What are the benefits of specializing in a specific user research method?

The effectiveness of research and testing methodologies hinges significantly on the composition of the user pool. The ideal scenario involves a diverse group of individuals as this diversity ensures a broad spectrum of opinions and perspectives. This approach proves particularly beneficial in obtaining varied insights and enriching the design process. In my present workplace, I developed an intranet tool tailored for a user base of fewer than 50 individuals. The methodology employed includes soliciting feedback from these users during the design phase, ensuring that the intranet solution aligns with their current needs and work practices.

There is a bit of a dance here. On the one hand, being “uncomfortably narrow” in your presentation of yourself can help you and others get a clear idea of who you are and what you can deliver, but bringing in breadth helps you be a more effective partner. Our employers and partners may be looking for one thing (e.g. Someone to run usability tests) but actually need something different (for example, to do site visits to understand the context where their products are consumed). Your real expertise comes from being able to assess what is really needed and be able to provide that or resource it. So the narrow lens might help you get your foot in the door, but the breadth is going to help you be successful.

If you're a new UX Researcher, deepening your knowledge in various methods of research should be a key part of your growth. Becoming comfortable or not remaining curious you risk stagnating early on in your career. Specialising in a specific method will take practice and time, and it may mean you take that bit longer on a particular research study, but the results will be worth it. If you're worried about the time it may take or the risks it may have on that particular research study, speak to your boss and explain you want to improve and become a better researcher! Being open and transparent will add to your willingness to be a better employee and in turn, researcher.

Why is mixed methods research becoming the new norm? The prime reason is that one cannot weave the entire story with either quantitative or qualitative data. Using different methods according to the stage of design is key! I love Scott Adams concept of a talent stack that says there are two paths to extraordinary: 1. Become the best at one specific thing. 2. Become very good (top 25%) at two or more things. Can you guess which path is the way to go? “The first strategy is difficult to the point of near impossibility. Few people will ever play in the NBA or make a platinum album. I don’t recommend anyone even try. The second strategy is fairly easy. Everyone has at least a few areas in which they could be in the top 25% with some effort.”

Being an asset to a team and being able to work with others is always a balance between breadth and depth. I struggled early in my career for being seen as too much of a "generalist." No one wants a generalist, so the feedback went. Ironically I evolved into a specialist, perhaps too specialized? We started talking about T-shaped people at one point - a breadth of skills with deep knowledge in one area. And then that became the "broken comb" - many shallow skills and any number of deeper skills of various depths. What suits you? If you're thinking about this for yourself, you might find some value in the Research Skills Framework (research skills dot net).