch. The key is to be flexible and responsive, and not be afraid to take risks and try new things in your research studies.

You need to make sure you communicate this flexibility to your stakeholders. Make sure they know and are prepared for a potential pivot. Having your design partners and PMs being open to changing the research approach and methods as needed is also key. Failure is a natural part of the research process. Embracing failure, and even designing for it at the stage of the research plan, could help you and your team keep a level head in the midst of research.

Picture this: you’re tasked with conducting a large-scale survey, but halfway through data collection, you realize you’ve been targeting the wrong audience. The feedback you’re receiving isn’t relevant to your team’s needs, as it applies to a different market segment that is out of scope for the upcoming product launch. What do you do? Do you scrap the survey and start over, wasting valuable time and resources? Or do you trudge on, knowing the data you’ve collected won’t be representative, and hope to explain it away during the final presentation? Neither option is a good one. But what if I told you there’s a third way.

Instead of getting discouraged, try embracing the ambiguity at the planning stage of your UXR to avoid this pitfall. At the beginning of your research, consider staggering your survey into 2–3 phases of data collection, starting with a survey pilot to a small sample of users. In small incremental steps, check the data, verify you’re getting good results and continue until you have collected your full sample. The same logic can be applied to qualitative research by turning big diary/interview studies into iterative studies with multiple check-ins with the team along the way. This will help you grow as a researcher along the way, generate valuable insights from the iterative check-ins with your stakeholders and allow you to course-correct the study in the middle of the action.

“I told you so!” Conducting research on a doomed project

We’ve all been there — that moment when your gut tells you a product is headed for failure, but your stakeholders are pushing for a UXR study. You listen to your “research tingle” and it tells you that users will not understand certain concepts or will get stuck in certain tasks. And even despite your best efforts to convince the team to spend more time iterating on the product internally, the time constraints force the hand of the PM and you need to run the study with a doomed prototype anyway. You reluctantly run the user study, and the outcome is exactly as you feared — a spectacular failure.

But guess what? Failure is not only an inevitable part of the research process; it’s also an opportunity to learn and grow. When users struggle to complete tasks on your prototype, don’t get discouraged and fall back to the old “I told you so” rhetoric. It’s the time to dive deep and analyze the data and feedback we’ve collected. To get to the root cause of the problem and use that information to improve the design. Failure is not the end, it’s the beginning of a new and exciting journey

Instead of being self-indulgent and pointing out why the designs failed, shift your focus on collaboration and problem-solving. Provide alternative hypotheses and solutions for how the user’s needs could be addressed better. What can we gather from the way the product failed? And what does this reveal about the mental models of the users and their dominant behavioral tendencies? If the product fails, because people are used to doing things in another way, try to understand existing habits and design a product that can seamlessly fit into existing routines, instead of coming up with new ones.

When a project is headed for doom, it’s essential to uncover the assumptions stakeholders are making. By working closely with them to identify which assumptions are critical to the product’s success, and what they plan to do if those assumptions prove false, you can position yourself as a guide to alternative solutions. Don’t let the pressure of testing prototypes for unvalidated needs hold you back from getting creative. By incorporating foundational questions into the start of your interview script, choosing clever test scenarios, or delving into a user’s assumptions and mental models about the prototype, you can stealthily address underlying assumptions and steer the project towards success (or at least some incremental insights).

Of course, there will always be those elusive research questions that seem unanswerable with current methods. But even in this case, it helps to be transparent about the methodological limitations of your research. It’s not about having all the answers, it’s about being open and honest about the ones we don’t have — yet.

“I’ve got bad news!” Effectively communicating negative findings

As UX Researchers, we often feel the pressure to have all the answers before we even begin the study. We formulate solid hypotheses and set out to validate them, but what happens when the data doesn’t align with our expectations or user behavior doesn’t match our initial hypotheses? Many of us feel lost, unsure of what to do next. But here’s the thing, it’s not a failure, it’s an opportunity. These negative research findings are even more powerful than a predictable study where every finding confirms our initial hypothesis. These unexpected results are the ones that challenge our assumptions and push us to think differently.

Sometimes it may be tempting to dilute the truth and fall into the trap of sugarcoating our findings to avoid presenting negative feedback. But when we do that, we’re not doing our job. We’re not providing our stakeholders with the information they need to make informed decisions and we’re missing out on important opportunities for improvement. And when our stakeholders sense that we’re not providing them with the full picture, they start to lose trust in our research and the value it can provide.

So, what’s the solution? How can we ensure that we are being truthful in our research findings, without coming across as confrontational or negative? It’s simple: be honest, be clear and be solution-focused.

First, be clear about your objectives from the start. Communicate your research goals and the specific questions you hope to answer, that way your stakeholders will understand the purpose of your research and how it will inform decision-making. It will also set expectations and prevent misunderstandings later on.

Second, when you present your findings, be honest about negative feedback or areas for improvement, but frame it in a constructive manner. By providing suggestions for how to address the issues you’ve uncovered, you demonstrate that you’re invested in finding solutions, not just pointing out problems.

Third, remember that user research is not always going to yield positive findings, but it is still important to surface those insights as they are key to improving products and services. While it may be tempting to soften the truth or dilute our findings in the interest of avoiding conflict, ultimately this approach can do more harm than good.

Therefore, being honest and clear in our research findings is crucial for providing our stakeholders with the information they need to make informed decisions. We need to stop sugarcoating the truth and be evidence-based. Doing the work that needs to be done sometimes means delivering bad news and halting the development process for a time to identify and address critical design flaws.

Don’t be afraid to disappoint yourself with facts

As technology companies race forward, the role of UX research becomes more crucial than ever. In this frantic pace, UX research becomes a field where you will often encounter unexpected user behaviors, shifting project requirements, and incomplete data sets. And in order to be successful as a UX researcher, it’s crucial to be comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, and to understand how to navigate it effectively.

As UX researchers, we’re on a mission to uncover the truth. We’re not just report generators, but insight generators. Research doesn’t exist to make stakeholders feel good, it exists to make the product better.

In the fast-paced world of technology, it’s easy to take shortcuts and make assumptions about what users want. But that’s a recipe for failure. The best UX researchers don’t shy away from the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. They’re not afraid to disappoint themselves or their team with the facts.

When something doesn’t go according to plan, this is your opportunity to gather more data and gain deeper insights. Approach ambiguity with curiosity and an open mind, and you’ll uncover new information and perspectives you might have missed otherwise. In the end, good UX research is about being a good “servant of insight”, and being willing to do the hard work to uncover the truth, even when it’s not what we want to hear. It’s about being relentless in the pursuit of a better user experience. Let’s stop avoiding the uncomfortable and start embracing it. Let’s be bold, be curious, and use it to create something truly remarkable.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Google in any way.

About the author: Slava Polonski is a UXR Lead at Google Flights and a Fellow of Google’s People+AI Guidebook. He holds a PhD from Oxford University and was featured on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list. He is an active member of the World Economic Forum expert network and the WEF Global Shapers community. He writes about the intersection of UX, social science and technology.