The Research Repository Trap

Why they aren't a magic bullet and how to evaluate if you need one

👋 Hey, Nikki here! Welcome to this 🔒subscriber-only 🔒 article from the User Research Academy’s Newsletter. I tackle reader questions about user research, impact, and accelerating your career. If you’re not a subscriber, here’s what you missed this month:

1. Deliver research insights that demand action, with zero guesswork

2. Episode 89: Make your user research workshops irresistible | Hannah Knowles

3. Use these simple formulas to show research ROI

4. Episode 90: Walk the Store Interviews

Subscribe to get access to these and every post.

---

Unsplash

Hello Curious Human,

When you’re drowning in research data—interviews, survey results, usability tests, stakeholder feedback—the idea of a research repository can seem like a lifesaver. A neat, centralized hub where all insights live. Sounds perfect, right? No more scrambling through old files. No more scattered reports. Your stakeholders will finally have everything at their fingertips.

But here’s the thing I’ve learned over and over (and over and over…) again: Research repositories aren’t a magic bullet.

In fact, they often add more chaos than they solve. I’ve fallen into the repository trap myself several times, and it wasn’t pretty. I invested time, energy, and resources into creating what I thought was the perfect solution, only to watch it gather dust. No one used it, it was hard to maintain, and it didn’t actually solve the core problem.

In this article, we’ll explore why research repositories often fail, how to evaluate whether you really need one, and, if you decide to build one, how to design it in a way that avoids common pitfalls. I’ll also share personal examples of what went wrong with my own repositories and provide you with concrete, actionable steps to make sure you don’t make the same mistakes.

Why repositories aren’t a fix-all

Let’s begin with why repositories often fail to live up to expectations.

No one used it

Here’s a hard truth I had to learn the hard way: building a research repository in isolation—without any input or feedback from stakeholders—sets it up for failure from day one.

I once built a repository that I was sure would be a game-changer. It was organized, searchable, and neatly tagged. But I made the one biggest mistake I see many other researchers make. I didn’t involve my team. I didn’t ask them how they currently attempted to access research, what they needed from the repository, their pain points with the current process, or how it would fit into their existing workflows.

And guess what? No one used it.

Why? Because I designed it for me, not for them.

They just asked me instead

Another time, I created what I thought was an easy-to-navigate repository. I figured once everything was in there, people would just go and find what they needed.

Wrong again.

Instead of using the repository, people kept messaging me directly, asking where to find specific insights or documents. It didn’t matter that I had painstakingly tagged and organized everything—no one wanted to go searching through it. They found it easier to ask me because they didn’t trust the system, or they didn’t know how to navigate it properly.

The tool wasn’t enough

No matter how beautifully structured a repository is, it doesn’t socialize research by itself. I’ve tried several tools, thinking that making research look good would increase its accessibility. I used tools that were visually appealing and had decent search functionalities. But, even then, they didn’t help socialize the insights.

People didn’t engage with the research because simply putting it into a nice tool wasn’t enough to make it actionable or part of the daily workflow. What I really needed was a plan to actively integrate research into ongoing projects, not just a tool.

It was impossible to maintain

Building a repository is one thing—keeping it up to date is a whole other beast. One of my repositories became so time-consuming to maintain that I couldn’t keep up with it. Every time we ran a new study or collected new data, I had to spend hours uploading, tagging, and reorganizing.

Eventually, the repository became outdated. It became harder to manage, and, because I didn’t have the bandwidth to keep it fresh, stakeholders stopped trusting it.

Evaluate if you really need a repository

Before you start pouring time and resources into a repository, take a moment to pause.

Do you actually need one?

Often, we jump to the solution of a repository without really understanding the problem we’re trying to solve. Let’s break down the process for evaluating whether a repository makes sense for you.

1. Identify the root problem

Before deciding whether to build a research repository, take a step back and pinpoint the exact problem you’re trying to solve. This requires more than just surface-level observations; you need to dig into the pain points your stakeholders face when accessing research.

Start by asking yourself:

• Are stakeholders struggling to find relevant insights?

• Are research documents scattered across multiple platforms and tools?

• Is the issue simply that stakeholders don’t know what research is available?

Step 1: Talk to your team

Start by conducting quick, informal interviews with your key stakeholders, such as designers, product managers, engineers, and others who regularly rely on research. Your goal is to understand their day-to-day challenges related to finding and using research. Keep the conversations open-ended and exploratory, and encourage honesty about their frustrations.

Example questions:

• “Walk me through how you typically find research relevant to your current projects?”

• “Explain the last time you used research to inform a decision. What was that experience like?”

• “Talk me through a time when you were unsure if research even existed for a particular topic. How did you deal with that?”

• “Describe what an ideal research experience looks like for you. What would save you time or effort?”

These questions help stakeholders open up about the practical obstacles they face, giving you insight into their behavior and preferences.

Step 2: Map out the problem

Once you’ve gathered responses, map out the recurring issues. Use a whiteboard or a digital tool like Miro to categorize the feedback. Group similar problems together and label them with specific tags (ex: “can’t find research,” “research is outdated,” “tools are too dispersed”). This will give you a clear picture of the common barriers stakeholders face.

1. Stakeholders frequently report being unaware of relevant research.

2. Research is scattered across multiple tools, making it hard to find in one place.

3. Even when research is found, it’s often outdated or not relevant to the current project.

4. Lack of communication on new research findings.

Mapping these problems visually helps you and your team focus on what needs to be addressed first.

Step 3: Ask specific, targeted questions

The more specific your questions, the better your chances of uncovering actionable insights. Don’t just stop at general frustration—ask for concrete examples, and dig deeper.

• “Talk me through a recent time when you couldn’t find the research you needed. What did you do?”

• “Is there a particular tool that you feel works well for storing or sharing research? Why?”

• “Describe how you typically get updates about new research findings. What’s one thing that helps you stay most informared?”

These follow-up questions provide more context, revealing not just the issues but also potential solutions or areas for improvement.

Step 4: Use the ‘Five Whys’ technique

Once you identify a problem, dig deeper by asking “why” repeatedly to get to the root cause. This technique helps you avoid superficial fixes and focus on addressing the real issue.

• Why can’t stakeholders find the research they need?

  • Because they don’t know where it’s stored.

• Why don’t they know where it’s stored?

  • Because there’s no centralized location for research.

• Why is there no centralized location?

  • • Because different teams use different tools to store research.

• Why do different teams use different tools?

  • Because no one agreed on a single system for research storage.

• Why wasn’t a single system agreed upon?

  • Because each team developed its own process without cross-team communication.

This deeper questioning shows that the real problem might not be the lack of a repository but rather the absence of unified processes and cross-team communication.

Step 5: Diagnose and test possible solutions

Once you’ve identified the root problem, it’s time to brainstorm solutions. But don’t jump to conclusions too quickly. Test smaller, simpler fixes before committing to a full repository. From the example above, some solutions could include:

1. If research is scattered across too many tools, consolidate it into a shared folder or Slack channel. Test this with a small group of stakeholders to see if it solves their problem.

2. If stakeholders feel out of the loop about new research, schedule weekly or bi-weekly research roundups that highlight recent studies or key findings.

3. If the problem is that research reports are too long or dense, create a one-page summary template for researchers to fill out after each study. This makes research more digestible and accessible.

In one of my teams, we found that a simple Slack channel for research summaries solved the problem of accessibility. Instead of asking people to log into yet another tool, we met them where they were already working. Short, digestible updates worked far better than an entire repository.

2. Test the need for a repository