Product Managers: How Optimal Streamlines Your User Research

"Dear Optimal WorkshopMy question is about biasing users with the wording of questions. It seems that my co-workers and I spend too much time debating the wording of task items in usability tests or questions on surveys. Do you have any 'best practices' for wordings that evoke unbiased feedback from users?" — Dominic

‍

Dear Dominic, Oh I feel your pain! I once sat through a two hour meeting that was dominated by a discussion on the merits of question marks!It's funny how wanting to do right by users and clients can tangle us up like fine chains in an old jewellery box. In my mind, we risk provoking bias when any aspect of our research (from question wording to test environment) influences participants away from an authentic response. So there are important things to consider outside of the wording of questions as well. I'll share my favorite tips, and then follow it up with a must-read resource or two.

‍

Balance your open and closed questions

‍

The right balance of open and closed questions is essential to obtaining unbiased feedback from your users. Ask closed questions only when you want a very specific answer like 'How old are you?' or 'Are you employed?' and ask open questions when you want to gain an understanding of what they think or feel. For example, don’t ask the participant'Would you be pleased with that?' (closed question). Instead, ask 'How do you feel about that?' or even better 'How do you think that might work?' Same advice goes for surveys, and be sure to give participants enough space to respond properly — fifty characters isn’t going to cut it.

‍

Avoid using words that are linked to an emotion

‍

The above questions lead me to my next point — don’t use words like ‘happy’. Don’t ask if they like or dislike something. Planting emotion based words in a survey or usability test is an invite for them to tell you what they think you want to hear . No one wants to be seen as being disagreeable. If you word a question like this, chances are they will end up agreeing with the question itself, not the content or meaning behind it...does that make sense? Emotion based questions only serve to distract from the purpose of the testing — leave them at home.

‍

Keep it simple and avoid jargon

‍

No one wants to look stupid by not understanding the terms used in the question. If it’s too complicated, your user might just agree or tell you what they think you want to hear to avoid embarrassment. Another issue with jargon is that some terms may have multiple meanings which can trigger a biased reaction depending on the user’s understanding of the term. A friend of mine once participated in user testing where they were asked if what they were seeing made them feel ‘aroused’. From a psychology perspective, that means you’re awake and reacting to stimuli.

‍

From the user's perspective? I’ll let you fill in the blanks on that one. Avoid using long, wordy sentences when asking questions or setting tasks in surveys and usability testing. I’ve seen plenty of instances of overly complicated questions that make the user tune out (trust me, you would too!). And because people don't tend to admit their attention has wandered during a task, you risk getting a response that lacks authenticity — maybe even one that aims to please (just a thought...).

‍

Encourage participants to share their experiences (instead of tying them up in hypotheticals)

‍

Instead of asking your user what they think they would do in a given scenario, ask them to share an example of a time when they actually did do it. Try asking questions along the lines of 'Can you tell me about a time when you….?' or 'How many times in the last 12 months have you...?' Asking them to recall an experience they had allows you to gain factual insights from your survey or usability test, not hypothetical maybes that are prone to bias.

‍

Focus the conversation by asking questions in a logical order

‍

If you ask usability testing or survey questions in an order that doesn’t quite follow a logical flow, the user may think that the order holds some sort of significance which in turn may change the way they respond. It’s a good idea to ensure that the questions tell a story and follow a logical progression for example the steps in a process — don’t ask me if I’d be interested in registering for a service if you haven’t introduced the concept yet (you’d be surprised how often this happens!). For further reading on this, be sure to check out this great article from usertesting.com.

‍

More than words — the usability testing experience as a whole

‍

Reducing bias by asking questions the right way is really just one part of the picture. You can also reduce bias by influencing the wider aspects of the user testing process, and ensuring the participant is comfortable and relaxed.

‍

Don’t let the designer facilitate the testing

‍

This isn’t always possible, but it’s a good idea to try to get someone else to facilitate the usability testing on your design (and choose to observe if you like). This will prevent you from bringing your own bias into the room, and participants will be more comfortable being honest when the designer isn't asking the questions. I've seen participants visibly relax when I've told them I'm not the designer of a particular website, when it's apparent they've arrived expecting that to be the case.

‍

Minimize discomfort and give observers a role

‍

The more comfortable your participants are, with both the tester and the observer, the more they can be themselves. There are labs out there with two-way mirrors to hide observers, but in all honesty the police interrogation room isn’t always the greatest look! I prefer to have the observer in the testing room, while being conscious that participants may instinctively be uncomfortable with being observed. I’ve seen observer guidelines that insist observers (in the room) stay completely silent the entire time, but I think that can be pretty creepy for participants! Here's what works best (in my humble opinion).

‍

The facilitator leads the testing session, of course, but the observer is able to pipe up occasionally, mostly for clarification purposes, and certainly join in the welcoming, 'How's the weather?' chit chat before the session begins. In fact, when I observe usability testing, I like to be the one who collects the participant from the foyer. I’m the first person they see and it’s my job to make them feel welcome and comfortable, so when they find out I'll be observing, they know me already. Anything you can do to make the participant feel at home will increase the authenticity of their responses.

‍

A note to finish

‍

At the end of the day the reality is we’re all susceptible to bias. Despite your best efforts you’re never going to eradicate it completely, but just being aware of and understanding it goes a long way to reducing its impacts. Usability testing is, after all, something we design. I’ll leave you with this quote from Jeff Sauro's must-read article on 9 biases to watch out for in usability testing:

‍

"We do the best we can to simulate a scenario that is as close to what users would actually do .... However, no amount of realism in the tasks, data, software or environment can change the fact that the whole thing is contrived. This doesn't mean it's not worth doing."

‍

‍

For those new to the qualitative research space, there’s one question that’s usually pretty tough to figure out, and that’s the question of how many participants to include in a study. Regardless of whether it’s research as part of the discovery phase for a new product, or perhaps an in-depth canvas of the users of an existing service, researchers can often find it difficult to agree on the numbers. So is there an easy answer? Let’s find out.

‍

Here, we’ll look into the right number of participants for qualitative research studies. If you want to know about participants for quantitative research, read Nielsen Norman Group’s article.

‍

‍

Getting the numbers right

‍

So you need to run a series of user interviews or usability tests and aren’t sure exactly how many people you should reach out to. It can be a tricky situation – especially for those without much experience. Do you test a small selection of 1 or 2 people to make the recruitment process easier? Or, do you go big and test with a series of 10 people over the course of a month? The answer lies somewhere in between.

‍

It’s often a good idea (for qualitative research methods like interviews and usability tests) to start with 5 participants and then scale up by a further 5 based on how complicated the subject matter is. You may also find it helpful to add additional participants if you’re new to user research or you’re working in a new area.

‍

What you’re actually looking for here is what’s known as saturation.

‍

‍

Understanding saturation

‍

Whether it’s qualitative research as part of a master’s thesis or as research for a new online dating app, saturation is the best metric you can use to identify when you’ve hit the right number of participants.

‍

In a nutshell, saturation is when you’ve reached the point where adding further participants doesn’t give you any further insights. It’s true that you may still pick up on the occasional interesting detail, but all of your big revelations and learnings have come and gone. A good measure is to sit down after each session with a participant and analyze the number of new insights you’ve noted down.

‍

Interestingly, in a paper titled How Many Interviews Are Enough?, authors Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce and Laura Johnson noted that saturation usually occurs with around 12 participants in homogeneous groups (meaning people in the same role at an organization, for example). However, carrying out ethnographic research on a larger domain with a diverse set of participants will almost certainly require a larger sample.

‍

‍

Ensuring you’ve hit the right number of participants

‍

How do you know when you’ve reached saturation point? You have to keep conducting interviews or usability tests until you’re no longer uncovering new insights or concepts.

‍

While this may seem to run counter to the idea of just gathering as much data from as many people as possible, there’s a strong case for focusing on a smaller group of participants. In The logic of small samples in interview-based, authors Mira Crouch and Heather McKenzie note that using fewer than 20 participants during a qualitative research study will result in better data. Why? With a smaller group, it’s easier for you (the researcher) to build strong close relationships with your participants, which in turn leads to more natural conversations and better data.

‍

There's also a school of thought that you should interview 5 or so people per persona. For example, if you're working in a company that has well-defined personas, you might want to use those as a basis for your study, and then you would interview 5 people based on each persona. This maybe worth considering or particularly important when you have a product that has very distinct user groups (e.g. students and staff, teachers and parents etc).

‍

‍

How your domain affects sample size

‍

The scope of the topic you’re researching will change the amount of information you’ll need to gather before you’ve hit the saturation point. Your topic is also commonly referred to as the domain.

‍

If you’re working in quite a confined domain, for example, a single screen of a mobile app or a very specific scenario, you’ll likely find interviews with 5 participants to be perfectly fine. Moving into more complicated domains, like the entire checkout process for an online shopping app, will push up your sample size.

‍

As Mitchel Seaman notes: “Exploring a big issue like young peoples’ opinions about healthcare coverage, a broad emotional issue like postmarital sexuality, or a poorly-understood domain for your team like mobile device use in another country can drastically increase the number of interviews you’ll want to conduct.”

‍

‍

In-person or remote

‍

Does the location of your participants change the number you need for qualitative user research? Well, not really – but there are other factors to consider.

‍

• Budget: If you choose to conduct remote interviews/usability tests, you’ll likely find you’ve got lower costs as you won’t need to travel to your participants or have them travel to you. This also affects…
• Participant access: Remote qualitative research can be a lifesaver when it comes to participant access. No longer are you confined to the people you have physical access to, instead you can reach out to anyone you’d like.
• Quality: On the other hand, remote research does have its downsides. For one, you’ll likely find you’re not able to build the same kinds of relationships over the internet or phone as those in person, which in turn means you never quite get the same level of insights.

‍

‍

Is there value in outsourcing recruitment?

‍

Recruitment is understandably an intensive logistical exercise with many moving parts. If you’ve ever had to recruit people for a study before, you’ll understand the need for long lead times (to ensure you have enough participants for the project) and the countless long email chains as you discuss suitable times.

‍

Outsourcing your participant recruitment is just one way to lighten the logistical load during your research. Instead of having to go out and look for participants, you have them essentially delivered to you in the right number and with the right attributes.

‍

We’ve got one such service at Optimal, which means it’s the perfect accompaniment if you’re also using our platform of UX tools. Read more about that here.

‍

‍

Wrap-up

‍

So that’s really most of what there is to know about participant recruitment in a qualitative research context. As we said at the start, while it can appear quite tricky to figure out exactly how many people you need to recruit, it’s actually not all that difficult in reality.

‍

Overall, the number of participants you need for your qualitative research can depend on your project among other factors. It’s important to keep saturation in mind, as well as the locale of participants. You also need to get the most you can out of what’s available to you. Remember: Some research is better than none!

Lately, I’ve found myself sitting in the participant’s chair at the UX research table more and more and it’s been an eye-opening collection of experiences. As UX researchers, we’re definitely not our users, but we are someone else’s. We use products, services and tools too! I’ve recently discovered that participating in user research not only helps out a fellow UXer with their qualitative research, but has also helped me grow my skills.

‍

Here are 3 reasons why you should try being a participant for yourself.

‍

1. Build empathy for the participant experience 🫶

‍

Having facilitated hundreds of UX research sessions over the years, I didn’t think I would be as nervous as I was going in as a participant! When we design our research sessions we don’t often give our participants a heads up on what we’re going to talk about because we don’t want to influence them for one, but truly not knowing what to expect made me feel slightly jittery. Before and at the beginning of these experiences, I felt quite unprepared. I wasn’t expecting to feel that way.

‍

During these sessions I often found myself wondering things like: Were my answers detailed enough? Will my responses be kept confidential? (I could never seem to remember if that had been covered in the introduction!). I worried that I wasn’t giving helpful responses or if I was talking too much. When misunderstandings arose in the conversation, I felt responsible and I was kicking myself for not communicating clearly enough!

‍

As a participant, I completely lost track of time during the session and developed an entirely new appreciation for timekeeping as a facilitator! I could have talked well beyond the scope of the interview timeframe and needed to be kept on track.

‍

I also very quickly discovered that thinking aloud is a lot harder to do than it sounds. It’s not a simple matter of verbalizing your thoughts as they happen. You have to think them, process them, decide how to verbalize them and then talk – all while someone (often a complete stranger) is looking at you expectantly and eagerly. It’s awkward and it feels weird. And look, it is widely acknowledged that it’s challenging and unnatural, but I didn’t fully appreciate or understand that until I was required to do it myself in a research environment.

‍

Did I experience some of these thoughts and feelings because I’m a UX researcher and I know what the other side looks and feels like? Maybe. It’s certainly possible and I’d be remiss if I didn’t call out this potential bias, but I do feel that having done this I now have a greater capacity to empathize with the participant experience. I’ve now been on the receiving end of the introductory spiel (and tuned out during it!), I’ve now got first-hand experience with the on-the-spot answering of those questions we carefully craft and I’ve scrambled for words when I’ve been asked to explain why I said what I said.

‍

These experiences have taught me that there’s a good chance the participant is just as nervous as I am and that a little reassurance or confirmation of usefulness goes a very long way. I’ve learned that regardless of the skill or experience of the researcher, interview questions can be super confusing and hard to answer. Having questions rephrased and being told that what I shared was helpful made me feel significantly more comfortable and able to think clearly and open up more - therefore providing more value to the researcher.

‍

I’ve also been itching to find out what happened next after the sessions ended. Was I helpful and in what way? Where did the insight I provided lead? I’ve learned that while we walk away with more questions, so might our participants and what can we do about that? We’re so busy, but stopping for a moment further down the track if/where possible to reach out and say ‘Hey, I just thought you might like to see what we did with all that great information you shared with us’ might be nice. It’s not always practical or possible and sometimes we have to wait until the thing goes live, but it’s food for thought.

‍

2. Learn from other researcher’s styles 📚

‍

Every UX researcher is different and we all have our own approaches and styles. As a notetaker for other researchers, I’ve always enjoyed having the opportunity to observe them in action, but somehow experiencing it as a participant felt different in the best possible way. It felt more immersive. Perhaps it was because I didn’t have to think about anything else or observe the participant’s reactions and was able to absorb every second of that experience as it was happening to me rather than in front of me.

‍

I participated in a usability testing session with two researchers - one facilitating and one taking notes - and the notetaker was so unobtrusive and quiet that I completely forgot they were there! They said a quick hello at the beginning of the session and then sat back behind me and blended in with the furniture and didn’t make a sound until they piped up with a question at the very end. Note taking is such a grossly underrated UX research skill. There’s a lot to think about, a lot to avoid thinking about (e.g., jumping into solution right there in the session) and of course we have to be mindful of the potential impact of our behavior on the participant, but this went beyond stifling disappointment or resisting the urge to speak. This was a dignified and seamlessly elegant note taker existence unlike anything I have ever seen.

‍

In other sessions as a user interview participant I was delighted when researchers injected multiple moments of humor into those previously mentioned introductory spiel snooze fests. It did more than just make me feel comfortable - humor helped me focus better on what was being said and remember important details during and well after the session had ended.

‍

I also learned a thing or two about comfortable silences when I participated in a contextual session with two researchers. One researcher kept prodding and repeatedly asking questions while the other exuded a quiet and calm demeanor and simply patiently waited for me to complete my task and talk about it in my own time (and way). It won’t work in all situations or with all participants, but it made me feel relaxed and comfortable enough to talk through what I was thinking and seeing. This approach also made thinking aloud easier for me.

‍

It’s important to remember that it doesn’t matter if you’re an experienced UX researcher or if you’re just starting out, everyone can learn something new from another researcher and stepping up into a session as an actual participant is a great way to do that.

‍

3. Give back and grow our industry 🌱

‍

One of my favourite things about the UX industry has always been its sense of community. We’re a group of people who care. We care about our users, we care about each other and we care about our capability as an industry and where we’re headed. Agreeing to be a participant in another researcher’s study is a great way to give back.

‍

As I mentioned earlier, we use products and services too and in addition to this, there’s a whole heap of them out there designed just for us! It makes sense that in the same way that we as researchers ask our own customers and users to help us design better products, we should be open to doing the same for the people who design for us.

‍

The cool thing about being a participant who is also a researcher is that we pick up issues other people might not. We might be a little tougher and less likely to let a usability issue slide. We might be the person that provides the external and fresh-eyed validation a researcher needs to convince a stakeholder that a design needs to be changed or worked on some more. A researcher in the participant’s chair is a powerful hybrid - it’s a participant and expert reviewer in one.

‍

As a general rule of thumb, if you’re invited to participate in another researcher’s study, I do think it’s best to always be upfront with them about who you are and what you do so that they can determine if you are potentially too biased to be included. It’s their study and informed consent matters. Think about what you would want as a researcher. And if they’re specifically asking you to participate because you’re a researcher - that’s awesome!

‍

So those are just some of the reasons why you should take a spin in the participant’s chair. Professional development is a lifelong learning process for us all. I’m looking forward to implementing what I’ve learned from these experiences and continuing to plonk myself in that participant chair to keep growing my perspective and helping out other researchers along the way.

‍

Happy researching (and participating)!