Are we exaggerating when we say that the way the researchers run and analyze user interviews hasn’t changed in 20 years? We don’t think so. When we talk to our customers to try and understand their current workflows, they look exactly the same as they did when we started this business 17 years ago: record, transcribe, analyze manually, create reports. See the problem?

‍

Despite  advances in technology across every industry, the fundamental process of conducting and analyzing user interviews has remained largely unchanged. While we've transformed how we design, develop, and deploy products, the way we understand our users is still trapped in workflows that would feel familiar to product, design and research teams from decades ago.

‍

The Same Old Interview Analysis Workflow 

‍

For most researchers, in the best case scenario, Interview analysis can take several hours over the span of multiple days. Yet in that same timeframe, in part thanks to new and emerging AI tools, an engineering team can design, build, test, and deploy new features. That just doesn't make sense.

‍

The problem isn't that researchers  lack tools. It's that they haven’t had the right ones. Most tools focus on transcription and storage, treating interviews like static documents rather than dynamic sources of intelligence. Testing with just 5 users can uncover 85% of usability problems, yet most teams struggle to complete even basic analysis in time to influence product decisions. Luckily, things are finally starting to change.

‍

When it comes to user research, three things are happening in the industry right now that are forcing a transformation:

‍

1. The rise of AI means UX research matters more than ever. With AI accelerating product development cycles, the cost of building the wrong thing has never been higher. Companies that invest in UX early cut development time by 33-50%, and with AI, that advantage compounds exponentially.
2. We're drowning in data and have fewer resources.  We’re seeing the need for UX research increase, while simultaneously UX research teams are more resource constrained than ever. Tasks like analyzing hours of video content to gather insights, just isn’t something teams have time for anymore. 
3. AI finally understands research. AI has evolved to a place where it can actually provide valuable insights. Not just transcription. Real research intelligence that recognizes patterns, emotions, and the gap between what users say and what they actually mean.

‍

A Dirty Little Research Secret + A Solution 

‍

We’re just going to say it; most user insights from interviews never make it past the recording stage. When it comes to talking to users, the vast majority of researchers in our audience talk about recruiting pain because the most commonly discussed challenge around interviews is usually finding enough participants who match their criteria. But on top of the challenge of finding the right people to talk to, there’s another challenge that’s even worse: finding time to analyze what users tell us. But, what if you had a tool where using AI, the moment you uploaded an interview video, key themes, pain points, and opportunities surfaced automatically? What if you could ask your interview footage questions and get back evidence-based answers with video citations?

‍

This isn't about replacing human expertise, it's about augmenting  it. AI-powered tools can process and categorize data within hours or days, significantly reducing workload. But more importantly, they can surface patterns and connections that human analysts might miss when rushing through analysis under deadline pressure. Thanks to AI, we're witnessing the beginning of a research renaissance and a big part of that is reimagining the way we do user interviews.

‍

Why AI for User Interviews is a Game Changer 

‍

When interview analysis accelerates from weeks to hours, everything changes.

‍

Product teams can validate ideas before building them. Design teams can test concepts in real-time. Engineering teams can prioritize features based on actual user need, not assumptions. Product, Design and Research teams who embrace AI to help with these workflows, will be surfacing insights, generating evidence-backed recommendations, and influencing product decisions at the speed of thought.

‍

We know that 32% of all customers would stop doing business with a brand they loved after one bad experience. Talking to your users more often makes it possible to prevent these experiences by acting on user feedback before problems become critical. When every user insight comes with video evidence, when every recommendation links to supporting clips, when every user story includes the actual user telling it, research stops being opinion and becomes impossible to ignore. When you can more easily gather, analyze and share the content from user interviews those real user voices start to get referenced in executive meetings. Product decisions begin to include user clips. Engineering sprints start to reference actual user needs. Marketing messages reflect real user voices and language.

The best product, design and research teams are already looking for tools that can support this transformation. They know that when interviews become intelligent, the entire organization becomes more user-centric. At Optimal, we're focused on improving the traditional user interviews workflow by incorporating revolutionary AI features into our tools. Stay tuned for exciting updates on how we're reimagining user interviews.

The accuracy of your data collection is crucial in qualitative research. It is vital that nothing is lost in translation or simply missed from the point of collection to analysis, and our latest release makes this even easier to achieve. You can now directly import interview transcripts into Qualitative Insights (previously known as Reframer), allowing you and your team to capture and tag observations effortlessly while maintaining the integrity of the information. Get ready to experience a new level of efficiency in your qualitative research!

‍

The importance of transcription ✍🏽

‍

Whether you are conducting interviews alone or with the support of your team, it’s important to prioritize building connections with participants rather than struggling to take notes and ask the right questions. Transcripts ensure you avoid losing crucial insights and context as you move from data collection to analysis and reduce the likelihood of human errors and missed observations that sometimes occur during live note-taking sessions. 

‍

It also enables smooth collaboration among team members by allowing them to review interviews and contribute to the analysis, even if they weren't present.

‍

How to import a transcript to Qualitative Insights

‍

Watch the video 📽️ 👀

‍

You can add a transcript to a new or existing study in Qualitative Insights with just a few clicks. After recording an interview or user testing session, open your Qualitative Insights study and click ‘Sessions’ then ‘+ Transcript.’

‍

‍

Add a session title, any session information or a link to the video for future reference in the session information box. If you have created segments, choose which ones apply to this participant; you can update these later at any time. Then click ‘import transcript.’

‍

‍

Click ‘Select transcript’ and ensure you made any edits before importing it. This feature supports .vtt, .srt, or .txt files. Now, click Capture observations’ to complete the import and create and tag your observations.

‍

‍

You will see your transcript displayed. If you use a .vtt or .srt file, you will see the speaker names have been identified. You can update the speaker names by clicking on configure speakers.

‍

‍

How to create observations

‍

To create observations from your transcript, simply highlight text, enter a new tag or select an existing one, then click create an observation.

‍

‍

There is no limit to how many transcripts you can import. This means you can import all your past and future interviews, ensuring all your research data is in one place for easy access and analysis.

If you're more of a visual person, you can watch a 20 minute talk which explains how to use the narrative arc in your in-person research.

The power of stories

Stories are powerful things. You don’t need me to tell you that! You’ve probably read a book, seen a play, a film or a TV series and thought: “Man*, that was brilliant! The way they drew all those threads together in that last scene. I was totally with them!”

We’ve been telling each other stories for millennia - they were the way we explained the world around us as well as the way in which we entertained ourselves.

From an early age, the logic of stories is hard-wired into our minds through repetition. This is why, two thirds of the way through a story you have a fair idea of where things are headed and can take a good guess at what is going to happen in the end.

*Except you didn't say 'Man', as you aren't as old as me.

The narrative arc

In 1863 Freytag developed this pyramid which he used to explain what was happening in stories:

• EXPOSITION: The characters, the context are introduced
• INCITING INCIDENT: Something happens to begin the action
• RISING ACTION: The story builds
• STORY CLIMAX: The point of greatest tension
• FALLING ACTION: Events that happen as a result of the climax
• RESOLUTION: The problem is wrapped up and solved
• DENOUEMENT: The end, what happens to our characters

Many, many stories follow this arc; they may miss off the exposition or skip the resolution but they will have that story climax where all the threads come together.

The narrative arc in in-person research

So, the narrative arc is interesting, but how does it relate to in-person research? How does knowing the plot of Little Red Riding Hood help you become a better researcher?

The problem with in-person research

In-person research can be very nerve-wracking for you and for your participants.

I’ve seen people conducting interviews who know what they want to find out get lost in futile questions having taken the wrong turn, or ‘spoiling’ an interview by revealing too much about the subject or mentioning it too soon.

Participants can also find interviews nerve-wracking. They might struggle to understand the context of questioning and may feel they have ‘done a bad job’ as they haven’t given useful answers. As apparently random questions come at them, they can feel off balance and concerned. The whole experience can start to feel like a police interview*. There’s no thread for them to follow.

*Real police interviews are not like they are shown on TV. Real police interviews are thorough, repetitive, detailed and rational. No shouting or table-tipping.

Let’s look at the steps in the narrative arc and how they apply to an in-person research situation.

Exposition

Start the story by introducing the characters - yourself and who else is in attendance but also give the participant the chance to say something about themselves.

Give a little backstory or context about the research - not so much that you ‘give away the plot.’ Explain ‘why we’re here’, let the participant answer some really simple questions so that they can get some 'runs on the board' and get over any nerves.

Inciting incident

Ask the first question that gets things moving. Usually something that lets the participant give their context. For example, “Tell me about the last time you…”

Rising action

Here’s where you can ask questions that build on each other and let the participant really expand on their story. Your job is to guide them towards the story climax which is where you hit them with your most important question.

The trick in the rising action is to reduce the bias as much as you can by carefully ordering and phrasing the questions so that you don’t give away too much and so the participant can respond without feeling driven to an answer.

Climax

You've got your participant to the point where they have all of the context to answer your most important question or questions, so go ahead and ask them.

Strictly speaking in stories, you tend only to have one story climax. In your research you may have several, but not so many that the participant feels like a quote machine. The story climax is going to line up with the research objectives you set before you wrote your discussion guide. If it doesn’t, your research is not going to give you the insights you were looking for.

Falling action

Now that the cat's out of the bag, your participant will understand why you asked some of the questions in the rising action. Go ahead and give them the chance to reflect. You can also tie up those loose ends, things you skated over as they might color the key response: “So earlier, when I asked you about X you said Y. Tell me about that.”

Resolution

Every session ends with a final word from the participant. People like to ask the ‘what if you had a magic wand’ question, but I find it better to ask about people’s feelings towards something. Whether that’s an existing issue or a future opportunity.

Denouement

It’s a fancy French term for 'ending' and all sessions must have one. This is where you thank the participant for their time, give them their incentive, encourage them to reach out if they have further thoughts. For some participants, it's important as they may have all the time in the world and need to be given the right signals that ‘we’re done, thanks’!

Summary

Use the narrative arc to help you order your thoughts when you're writing your discussion guide and when running your sessions.

If your in-person session shows clear drive in a direction - has subtle guiding story cues - even if the participant doesn’t know exactly where you are heading, they will be able to contribute meaningfully. The arc of the story that you are both telling will provide enough context for them to answer each question you ask - at the point you ask it.

Furthermore, your participant will leave your session feeling good about the experience and your organization. It’s a win-win!

The only tool you need to power your entire qualitative research workflow is here. We’re excited to announce the new and improved Reframer is now live for all customers!

‍

What is qualitative research?

‍

It’s an integral part of any research journey. Think: customer or stakeholder interviews, prototype testing, A/B testing, moderated interviews, and open-ended questions. In a nutshell, it’s anything that isn’t a closed question.

‍

It’s also the most popular research method – 85% of people who do research conduct interviews and usability tests as part of their projects or workflows.

‍

‍

How can Reframer help me with my qualitative research?

‍

It’s no secret that anyone conducting research is time-poor. Qualitative research is especially time-consuming and messy, as it’s almost always conducted across multiple tools or mediums. 

‍

Reframer gives you your time back, and enables you to manage your entire qualitative research workflow within one single tool. 

‍

From setting up and conducting interviews, through to analyzing your data – you can uncover those juicy insights in days, not weeks (or months) without ever having to leave the Optimal Workshop app.

‍

Powerful, in depth tagging and analysis tools

‍

Analyzing and making sense of your interview or usability testing data with Reframer is easy and flexible (not to mention very aesthetically pleasing!)  

‍

Visualize and group observations with the affinity map

‍

Affinity mapping is a flexible and visual way to quickly group, organize and make sense of qualitative data (i.e. post-its and whiteboards). 

‍

With Reframer, affinity mapping is more powerful than ever. Your observations, tags and themes are all connected and stored in one place. It’s easy to search and filter your data, group like observations by proximity, then review and sort them in table format. 

‍

‍

Discover patterns with the theme builder

‍

The Themes tab offers tag-based analysis with powerful filters. It enables you to explore the relationships between your observations and then create themes based on these relationships. This gives you more quantifiable results to support the qualitative, observation-based analysis that you’ve done in the affinity map. 

‍

‍

Explore connections between tags with the chord diagram

‍

The chord diagram is a beautifully visual way to easily explore the relationships between your tagged observations and spot key themes. 

‍

If you’ve got a lot of tags, it may look a little overwhelming to start with. But don’t let that fool you – it’s easy to get the hang of, and once you do, you’ll wonder how you ever analyzed data without it!

‍

‍

Real-time collaboration with your team

‍

We recommend that you conduct qualitative research as a team, whenever you can. Reframer makes this easy – it was built with collaboration in mind. 

‍

Invite study members

‍

On an Optimal Workshop team plan, you can work together from start to finish. Team members can take notes and create or use tags during interview sessions. In the affinity map, you can work collaboratively to group and edit observations in real-time. 

‍

Invite guest notetakers

‍

If you just need an extra helping hand with taking notes during your interviews or usability tests, you can invite guest notetakers to your sessions. Guest notetakers can take notes in the sessions you invite them to, but can’t see notes taken by others or analyze data.

‍

The guest notetakers feature is a great way to involve your wider team or stakeholders in your user research activities.

‍

Share your findings

‍

Need the raw data from your interviews? Want to share your affinity map visuals with other team members? Both are easily downloadable with the click of a button!

‍

‍

An intuitive, end-to-end workflow

‍

When it comes to conducting qualitative research, Reframer is faster, easier and tidier than using other digital (or manual) tools. It houses all your data and insights in one place and supports the collaborative nature of qualitative research. 

‍

It’s not just for seasoned researchers either. We’ve put special focus on ensuring that the analysis is easy to learn for anyone doing qualitative research, regardless of skill level. And our in-app guidance will have you up to speed in no time.

‍

So what are you waiting for? Login now and get started on your Reframer journey!

Want to do great user research? Maybe you already have tonnes of quantitative research done through testing, surveys and checking. Data galore! Now you really want to get under the skin of your users, understand the why behind their decisions. Getting human-centric with products can mean creating better performing, stronger and more intuitive products that provide an awesome user experience (UX). An in-depth understanding of your users and how they tick can mean the difference between designing products that just work and products that intuitively speak your users language, make them happy, engaged and keep them coming back.

This is where qualitative research comes into play. Understanding how your users tick becomes clearer through user interviews. Interviewing users will provide human insights that make all the difference, the nuance that pulls your product or interface out of the fray and into the light. 

How do you interview confidently? Whether this is your first foray into the world of user interviewing or wanting to step up your game, there are a few common pitfalls along the way. We cover off 7 of the most common mistakes, and how to avoid them, helping you avoid these on your way to interview greatness! 

How do you conduct a user research interview?

There are several ways of doing qualitative user research.  Here we will talk about in-person user interviews. Great user interviewing is a skill in itself. And relies on great prep, quality participants and excellent analysis of the results. But don’t be put off, all of this can be learned, and with the right environment and tools can be simple to implement.  Want to find out more in detail about how to conduct an interview? Take a look here.

Even if you’re an old hand we’re not all gifted interviewing experts, it’s okay if you lack expertise. In fact, totally nailing interview technique is almost impossible thanks to a ton of different factors. It's your job to keep what you can under control, and record the interview well in the moment for later analysis. Keeping safe all those lovely human centric insights you unearth. 

Here are seven practical user research interview mistakes you could be making, and how to fix them:

1. Not having enough participants

It can be intimidating doing any sort of user research. Particularly when you need to find participants. And a random selection, not just those down the hall in the next office (though sometimes they can be great). And getting a large enough pool of participants that make the data meaningful, and the insights impactful.

Not to worry, there are ways to find a giant pool of reliable interview participants. Either dive into existing users that you are familiar with, and they with you. Or get in touch with us to recruit a small or large sample of participants. 

2. Not knowing enough about your interview participants

Interviews are two-way streets, so if you’re hoping to encourage anyone to be open and honest in an interview setting you’ll need to do your homework on the person you’re interviewing. This may not always be applicable if you’re looking for a truly random sample of people. Understanding a little more about your participants should help the conversation flow, and when you do go off-script, it is natural and curiosity driven.

3. Not creating an open interview environment

Everything about your user interview environment affects the outcome of the interview. Your participants need to feel confident and comfortable. The space needs to remove as many distractions as possible. A comfortable workstation, laptop that works, and even the air conditioning at a good temperature can all play a part in providing a relaxed environment. So when it comes to the interview they are able to demonstrate and explain their behaviour or decisions on their own terms.

Of course, in this modern day, the availability of remote and virtual interviewing has changed the game slightly. Allowing your participants to be in their own environment can be beneficial. Be careful to take note of what you can see about their space. Is it crowded, dim, busy or noisy? If you don’t have full control over the environment be sure to note this in a factual way.

4. Not having a note-taker in the room

Good note-taking is a skill in its own right and it’s important to have someone skilled at it. Bringing a dedicated note-taker into the user interviews also frees you up to focus on your participant and your interviewing. Allowing the conversation to flow. Leaving the note-taker to focus on marking down all of the relevant points of interest. 

5. Using a bad recording setup

Deciding to audio (and/or video) record the interview is a great option. When choosing this option, recording can be  possibly the most important aspect of the interview setup process. Being able to focus on the interview without worrying about your recording equipment is key. Make sure that your recording equipment is high quality and in a central position to pick up everything you discuss - don’t trip at the first hurdle and be left with unusable data. 

A dedicated note-taker can still be of value in the room, they can monitor the recording and note any environmental or contextual elements of the interview process. Taking the stress off of you for the recording set up, and any adjustments.

Another option is Reframer. It’s a great recording tool that can free you up to focus on your participant and the interview. Reframer will audio record your interview,auto time-stamp and provide a standardized format for recording all of your interviews. Post analysis becomes simple and quick. And even quicker to share the data and insights.

6. Not taking the time to prepare your interview questions

Lack of preparation can be a fatal error for any user research and user interviews are no different. Interviews are a qualitative research method, and your questions don’t need to be as strict as those in a quantitative questionnaire, for example. However, you will still need a standardised script to regulate your user interviews and make sure all of your participants are asked the same set of questions. Always leaving plenty of room to go off script to get under the skin of why your participant interacts with your product in a particular way!

7. Not having a plan of action for organizing your data

Qualitative data is unstructured, which can make it hard to organize and analyze. Recording and including all of your interviews on one platform so you can analyze the insights and conclusions together makes it easier to review.  Reframer can do all of this in one place allowing all of your organizational stakeholders access to the data. 

Don’t miss anything in your interviews, you put in the time, the effort and the investment into doing them. Make sure that they are recorded, available and analyzed in one place. For the team to see, use and report against.

Wrap Up

User interviews can be intimidating, to organise, to prep for and even finding your participants can be hard. But user interviews needn’t be too much of a headache. With the Optimal Workshop platform, we take the pain out of the process with participant selection, recording, analyzing and reporting.

If you want a single platform to record, analyze and store your data, take a look at Optimal Workshop and Reframer. And get interviewing!

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)!