Moderated vs unmoderated research: which approach is best?

Introduction

‍

User research is invaluable, but in fast-paced environments, researchers often struggle with tight deadlines, limited resources, and the need to prove their impact. In our recent UX Insider webinar, Weidan Li, Senior UX Researcher at Seek, shared insights on Efficient Research—an approach that optimizes Speed, Quality, and Impact to maximize the return on investment (ROI) of understanding customers.

‍

At the heart of this approach is the Efficient Research Framework, which balances these three critical factors:

• Speed – Conducting research quickly without sacrificing key insights.
• Quality – Ensuring rigor and reliability in findings.
• Impact – Making sure research leads to meaningful business and product changes.

‍

Within this framework, Weidan outlined nine tactics that help UX researchers work more effectively. Let’s dive in.

‍

‍

1. Time Allocation: Invest in What Matters Most

‍

Not all research requires the same level of depth. Efficient researchers prioritize their time by categorizing projects based on urgency and impact:

• High-stakes decisions (e.g., launching a new product) require deep research.
• Routine optimizations (e.g., tweaking UI elements) can rely on quick testing methods.
• Low-impact changes may not need research at all.

‍

By allocating time wisely, researchers can avoid spending weeks on minor issues while ensuring critical decisions are well-informed.

‍

‍

2. Assistance of AI: Let Technology Handle the Heavy Lifting

‍

AI is transforming UX research, enabling faster and more scalable insights. Weidan suggests using AI to:

• Automate data analysis – AI can quickly analyze survey responses, transcripts, and usability test results.
• Generate research summaries – Tools like ChatGPT can help synthesize findings into digestible insights.
• Speed up recruitment – AI-powered platforms can help find and screen participants efficiently.

‍

While AI can’t replace human judgment, it can free up researchers to focus on higher-value tasks like interpreting results and influencing strategy.

‍

‍

3. Collaboration: Make Research a Team Sport

‍

Research has a greater impact when it’s embedded into the product development process. Weidan emphasizes:

• Co-creating research plans with designers, PMs, and engineers to align on priorities.
• Involving stakeholders in synthesis sessions so insights don’t sit in a report.
• Encouraging non-researchers to run lightweight studies, such as A/B tests or quick usability checks.

‍

When research is shared and collaborative, it leads to faster adoption of insights and stronger decision-making.

‍

‍

4. Prioritization: Focus on the Right Questions

‍

With limited resources, researchers must choose their battles wisely. Weidan recommends using a prioritization framework to assess:

• Business impact – Will this research influence a high-stakes decision?
• User impact – Does it address a major pain point?
• Feasibility – Can we conduct this research quickly and effectively?

‍

By filtering out low-priority projects, researchers can avoid research for research’s sake and focus on what truly drives change.

‍

‍

5. Depth of Understanding: Go Beyond Surface-Level Insights

‍

Speed is important, but efficient research isn’t about cutting corners. Weidan stresses that even quick studies should provide a deep understanding of users by:

• Asking why, not just what – Observing behavior is useful, but uncovering motivations is key.
• Using triangulation – Combining methods (e.g., usability tests + surveys) to validate findings.
• Revisiting past research – Leveraging existing insights instead of starting from scratch.

‍

Balancing speed with depth ensures research is not just fast, but meaningful.

‍

‍

6. Anticipation: Stay Ahead of Research Needs

‍

Proactive researchers don’t wait for stakeholders to request studies—they anticipate needs and set up research ahead of time. This means:

• Building a research roadmap that aligns with upcoming product decisions.
• Running continuous discovery research so teams have a backlog of insights to pull from.
• Creating self-serve research repositories where teams can find relevant past studies.

‍

By anticipating research needs, UX teams can reduce last-minute requests and deliver insights exactly when they’re needed.

‍

‍

7. Justification of Methodology: Explain Why Your Approach Works

‍

Stakeholders may question research methods, especially when they seem time-consuming or expensive. Weidan highlights the importance of educating teams on why specific methods are used:

• Clearly explain why qualitative research is needed when stakeholders push for just numbers.
• Show real-world examples of how past research has led to business success.
• Provide a trade-off analysis (e.g., “This method is faster but provides less depth”) to help teams make informed choices.

‍

A well-justified approach ensures research is respected and acted upon.

‍

‍

8. Individual Engagement: Tailor Research Communication to Your Audience

‍

Not all stakeholders consume research the same way. Weidan recommends adapting insights to fit different audiences:

• Executives – Focus on high-level impact and key takeaways.
• Product teams – Provide actionable recommendations tied to specific features.
• Designers & Engineers – Share usability findings with video clips or screenshots.

‍

By delivering insights in the right format, researchers increase the likelihood of stakeholder buy-in and action.

‍

‍

9. Business Actions: Ensure Research Leads to Real Change

‍

The ultimate goal of research is not just understanding users—but driving business decisions. To ensure research leads to action:

• Follow up on implementation – Track whether teams apply the insights.
• Tie findings to key metrics – Show how research affects conversion rates, retention, or engagement.
• Advocate for iterative research – Encourage teams to re-test and refine based on new data.

‍

Research is most valuable when it translates into real business outcomes.

‍

‍

Final Thoughts: Research That Moves the Needle

‍

Efficient research is not just about doing more, faster—it’s about balancing speed, quality, and impact to maximize its influence. Weidan’s nine tactics help UX researchers work smarter by:

‍
✔️  Prioritizing high-impact work
✔️  Leveraging AI and collaboration
✔️  Communicating research in a way that drives action

‍

By adopting these strategies, UX teams can ensure their research is not just insightful, but transformational.

‍

‍

Watch the full webinar here

‍

Introduction

‍

User Experience (UX) research has always been about people. How they think, how they behave, what they need, and—just as importantly—what they don’t yet realise they need. Traditional UX methodologies have long relied on direct human input: interviews, usability testing, surveys, and behavioral observation. The assumption was clear—if you want to understand people, you have to engage with real humans.

‍

But in 2025, that assumption is being challenged.

‍

The emergence of digital twins and synthetic users—AI-powered simulations of human behavior—is changing how researchers approach user insights. These technologies claim to solve persistent UX research problems: slow participant recruitment, small sample sizes, high costs, and research timelines that struggle to keep pace with product development. The promise is enticing: instantly accessible, infinitely scalable users who can test, interact, and generate feedback without the logistical headaches of working with real participants.

‍

Yet, as with any new technology, there are trade-offs. While digital twins may unlock efficiencies, they also raise important questions: Can they truly replicate human complexity? Where do they fit within existing research practices? What risks do they introduce?

‍

This article explores the evolving role of digital twins in UX research—where they excel, where they fall short, and what their rise means for the future of human-centered design.

‍

‍

The Traditional UX Research Model: Why Change?

‍

For decades, UX research has been grounded in methodologies that involve direct human participation. The core methods—usability testing, user interviews, ethnographic research, and behavioral analytics—have been refined to account for the unpredictability of human nature.

‍

This approach works well, but it has challenges:

‍

1. Participant recruitment is time-consuming. Finding the right users—especially niche audiences—can be a logistical hurdle, often requiring specialised panels, incentives, and scheduling gymnastics.
   ‍
2. Research is expensive. Incentives, moderation, analysis, and recruitment all add to the cost. A single usability study can run into tens of thousands of dollars.
   ‍
3. Small sample sizes create risk. Budget and timeline constraints often mean testing with small groups, leaving room for blind spots and bias.
   ‍
4. Long feedback loops slow decision-making. By the time research is completed, product teams may have already moved on, limiting its impact.

‍

In short: traditional UX research provides depth and authenticity, but it’s not always fast or scalable.

‍

Digital twins and synthetic users aim to change that.

‍

‍

What Are Digital Twins and Synthetic Users?

‍

While the terms digital twins and synthetic users are sometimes used interchangeably, they are distinct concepts.

‍

Digital Twins: Simulating Real-World Behavior

‍

A digital twin is a data-driven virtual representation of a real-world entity. Originally developed for industrial applications, digital twins replicate machines, environments, and human behavior in a digital space. They can be updated in real time using live data, allowing organisations to analyse scenarios, predict outcomes, and optimise performance.

‍

In UX research, human digital twins attempt to replicate real users' behavioral patterns, decision-making processes, and interactions. They draw on existing datasets to mirror real-world users dynamically, adapting based on real-time inputs.

‍

‍

Synthetic Users: AI-Generated Research Participants

‍

While a digital twin is a mirror of a real entity, a synthetic user is a fabricated research participant—a simulation that mimics human decision-making, behaviors, and responses. These AI-generated personas can be used in research scenarios to interact with products, answer questions, and simulate user journeys.

‍

Unlike traditional user personas (which are static profiles based on aggregated research), synthetic users are interactive and capable of generating dynamic feedback. They aren’t modeled after a specific real-world person, but rather a combination of user behaviors drawn from large datasets.

‍

Think of it this way:

‍

• A digital twin is a highly detailed, data-driven clone of a specific person, customer segment, or process.
• A synthetic user is a fictional but realistic simulation of a potential user, generated based on behavioral patterns and demographic characteristics.

‍

Both approaches are still evolving, but their potential applications in UX research are already taking shape.

‍

‍

Where Digital Twins and Synthetic Users Fit into UX Research

‍

‍

The appeal of AI-generated users is undeniable. They can:

‍

• Scale instantly – Test designs with thousands of simulated users, rather than just a handful of real participants.
• Eliminate recruitment bottlenecks – No need to chase down participants or schedule interviews.
• Reduce costs – No incentives, no travel, no last-minute no-shows.
• Enable rapid iteration – Get user insights in real time and adjust designs on the fly.
• Generate insights on sensitive topics – Synthetic users can explore scenarios that real participants might find too personal or intrusive.

‍

‍

These capabilities make digital twins particularly useful for:

‍

• Early-stage concept validation – Rapidly test ideas before committing to development.
• Edge case identification – Run simulations to explore rare but critical user scenarios.
• Pre-testing before live usability sessions – Identify glaring issues before investing in human research.

‍

However, digital twins and synthetic users are not a replacement for human research. Their effectiveness is limited in areas where emotional, cultural, and contextual factors play a major role.

‍

‍

The Risks and Limitations of AI-Driven UX Research

‍

For all their promise, digital twins and synthetic users introduce new challenges.

‍

1. They lack genuine emotional responses.
   AI can analyse sentiment, but it doesn’t feel frustration, delight, or confusion the way a human does. UX is often about unexpected moments—the frustrations, workarounds, and “aha” realisations that define real-world use.
   ‍
2. Bias is a real problem.
   AI models are trained on existing datasets, meaning they inherit and amplify biases in those datasets. If synthetic users are based on an incomplete or non-diverse dataset, the research insights they generate will be skewed.
   ‍
3. They struggle with novelty.
   Humans are unpredictable. They find unexpected uses for products, misunderstand instructions, and behave irrationally. AI models, no matter how advanced, can only predict behavior based on past patterns—not the unexpected ways real users might engage with a product.
   ‍
4. They require careful validation.
   How do we know that insights from digital twins align with real-world user behavior? Without rigorous validation against human data, there’s a risk of over-reliance on synthetic feedback that doesn’t reflect reality.

‍

‍

A Hybrid Future: AI + Human UX Research

‍

Rather than viewing digital twins as a replacement for human research, the best UX teams will integrate them as a complementary tool.

‍

Where AI Can Lead:

‍

• Large-scale pattern identification
• Early-stage usability evaluations
• Speeding up research cycles
• Automating repetitive testing

‍

Where Humans Remain Essential:

‍

• Understanding emotion, frustration, and delight
• Detecting unexpected behaviors
• Validating insights with real-world context
• Ethical considerations and cultural nuance

‍

The future of UX research is not about choosing between AI and human research—it’s about blending the strengths of both.

‍

‍

Final Thoughts: Proceeding With Caution and Curiosity

‍

Digital twins and synthetic users are exciting, but they are not a magic bullet. They cannot fully replace human users, and relying on them exclusively could lead to false confidence in flawed insights.

‍

Instead, UX researchers should view these technologies as powerful, but imperfect tools—best used in combination with traditional research methods.

‍

As with any new technology, thoughtful implementation is key. The real opportunity lies in designing research methodologies that harness the speed and scale of AI without losing the depth, nuance, and humanity that make UX research truly valuable.

‍

The challenge ahead isn’t about choosing between human or synthetic research. It’s about finding the right balance—one that keeps user experience truly human-centered, even in an AI-driven world.

‍

This article was researched with the help of Perplexity.ai. 

‍

We all know that building a robust information architecture (IA) can make or break your product. And getting it right can rely on robust user research. Especially when it comes to creating human-centered, intuitive products that deliver outstanding user experiences.

‍

But what are the best methods to test your information architecture? To make sure that your focus is on building an information architecture that is truly based on what your users want, and need.

‍

What is user research? 🗣️🧑🏻💻

‍

With all the will in the world, your product (or website or mobile app) may work perfectly and be as intuitive as possible. But, if it is only built on information from your internal organizational perspective, it may not measure up in the eyes of your user. Often, organizations make major design decisions without fully considering their users. User research (UX) backs up decisions with data, helping to make sure that design decisions are strategic decisions. 

‍

Testing your information architecture can also help establish the structure for a better product from the ground up. And ultimately, the performance of your product. User experience research focuses your design on understanding your user expectations, behaviors, needs, and motivations. It is an essential part of creating, building, and maintaining great products. 

‍

Taking the time to understand your users through research can be incredibly rewarding with the insights and data-backed information that can alter your product for the better. But what are the key user research methods for your information architecture? Let’s take a look.

‍

Research methods for information architecture ⚒️

‍

There is more than one way to test your IA. And testing with one method is good, but with more than one is even better. And, of course, the more often you test, especially when there are major additions or changes, you can tweak and update your IA to improve and delight your user’s experience.

‍

Card Sorting 🃏

‍

Card sorting is a user research method that allows you to discover how users understand and categorize information. It’s particularly useful when you are starting the planning process of your information architecture or at any stage you notice issues or are making changes. Putting the power into your users’ hands and asking how they would intuitively sort the information. In a card sort, participants sort cards containing different items into labeled groups. You can use the results of a card sort to figure out how to group and label the information in a way that makes the most sense to your audience. 

‍

There are a number of techniques and methods that can be applied to a card sort. Take a look here if you’d like to know more.

‍

Card sorting has many applications. It’s as useful for figuring out how content should be grouped on a website or in an app as it is for figuring out how to arrange the items in a retail store.You can also run a card sort in person, using physical cards, or remotely with online tools such as OptimalSort.

‍

Tree Testing 🌲

‍

Taking a look at your information architecture from the other side can also be valuable. Tree testing is a usability method for evaluating the findability of topics on a product. Testing is done on a simplified text version of your site structure without the influence of navigation aids and visual design.

‍

Tree testing tells you how easily people can find information on your product and exactly where people get lost. Your users rely on your information architecture – how you label and organize your content – to get things done.

‍

Tree testing can answer questions like:

• Do my labels make sense to people?
• Is my content grouped logically to people?
• Can people find the information they want easily and quickly? If not, what’s stopping them?

‍

Treejack is our tree testing tool and is designed to make it easy to test your information architecture. Running a tree test isn’t actually that difficult, especially if you’re using the right tool. You’ll  learn how to set useful objectives, how to build your tree, write your tasks, recruit participants, and measure results.

‍

Combining information architecture research methods 🏗

‍

If you are wanting a fully rounded view of your information architecture, it can be useful to combine your research methods.

‍

Tree testing and card sorting, along with usability testing, can give you insights into your users and audience. How do they think? How do they find their way through your product? And how do they want to see things labeled, organized, and sorted? 

‍

If you want to get fully into the comparison of tree testing and card sorting, take a look at our article here, which compares the options and explains which is best and when.