Listen now on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube.

—

Ned Dwyer is the Co-Founder and CEO of Great Question, the all-in-one UX research platform designed to democratize research at scale.

After two successful exits as a founder, Ned launched his biggest idea to date: helping enterprise teams better understand their users. Ned has led Great Question in empowering UX researchers, designers, and product teams to collaborate seamlessly and uncover the insights needed to build something great.

With over a decade of experience at the intersection of product, design & research; Ned has driven innovation and scaled businesses that solve complex challenges for enterprises.

Outside of his professional pursuits, Ned loves spending time in sunny Oakland, California with his wife, two kids and three cats.

In our conversation, we discuss:

* What democratization really means and why it’s not just about “everyone doing research.”

* The shift in sentiment and adoption—from early-stage startups to 16,000-person enterprises.

* How researchers can avoid being sidelined by becoming facilitators, not gatekeepers.

* The role of tools, policies, and AI in scaling high-quality research safely across teams.

* Strategies for building the business case for tools and training—especially in resource-limited orgs.

Some takeaways:

* Democratization is already happening whether you’re involved or not. Ned emphasizes that research is already being done across organizations by non-researchers, just not always well. The opportunity for researchers is to step into a facilitator role: setting standards, defining guardrails, and ensuring quality without hoarding control.

* Big orgs are leading the way, not just scrappy startups. Contrary to early assumptions, the most aggressive adopters of democratization aren’t just startups, they’re enterprises with thousands of employees. The difference? These organizations invest in scalable infrastructure, permissions, and training to empower safe, responsible research at scale.

* Guardrails matter more than gatekeeping. With the right systems, democratization doesn’t have to mean chaos. Great Question includes features like eligibility criteria, access controls, incentive limits, study approval flows, and AI-powered report validation. These guardrails enable research at scale without compromising integrity or participant experience.

* Make your case by speaking leadership’s language. To advocate for democratization tools or training, tie your request to business goals: reduced legal risk, better participant experience, efficiency gains, and fewer headcount needs. Use the “researcher effort score” to quantify pain points and show progress over time.

* Want more influence? Get close to the money. Strategic researchers don’t wait for requests, they go to sales, marketing, and product to understand pain points and proactively solve them. Running win/loss research or unblocking customer access helps build trust, grow research demand, and elevate your role beyond usability testing.

Where to find Ned:

* Website

* LinkedIn: Great Question

* LinkedIn: Ned

* Twitter/X

Interested in sponsoring the podcast?

Interested in sponsoring or advertising on this podcast? I’m always looking to partner with brands and businesses that align with my audience. Book a call or email me at [email protected] to learn more about sponsorship opportunities!

The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the host, the podcast, or any affiliated organizations or sponsors.

Hi all - this is a free series where I critique anonymized resumes that were submitted to me. If you love the work I do, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. It helps me continue what I do and putting this kind of work out into the community.

Check out part two here.

Stop applying. Start getting interviews.

The UXR Job Bundle gives you everything you need to land better roles, faster.

→ Resume + portfolio templates that get callbacks

→ Interview frameworks that show how you think

→ Case study formats that hook hiring managers in 60 seconds

→ Negotiation scripts to help you stop settling

Researchers who use it report 3x more interviews and stronger offers.

Don’t just polish your resume. Change your outcome.

Formulas:

* [Verb] + [what you did] + [quantifier] which resulted in + [measurable or strategic impact]

Example: Ran 4 onboarding interviews with new clients, which resulted in redesigned setup steps and a 25% drop in support tickets.

* [Verb] + [insight you generated] + by [method], leading to + [decision/outcome]

Example: Uncovered usability issues by synthesizing 12 support calls, leading to a streamlined payment flow.

* [Verb] + [collaboration/project] + across [team/org], resulting in + [alignment/change]

Example: Facilitated quarterly review across Product and Ops, resulting in better prioritization and fewer miscommunications.

* [Verb] + [process/tool/project you led or improved] + [how many/who/what] which resulted in + [business/user impact]

Example: Improved onboarding workflow used by 3 teams, which resulted in a 25% reduction in support queries.

* [Verb] + [insight or decision you contributed to] + by [action taken] + leading to + [impact on project/team/metric]

Example: Informed product roadmap by synthesizing 30 customer interviews, leading to launch of 2 new features.

* [Verb] + [communication or output you created] + that influenced + [stakeholders/team] + to [do what]

Example: Created user insight brief that influenced PMs to prioritize accessibility fixes.

* [Verb] + [collaboration you facilitated] + across [teams/functions] + to [goal], resulting in + [change or outcome]

Example: Facilitated weekly cross-functional syncs across Design and Ops to align on support triage, resulting in 30% faster escalation resolution.

* [Verb] + [project or task] + within [timeline or budget], resulting in + [measurable business or user value]

Example: Delivered usability testing project within 2 weeks, resulting in simplified checkout flow and 15% conversion uplift.

* [Verb] + [problem you solved] + by [how you solved it],which [impact/result]

Example: Resolved data duplication issue by implementing a shared tracking template, which reduced manual rework by 80%.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube.

—

Steve is a games user research consultant, helping teams use player insight to create successful games. He works with publishers, platforms and studios of all sizes to transform their game development process, and build product strategies that combines player data with creativity. He work from ideation to post-launch in order to de-risk game development, and make games players love.

Prior to this he was a senior user researcher for PlayStation and worked on many of their top European titles, including Horizon Zero Dawn, SingStar, the LittleBigPlanet series and the PlayStation VR lineup.

Steve started the Games User Research mentoring scheme, which has linked hundreds of students with industry professionals from top games companies such as Sony, EA, Valve, Ubisoft and Microsoft. He wrote the bestselling book How To Be A Games User Researcher to share the expertise needed to work in the games industry.

He regularly speaks at games industry conferences and on podcasts about games user research + playtesting, and has been recognised as a member of BAFTA. He also wrote the bestselling book Building User Research Teams, and helps teams build impactful research practice in-house.

In our conversation, we discuss:

* The evolution of Steve’s career from early days at PlayStation to running his own games UX consultancy.

* The difference between research in games vs. traditional tech, especially around the lack of discovery work.

* How to measure subjective experiences like “fun,” and why that starts by redefining what “fun” even means.

* The influence of secrecy, creative ownership, and marketing pressure on research methods in the games industry.

* Real-world methods used in games UX, like mass playtesting labs and segment-based multiplayer analysis.

Some takeaways:

* Research in games is heavily evaluative. Unlike traditional UX, which often starts with uncovering user needs, games UX usually kicks in once there’s a playable prototype. Because the “user need” in games is often just “make it fun,” research is focused more on assessing emotional impact and usability than on early-stage exploration.

* Measuring fun is both subjective and contextual. Teams often ask, “Is this fun?”—but that question is too broad to act on. Steve explains that researchers must first help define what kind of fun is intended, whether that’s emotional engagement, replay behavior, or challenge. Only then can appropriate metrics or qualitative signals be applied.

* Creative ownership adds complexity to stakeholder management. Games are seen as artistic work. Designers may be deeply emotionally invested in their ideas, which can make it harder to embrace critical feedback. This makes relationship-building, empathy, and framing feedback constructively especially important in games UX.

* Secrecy shapes everything, from methods to sampling. Due to high financial stakes and aggressive marketing timelines, games researchers often can’t test publicly. This leads to lab-based studies with high participant control. Mass playtesting labs (20–80 people at once) are common for running controlled, large-scale tests without leaking content.

* Toxicity and matchmaking need research too. Games with multiplayer or social components must test how players interact, especially when strangers are thrown together online. Teams look at voice/chat features, segmentation by playstyle, and matchmaking fairness to reduce toxicity and create balanced experiences.

Where to find Steve:

* Website

* LinkedIn

* Twitter/X

* BlueSky

Interested in sponsoring the podcast?

Interested in sponsoring or advertising on this podcast? I’m always looking to partner with brands and businesses that align with my audience. Book a call or email me at [email protected] to learn more about sponsorship opportunities!

The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the host, the podcast, or any affiliated organizations or sponsors.

In this episode, I cover:

* Common mistakes teams make when prototype testing becomes routine or rushed.

* A method for deciding whether a prototype test is even the right approach.

* Clear goal-setting techniques that make your test focused and relevant.

* How to define metrics that show both research quality and product value.

* Writing user tasks that reflect real behavior and reveal friction points.

Key Takeaways:

* Low-fidelity prototypes limit learning. If your design doesn’t give people room to explore, or fail, you won’t see how they truly interact with it. Higher fidelity versions are much more effective for unmoderated studies.

* Not every question needs a usability test. If you’re looking to understand motivations or needs, observing task flows may not be the right method. Start by asking what kind of data you’re actually trying to gather.

* Goals guide everything. Strong prototype tests begin with clear goals. They shape the tasks, help with team alignment, and create a direct line between what you learn and what changes.

* Track outcomes that matter to your team. Define a few ways you’ll measure success before the test begins, such as friction points found, task completion behaviors, or whether changes from the study affect real usage.

* Write tasks people can relate to. Use short, specific scenarios rooted in familiar behavior. Instead of vague prompts, give people a purpose and context so their actions reflect how they’d use the product in real life.

The prototype guide:

Grab the full prototype guide with all the examples and formulas here and try it out with your next project (or with a project you recently did!).

Try Optimal:

Want to try this out on Optimal? You can grab a 20% discount using code Prototype2025 at checkout

Interested in sponsoring the podcast?

Interested in sponsoring or advertising on this podcast? I’m always looking to partner with brands and businesses that align with my audience. Reach out to me at [email protected] to learn more about sponsorship opportunities!

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube.

—

Erik is a behavioral scientist with a passion for understanding how people, especially kids, interact with digital experiences. He works at The LEGO Group, where he leads behavioral research to create safer, more inspiring, and more playful digital spaces for children. He specializes in using behavioral science, experimentation, and innovative research methodologies to uncover what kids need and love in digital play.

Beyond his professional role, he is a self-proclaimed research methodology nerd, always exploring better ways to understand and test how kids engage with the digital world.

In our conversation, we discuss:

* Why ecological validity is critical to meaningful product testing and what it means in practice.

* How Erik approaches testing with kids at LEGO, including the need for playful environments and cognitive load considerations.

* The pitfalls of lab-based research and why researchers must move beyond “zoo-like” conditions to see real-world behavior.

* Ways to mitigate social desirability and authority bias, especially when conducting research with children.

* How remote research, diary studies, and mixed methods can provide deeper behavioral insights—if done with context in mind.

Some takeaways:

* Validity is about realism. Erik defines ecological validity as the extent to which research reflects real-world behavior. While traditional labs optimize for internal validity, in product development, what matters is whether your findings will translate when people are distracted, tired, or juggling multiple tasks.

* Don’t study lions at the zoo. One of Erik’s standout metaphors urges researchers to avoid overly sanitized environments. Testing products in sterile labs might remove variables, but it also strips away the chaotic, layered reality where your product must actually succeed. Aim for the “Serengeti”—not the zoo.

* Researching with kids requires creativity, play, and caution.

Kids aren’t small adults, they process and respond differently. Erik emphasizes using play as a language, minimizing cognitive load, and focusing on behavioral observation over verbal responses. A child saying “I loved it” means little if they looked disengaged the whole time.

* Remote testing can work if grounded in real-life context. Remote methods like diary studies and follow-up interviews can capture valuable insights, especially if paired with contextual in-person research first. The key is triangulating methods and validating self-reports with observed behavior.

* Think beyond usability, map the behavior chain. A product’s ease of use in isolation means little if the behavior it enables is derailed by real-life obstacles. Erik illustrates this with a simple example: refilling soap sounds easy until you’re cold, wet, and have other priorities. Designing for behavior means understanding the entire chain around your product.

Where to find Erik:

* LinkedIn

Interested in sponsoring the podcast?

Interested in sponsoring or advertising on this podcast? I’m always looking to partner with brands and businesses that align with my audience. Book a call or email me at [email protected] to learn more about sponsorship opportunities!

The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the host, the podcast, or any affiliated organizations or sponsors.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube.

Petra Kubalcik is an accomplished user research professional with over two decades of international experience. Originating from Australia, she has honed her research skills across Japan, Hong Kong, the UK, Czech Republic, and most recently, Germany. Petra has led research teams at Dyson, Cookpad and currently serves as Head of User Research at Omio. She is a champion of user-centricity, ensuring that user perspectives remain central to strategy, innovation and development. Petra has personally conducted research in over 40 countries, bringing a global perspective to her work. Outside of her professional endeavors, she is dedicated to volunteering, sailing, woodworking and supporting the Wallabies.

In our conversation, we discuss:

* Why continuous discovery is often misunderstood and how separating continuous from discovery can clarify your goals.

* What makes a strong foundation for setting up a continuous discovery program, including the importance of stakeholder goals and UX maturity.

* How to design effective cadences and role-sharing models depending on whether you’re doing discovery or continuous touchpoints.

* The artifacts and outputs that make these programs sustainable and useful, from pathway playbooks to Miro boards.

* Red flags that indicate you shouldn’t implement continuous discovery and what to do instead.

Some takeaways:

* Continuous discovery is not always discovery. Petra emphasizes that many stakeholders use the term continuous discovery when they really mean frequent customer touchpoints. Researchers need to clarify whether the goal is to explore new insights (discovery) or simply maintain regular user input and adjust the program accordingly.

* Start with a crystal-clear ‘why.’ Without a well-defined reason for starting continuous discovery, the effort can quickly become unsustainable or directionless. Petra urges researchers to treat these programs like any other research project: define the objective, understand stakeholder needs, and forecast what success looks like. Your “why” will be your compass when things get difficult.

* Programs must match UX maturity and resources. Continuous discovery isn’t right for every organization. Petra warns against starting these programs in low-maturity teams with limited resources, unclear goals, or minimal stakeholder buy-in. If you’re fighting at every step, you risk burnout and low-impact work.

* Cadence and involvement should flex by context. A one-size-fits-all cadence doesn’t work. For light-touch programs with PMs or designers leading sessions, weekly or biweekly cadences might work. For true discovery efforts, a slower pace is essential to allow for iteration, depth, and evolution in the research plan.

* Build reusable frameworks and artifacts to lighten the load. To scale continuous discovery, Petra recommends investing in repeatable templates such as objective-setting docs, note-taking guides, playbooks, and pre-aligned outputs. For example, a “pathway playbook” outlines flows users will walk through and provides a structured format for collecting and analyzing data. These tools ensure quality while keeping researchers sane.

Where to find Petra:

* LinkedIn

Interested in sponsoring the podcast?

Interested in sponsoring or advertising on this podcast? I’m always looking to partner with brands and businesses that align with my audience. Book a call or email me at [email protected] to learn more about sponsorship opportunities!

The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the host, the podcast, or any affiliated organizations or sponsors.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube.

Javier is a User Experience Research Director with more than 20 years of experience in the field. He is passionate about building effective research organizations that scale and deliver critical user insights that help teams develop successful products that delight users. He has a proven track record of career development and coaching.

In our conversation, we discuss:

* The difference between strategic and tactical insights, not methods and why that distinction matters.

* How to navigate the perceived “versus” between strategic and tactical research and instead embrace a more fluid, problem-driven approach.

* Ways to embed strategic insights into product planning through tools like “strategic primers.”

* How to deliver value in both tactical and strategic spaces—and earn your seat at the table in high-level planning.

* How researchers can broaden their method toolkit to avoid defaulting to the same approaches and unlock new kinds of insights.

Some takeaways:

* Strategic and tactical are outcomes, not methods. Javier emphasizes that insights, not research methods, determine whether something is strategic or tactical. Usability tests can uncover strategic direction, and field studies can surface tactical improvements. Researchers need to move away from labeling methods and focus on the value the insights provide to the business.

* You can’t influence strategy if you’re not in the room. Delivering a compelling presentation isn’t enough. To make strategic insights actionable, researchers need to be present during planning and roadmap discussions. If you’re not sure when strategic planning happens, that’s a red flag and an invitation to start earning your seat by solving the right problems.

* “Strategic primers” help researchers shape roadmaps. One of Javier’s teams developed strategic primers: succinct, insight-packed documents delivered ahead of planning cycles. These primers synthesize research and industry knowledge into clear recommendations, helping PMs and leaders use research to guide direction-setting conversations.

* There’s no seniority in choosing tactics over strategy. Some researchers fall into the trap of avoiding tactical work as they become more senior. But successful researchers move between both as needed, supporting teams through every phase of development. Avoiding tactical work can disconnect you from the product and from impact.

* Stop chasing “strategic work, and, instead, solve the right problems. Rather than seeking out work that feels more senior or impressive, Javier encourages researchers to focus on the problems that matter most to the business. When you deliver insights that move the team forward, strategic or tactical, you build trust, influence, and long-term value.

Where to find Javier:

* Website

* LinkedIn

Interested in sponsoring the podcast?

Interested in sponsoring or advertising on this podcast? I’m always looking to partner with brands and businesses that align with my audience. Book a call or email me at [email protected] to learn more about sponsorship opportunities!

The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the host, the podcast, or any affiliated organizations or sponsors.

Camila Borja is a User Research expert with almost 15 years of experience, driving insights for companies like Zalando, SumUp, and Itaú. She leads strategic projects, trains teams in research methods, and has worked with global brands such as J&J, Sanofi, and Disney. With a degree in Public Relations and Public Opinion, Camila is a dedicated problem-solver who bridges research and business to deliver impactful results.

In our conversation, we discuss:

* What “research theater” really means and how it undermines the value of user insights across organizations.

* The risks of continuous discovery becoming a buzzword-driven process with little depth or direction.

* The internal conflict researchers face when stakeholders ask to bury insights that don’t fit the roadmap.

* Why junior researchers are especially vulnerable to being pulled into performative work and how to protect against it.

* How senior researchers can shift into a more strategic role by partnering with stakeholders and driving conversations, not just insights.

Some takeaways:

* Research theater can distort data and erode trust. Camila explains that research theatre often arises when teams mimic the motions of good research without actually delivering depth or insight. Whether it’s cherry-picked data, rushed usability tests, or stakeholder-directed outcomes, the result is the same: decisions based on illusion rather than reality. The impact is compounded because it corrupts the foundation, the data. that other decisions rely on.

* Continuous discovery needs rigor, not just speed. While continuous discovery can be powerful, Camila argues that it often turns into a performance, such as 30-minute calls each week with no clear direction, biased questions, and very little impact. Without intention and structure, these rituals drain researcher time and produce low-value outcomes, threatening the credibility of the practice.

* Junior researchers are often set up to perform, not investigate. Early-career researchers can easily be pulled into validation work or asked to execute a process without context. They may lack the confidence or experience to challenge requests. Study the foundational theory, ask why relentlessly, and avoid blindly accepting stakeholder requests that don’t serve users.

* To escape the theatrics, researchers must become business partners. Senior researchers should step beyond insight delivery and into the role of strategic advisors. That means building relationships, staying close to decisions, and understanding stakeholder motivations. Camila urges researchers to ask what’s driving decisions and find the middle ground between user needs and business realities.

* Avoiding theater always starts with asking “why?” Whether it’s a stakeholder request for a marketplace feature or a directive to skip over certain findings, researchers must stay curious. Asking why isn’t just for participants, it’s also for ourselves and our teams. This curiosity is what transforms research from performance into progress.

Where to find Camila:

* Dicas da Camila Youtube

* LinkedIn

* Medium

Interested in sponsoring the podcast?

Interested in sponsoring or advertising on this podcast? I’m always looking to partner with brands and businesses that align with my audience. Reach out to me at [email protected] to learn more about sponsorship opportunities!

The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the host, the podcast, or any affiliated organizations or sponsors.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube.

—

Lucia is a Senior User Researcher and Program Manager at Haigo, a design agency in Paris. Over the past six years, she has worked with clients across industries like healthcare, aviation, banking, insurance, and culture, helping them build user-centered products and services.

She has also taught user research to university students and professionals through Haigo’s applied programs.

Some of her favorite projects include:

* Leading research on accessibility needs for people with cognitive disabilities, enabling an insurance company to create better services.

* Improving passenger information for the Parisian metro.

* Enhancing professional software for a data company in aviation.

* Designing services for a pharmaceutical company to improve the quality of life for patients with chronic illnesses.

Lucia is passionate about leveraging design and research to create impactful, inclusive, and user-friendly solutions.

In our conversation, we discuss:

* The dynamic nature of agency work, balancing multiple projects across different industries and the skill of switching contexts effectively.

* Navigating new industries as a researcher, embracing the learning curve, and using an outsider perspective as an advantage.

* Building strong client relationships, moving beyond a transactional role to becoming a trusted partner in their process.

* Handling pushback from clients, especially when they come with predetermined research methods that may not be effective.

* Presenting research insights effectively, tailoring the messaging to different audiences, from core teams to high-level stakeholders.

Some takeaways:

* Starting in a new industry can feel overwhelming, especially when dealing with highly technical fields like aviation or healthcare. However, taking time to talk to experts, ask naive questions, and connect the dots gradually builds confidence. Researchers should embrace the learning process and leverage their outsider perspective to surface fresh insights.

* Rather than maintaining a client-supplier relationship, agency researchers should integrate themselves into teams, aligning with their goals and challenges. Simple efforts like attending office days, informal coffee chats, and showing genuine interest in their work help foster trust. When clients view researchers as partners, they are more likely to value and act on insights.

* When clients insist on specific research methods (like surveys), the key is to understand their underlying goals first. Instead of outright rejection, engage them in a conversation about what they hope to achieve, then suggest alternative approaches that could yield better results. Providing case studies and demonstrating past successes helps build credibility and guide them toward the right methods.

* A single research report won’t work for everyone—stakeholders have different priorities and time constraints. Weekly check-ins keep core teams engaged, while high-level stakeholders need concise, action-driven summaries. Pairing qualitative insights with relevant data points enhances credibility, ensuring findings resonate with decision-makers.

* The best way to ensure research is taken seriously is by maintaining clear methodologies, well-organized deliverables, and a strong narrative. High-quality reports and structured presentations give research the weight it deserves. Making insights easy to digest—through visuals, summaries, and strategic framing—helps organizations act on research more effectively.

Where to find Lucia:

* LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/lucia-rubio-caballeros

Interested in sponsoring the podcast?

Interested in sponsoring or advertising on this podcast? I’m always looking to partner with brands and businesses that align with my audience. Reach out to me at [email protected] to learn more about sponsorship opportunities!

The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the host, the podcast, or any affiliated organizations or sponsors.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube.

—

Prama has spent the last decade working across India, Germany, and the UK in various research roles, and I'm currently a Staff UX Researcher at HubSpot in London.

She loves tackling research challenges where traditional approaches need rethinking - whether that's bringing drivers' needs in India front and centre to Uber's product development, helping businesses scale on Zalando, or most recently, enabling small businesses to grow using the products offered by Meta and HubSpot.

She is passionate about developing research methods that balance speed with rigor in fast-moving product environments. She recently explored this in her article "Continuous Discovery Programs need an OS," and she’s now writing about designing and scaling rapid research practices for sales-driven companies.

In our conversation, we discuss:

* How continuous discovery acts as an operational framework rather than a new research methodology and why it’s essential for scaling research within product teams.

* The challenge of integrating deep research insights with the fast-moving pace of product growth.

* How triangulation and structured processes help increase confidence in findings while maintaining speed.

* Why continuous discovery is best suited for generative research and evergreen insights rather than tactical usability testing.

* The necessity of working with product, marketing, and sales teams to make continuous discovery impactful and sustainable.

Some takeaways:

* Continuous discovery is often misunderstood as just frequent user interviews. Instead, it’s a structured framework that allows research to scale alongside product development. It helps teams collect insights regularly, adapt questions over time, and ensure research is integrated into decision-making at the right moments. When executed well, it prevents research from becoming either too slow or too shallow.

* A major concern in user research is that fast-paced discovery leads to weak, unreliable insights. However, Prama explains that speed and quality can coexist if processes are thoughtfully designed. By structuring data collection, using qualitative surveys, and leveraging ongoing research efforts, teams can maintain high standards while keeping up with business needs.

* Not all research questions are suited for continuous discovery. Instead of focusing on highly specific, short-term problems, continuous discovery thrives when exploring broad, generative questions that evolve over time. Researchers should evaluate whether a question remains relevant across different segments and timeframes before including it in an ongoing discovery framework.

* For continuous discovery to be effective, it requires alignment with key stakeholders, including product managers, marketers, and customer support teams. Researchers should actively collaborate with these teams, leverage their existing data, and co-create research priorities. Transparency in findings also ensures that insights are actionable and widely adopted.

* Unlike traditional research projects with a clear start and end, continuous discovery evolves over time. Research questions refine, insights deepen, and methodologies adjust based on what has been learned. The key to success is setting up a system that allows for flexibility, ensures regular touchpoints, and keeps stakeholders engaged in the research process.

Where to find Prama:

* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/prama1007/

* Prama’s Medium: https://medium.com/@pramaneeraja_12112

Interested in sponsoring the podcast?

Interested in sponsoring or advertising on this podcast? I’m always looking to partner with brands and businesses that align with my audience. Reach out to me at [email protected] to learn more about sponsorship opportunities!

The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the host, the podcast, or any affiliated organizations or sponsors.