Become UX Researcher

Proof required

Submit your usability study plan (tasks + recruitment criteria + observation protocol), 3–5 observation notes from real sessions (participant # + task + what happened + observer notes, minimum 200 words per session), and the synthesis report (findings by severity with at least 2 critical findings and a recommendation for each).

What gets checked

• Observation notes capture what the participant did and said, not what the observer concluded — 'participant paused for 3 seconds, said "I don't know where to click"' not 'participant was confused'
• Synthesis report has at least 2 critical findings (not just minor friction) — a study that finds only minor issues has either been run with tasks that are too easy or has not been synthesised rigorously
• Each critical finding includes a specific design recommendation — 'redesign the checkout flow' is not a recommendation; 'move the CTA above the fold and label it "Confirm order" instead of "Submit"' is

Common mistakes

• Guiding participants through the tasks rather than observing — 'you might want to click the blue button' invalidates the observation; the study measures what users would do independently
• A synthesis that is a list of individual session summaries rather than cross-session themes — synthesis means finding patterns that appear across multiple participants
• Tasks that are too vague ('explore the app') or too specific ('click the blue button in the top right') — the tasks must be realistic and goal-directed

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to read one observation note aloud — if it sounds like an interpretation ('the participant was frustrated') rather than an observation ('the participant muttered "where is it" and clicked the wrong link twice'), the notes were not taken correctly
• Check that the critical findings are accompanied by design recommendations that are specific enough for a designer to act on without further clarification
• Ask the submitter what they would change about their task design if they ran the study again — genuine usability research always reveals that some tasks were not well-designed
• Confirm participants completed the tasks without guidance — ask the submitter to describe one moment where they had to resist helping a participant

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit the research brief (what question, who commissioned it, by when), the research report (methodology, findings, confidence level, recommendation), and a one-paragraph description of what the commissioner decided as a result of the report.

What gets checked

• Research brief names the real commissioner — not 'the team' but a specific person or role who requested the research
• Research report includes a confidence level (why you are or are not confident in the findings, given the sample size, methodology, and potential biases)
• The one-paragraph decision description names the actual decision that was made — 'the team found it useful' is not a decision outcome

Common mistakes

• Self-commissioned research ('I decided to research this question') — the value of research comes from its influence on decisions made by others; self-commissioned research has no decision impact to demonstrate
• A report that presents all findings equally without a recommendation — a research report that ends with 'here is what we found, now you decide' has not done the synthesis work
• Confidence level that is a rating number without explanation — 'confidence: 7/10' means nothing without explaining the specific reasons for uncertainty

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter who commissioned the research and what happened when they received the report — the impact of research is only visible through its downstream decisions
• Check the confidence level explanation — ask the submitter to name the most important limitation of the research and how it affects the reliability of the recommendation
• Ask what the submitter would do differently if they ran the study again with twice the time — this tests whether the M2 work produced genuine research learning
• Ask whether the commissioner agreed with the recommendation or pushed back — either outcome is valid; both test the quality of the research

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your M1 and M2 artefacts plus the reviewer's written assessment: the methodology challenge and your response, the alternative finding interpretation and your response, the novel research question and your live study design response, and their sign-off confirming their role and a live session.

What gets checked

• Methodology challenge response names the specific trade-off (what would think-aloud reveal that diary study would not, and vice versa) not just a defence of the chosen method
• Live study design response includes methodology, participant criteria, and at least 2 specific research questions — not just 'I would do interviews'
• Reviewer sign-off confirms 5+ years of UX research in industry (not academic research only, not UX design with some research involvement)

Common mistakes

• Methodology challenge response that defends the choice without acknowledging the alternatives — a researcher who cannot articulate what a different method would have revealed has not genuinely chosen a method
• Live study design that describes a general approach without getting specific — 'I would interview users about their experience' is not a study design
• A reviewer who is a UX designer with research experience rather than a dedicated researcher — the challenge questions must come from someone whose primary practice is research

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Prepare the novel research question before the session — it should be in the same product domain as the M1 and M2 work, so the submitter can apply genuine domain knowledge in the live study design
• The alternative finding interpretation should be genuinely plausible — ask the submitter to acknowledge whether the alternative interpretation is possible given the evidence
• Reviewer minimum qualification: 5+ years of dedicated UX research in industry; UX designers with research involvement are less appropriate because the challenge questions require deep methodological knowledge
• Ask the submitter what research method they would most like to learn next and why — this tests whether the M1 and M2 work produced genuine research curiosity

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.