Reporting your User Research Findings like a Psychologist

Our user research findings lack gravity when they are reported poorly.

Oftentimes, we negate key pieces of information or unwittingly breach ethical guidelines. Despite the various benefits of having some creative freedom, as it stands, the user research report comes in too many shapes and sizes. This impacts both our ability to quickly consume previous research conducted by fellow researchers and more importantly, denies us the ability to appraise its quality; a fundamental function of research.

Albeit presenting our research insights with long slabs of text and convoluted words is a far cry from the desired objective, we have a lot to gain from leveraging the structure that psychologists turn to when presenting their findings - the academic journal.

The design of the academic journal is very intentional, with each section devoted to addressing a key aspect of the scientific method. Insofar as user research is to be legitimate in guiding large-scale product decisions, we are not exempt from holding ourselves to high standards of rigour - but we also don’t need to be terrified by them. What we need is a standard that works in our unique context - a context where time is money, deliverables are created in a hurry and budgets are minimal.

In this talk, we will hone in on the architecture of the academic journal and explore what we can borrow from it to raise the bar on our research reporting, ultimately maximising the weight and longevity of our insights.