Research Democratisation: From Purism to Pragmatism – Reflections from #UX360 Berlin

At this year’s #UX360 Research Summit in Berlin, I had the pleasure of joining a panel discussion on one of the most hotly debated topics in our field: The Democratisation of UX research.

Moderated by Javier Andrés Bargas-Avila (ex-Google, now at Astrolabium), the panel featured:

• Helen Devine , Lloyds Bank

• Yoel Sumitro Delivery Hero

• Rosanna Sibora 🧠 ➕ ❤️ Digital Health Agency

• And myself

It was a lively and honest conversation, full of contrasts, but also moments of common ground.

From Anti-Democratisation to Framed Enablement

I’ll be honest: I used to be firmly against democratising research.

In the early stages of building UX research inside organisations, when the discipline was still fighting for legitimacy, it was frustrating, even infuriating, to see product managers or designers with no research background conducting studies and drawing questionable conclusions. The risks were (and still are) real:

1. Can these results be trusted?

2. Will the business make decisions based on them?

3. And if so, who will be held accountable?

The truth is: it’s usually us, the Heads, Directors, and Research manager.

But over time, I have softened. Today, I oversee nearly 200 research projects a year, and that’s after ruthless prioritisation. Even with a strong team of 27 researchers, including leads, managers, and principals, we simply can’t do it all. We need to focus on impact and ROI, avoid overloading our researchers, and be thoughtful about what we take on. That means making some tough decisions about how to manage what we can’t do.

That said, let’s be very clear: this is not about handing over the researcher’s job to others.

Allowing designers to conduct unmoderated usability testing within a structured framework, with support from the research team, is not the same as replacing researchers. It’s a way to scale responsibly, not a strategy for cutting headcount. If anything, it reinforces the value of trained specialists and protects the credibility of the research function.

Contrasts and Common Ground on the Panel

• Yoel Sumitro shared a similar journey. Initially against democratisation, he shifted his stance out of necessity, with a ratio of one researcher to eight designers, he drew the line between tactical, product-focused research (which can be democratised) and strategic, foundational research (which must remain with specialists).

• Helen Devine reflected on her work at The Economist, where she promoted democratisation through training and coaching. Now at Lloyds Bank, a heavily regulated organisation, she takes a more cautious approach. One of her key concerns was the development of junior researchers, if they’re not involved in hands-on usability work, how do they grow?

• Rosanna Sibora took a broader perspective, advocating for research skills as life skills. She argued that empathy, curiosity, and analytical thinking should be taught as early as school. Democratisation, in her view, starts with education and can benefit entire organisations and societies, not just product teams.

My Approach to Research Democratisation

Over the past few years, I’ve developed a clear and structured approach that allows for scale while maintaining rigour:

• Training sessions (delivered in-house and via vendors) to help designers understand research methods and tools

• A UXR surgery, where designers can seek live support and feedback from researchers

• A Research Factory model focused on quick-turnaround moderated design testing, with defined sprints, templates, and timelines

• Rotational participation in the Research Factory, all researchers, from juniors to seniors, take part. This ensures that everyone stays hands-on, reinforces foundational skills, and keeps the team connected

• A robust intake and prioritisation process, balancing business impact with team capacity and individual development

Every project is allocated with care. Together with my leads and managers, we ensure that what we prioritise matters, for the business and for the researcher’s growth. This balance is fundamental to keeping people motivated and to sustaining long-term research excellence.

A Word of Caution

Do not democratise research unless your organisation is ready.

I've seen what happens when research isn’t valued properly. In 2022, I was laid off along with my entire team, as the business decided to outsource research to agencies. It was brutal, but not uncommon. Research teams are often the first to go in a downturn, and democratisation, if done carelessly, can accelerate that risk.

Since then, I’ve rebuilt. I now run a growing research team, but I do it strategically. When someone leaves, even at senior level, I often backfill with a junior. When a team member goes on maternity leave, I bring in someone at a lower level on a fixed-term contract. This way, I grow the team responsibly, keep the budget under control, and invest in the next generation of researchers.

Final Thoughts

Democratisation isn’t just about who gets to run usability tests, it’s about risk, rigour, and responsibility.

Before embracing democratisation, ask yourself:

• Who will be using the insights from the research?

• Is it a designer wanting to test a few concepts?

• Or are you informing the development of a high-stakes feature, one that could significantly increase revenue or reduce costs?

And then go further:

• Will you trust that the research has been designed and conducted properly?

• Will the methods used be appropriate and rigorous?

• Will the analysis be reliable?

• Will the findings be interpreted with objectivity and neutrality?

Because if something goes wrong, if the findings are flawed, biased, or misinterpreted, and the business acts on them, the consequences can be serious. Not only financially, but also for research as a discipline.

When that happens, it’s not the person who ran the test who is held responsible, but you. If you’re leading research in your organisation, you are accountable for everything that carries the name “research.” You’ll be the one questioned. You’ll be the one explaining.

That’s why you must see yourself not just as a leader but as a gatekeeper. It is your responsibility to put the right frameworks and processes in place to limit risk to protect the organisation, your team, and, ultimately, the credibility of the entire research community.

Democratisation should never mean dilution. If we’re going to do this, we must do it deliberately, with intent, with structure, and with strong leadership.

As research leaders, we must not just adapt to this shift. We must lead it wisely and with integrity.