Really appreciate this take Nikki — democratization is such a tricky balance. In longevity UX, that risk gets amplified: older adults’ experiences often break the 'default' patterns, and missing that nuance means missing the real insights.
Have you seen any models where teams open up research but still keep the rigor intact?
thanks for your question! yes, i’ve seen a few models that work, but they all have one thing in common: no one gets a “research free-for-all” pass.
at one company, we set up what i jokingly called the “research buddy system.” if a designer, PM, or marketer wanted to run a study, they had to pair up with a researcher from day one. they’d bring us their plan, we’d tweak scripts to avoid bias, make sure their recruitment wasn’t just their mates or the easiest-to-reach customers, and then debrief together. i still remember a PM coming in hot with an idea for three “quick” interviews filled with all people they’d worked with before. when we rebalanced the sample and reworded the questions, they ended up completely flipping their recommendation because the unbiased data told a different story.
in another org, we built a tiered system:
- low-risk stuff like copy tweaks and simple usability tests could be run by trained designers/PMs, using pre-approved scripts and a checklist they had to tick off before launch.
- mid-risk work, like surveys, needed a researcher’s sign-off before going live.
- anything generative or involving sensitive populations stayed fully in researcher hands.
it wasn’t perfect, but it meant speed where it made sense, and depth where it mattered most.
the key is giving structure and context. in a healthtech project for post-op patients (lots of older adults, similar to your longevity UX example), we built guardrails into every step which meant we banned phrases that could unintentionally shame participants, accessibility prompts to slow the session pace, even a “red flag” list of signs to pause the study and escalate. non-researchers could still engage with users directly, but the risk of missing those subtle age-related nuances dropped dramatically.
so the balance i’ve seen work:
- clear boundaries on what can be democratized
- training that sticks (and is refreshed, not one-and-done)
- researcher review at the start and end of the process
- a shared repo so nothing disappears into someone’s desktop folder
also a general shared understanding and appreciation for what UXR is and isn't!
This is exactly the kind of practical wisdom I was hoping for! The research buddy system and tiered approach both feel like they solve the core tension between speed and rigor. That healthtech example really drives home how much domain expertise matters in research design.
Really appreciate this take Nikki — democratization is such a tricky balance. In longevity UX, that risk gets amplified: older adults’ experiences often break the 'default' patterns, and missing that nuance means missing the real insights.
Have you seen any models where teams open up research but still keep the rigor intact?
thanks for your question! yes, i’ve seen a few models that work, but they all have one thing in common: no one gets a “research free-for-all” pass.
at one company, we set up what i jokingly called the “research buddy system.” if a designer, PM, or marketer wanted to run a study, they had to pair up with a researcher from day one. they’d bring us their plan, we’d tweak scripts to avoid bias, make sure their recruitment wasn’t just their mates or the easiest-to-reach customers, and then debrief together. i still remember a PM coming in hot with an idea for three “quick” interviews filled with all people they’d worked with before. when we rebalanced the sample and reworded the questions, they ended up completely flipping their recommendation because the unbiased data told a different story.
in another org, we built a tiered system:
- low-risk stuff like copy tweaks and simple usability tests could be run by trained designers/PMs, using pre-approved scripts and a checklist they had to tick off before launch.
- mid-risk work, like surveys, needed a researcher’s sign-off before going live.
- anything generative or involving sensitive populations stayed fully in researcher hands.
it wasn’t perfect, but it meant speed where it made sense, and depth where it mattered most.
the key is giving structure and context. in a healthtech project for post-op patients (lots of older adults, similar to your longevity UX example), we built guardrails into every step which meant we banned phrases that could unintentionally shame participants, accessibility prompts to slow the session pace, even a “red flag” list of signs to pause the study and escalate. non-researchers could still engage with users directly, but the risk of missing those subtle age-related nuances dropped dramatically.
so the balance i’ve seen work:
- clear boundaries on what can be democratized
- training that sticks (and is refreshed, not one-and-done)
- researcher review at the start and end of the process
- a shared repo so nothing disappears into someone’s desktop folder
also a general shared understanding and appreciation for what UXR is and isn't!
This is exactly the kind of practical wisdom I was hoping for! The research buddy system and tiered approach both feel like they solve the core tension between speed and rigor. That healthtech example really drives home how much domain expertise matters in research design.