Research has settled in for good in the world of design. Their role and influence is constantly growing, and researchers and researchers are more and more often invited to the processes of shaping business goals and priorities. At the panel, we will talk about new challenges faced by researchers and look for good practices that may facilitate our next research process.
Watch this WaysConf session, then continue with related talks or explore the current programme.
A long-form panel on the role of research in product development, including who should receive findings, how workshops and maps spread understanding, why initial briefs rarely describe the real work, and how experienced researchers investigate early warning signs. The speakers discuss bias, triangulation, constrained studies, behavioral observation, and projects whose evidence indicates the requested direction is impossible. Research is framed as an organizational learning system: findings should reach the people who can act, uncertainty should remain visible, and even uncomfortable evidence must affect the product decision.
Research is democratized when evidence reaches decision-makers and collaborators in a form they can use, not merely a specialist archive.
Watch from 3:39Workshop maps and other outputs capture how the group interpreted evidence and support later ideation and prioritization.
Watch from 11:33Research work rarely arrives fully known, so teams must investigate assumptions before treating a requested timeline as reliable.
Watch from 20:01A yellow or red flag should prompt questions about priorities, incentives, and what problem is actually being presented.
Watch from 28:10A small study can still expose decisive risk when its limitations are explicit and its evidence is handled carefully.
Watch from 46:55These concise notes were edited from automatic captions and checked against the talk structure. They are not a verbatim transcript.
A report stored with the research team does not democratize insight. Findings should be shaped for the people who can change priorities, implementation, service, or policy, while retaining access to evidence and limitations. Different audiences may need different formats, but the meaning should remain consistent and a responsible owner should be clear.
Watch from 3:39Maps, workshop outputs, and documented themes are not decorative summaries. They show how observations became an interpretation and give collaborators a common reference for ideation. Useful artifacts preserve disagreement and uncertainty instead of presenting every note as consensus, allowing later teams to understand both the finding and the reasoning behind it.
Watch from 11:33Research requests often arrive with a method, timeline, or solution already assumed. Experienced practitioners test those assumptions before promising certainty. They ask what decision is approaching, what is already known, which stakeholder owns the consequence, and what evidence could change the direction. Only then can scope and timing become credible.
Watch from 20:01An inconsistency, defensive reaction, or impossible request can indicate that the stated question is not the real problem. Rather than proceeding mechanically, the researcher should explore incentives, prior decisions, and conflicting priorities. These conversations may be uncomfortable, but they prevent a polished study from answering a question no one can use.
Watch from 28:10Two participants cannot represent a market, but they may reveal a severe usability failure or invalidate an obvious assumption. A small study is useful when the team states what it can and cannot support, combines it with other evidence, and avoids false percentages. Limited evidence should reduce uncertainty honestly, not create an appearance of certainty.
Watch from 46:55
