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

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

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