jacob-balslev User Research
Concept of the skill
User research, in its generative qualitative form, is the practice of learning what real people do, think, feel, and need in their own context — typically before a solution exists — so that a team builds for an actual user rather than an imagined one. It spans three method families that make different trade-offs between depth, naturalism, scale, and scheduling cost: generative interviews (semi-structured, episodic, using silence as a tool), contextual methods (contextual inquiry with its master-apprentice stance, fly-on-the-wall observation, shadowing — which extend interviews into the user's real environment), and longitudinal methods (diary studies and experience sampling — which capture behavior that never surfaces in a single session). What unifies them is a specific epistemological discipline: humans are unreliable narrators of their own behavior, especially when asked hypothetical or future-tense questions, but reasonably reliable when describing concrete recent episodes. The craft is therefore the deliberate opposite of good conversation — leave silence intact, ask people to "say more about that" instead of paraphrasing, ask "tell me about the last time" instead of "would you," and treat a surprising answer as the proof that the conversation is producing new information rather than confirming a prior belief.
Coverage
User research covers the generative qualitative methods that surface what people do, think, feel, and need — typically before a solution exists. The core methods are semi-structured interviews (Steve Portigal, Tomer Sharon), contextual inquiry with its master-apprentice stance (Beyer & Holtzblatt), ethnographic observation in the user's actual environment, diary studies for behaviors that unfold over days or weeks, and intercept studies for in-the-moment reactions. Each method trades off depth, naturalism, scale, and scheduling cost differently; choosing well depends on what kind of evidence the project needs.
The skill includes the craft of interview construction: opening with broad context questions, moving to specific recent episodes ("tell me about the last time you…"), avoiding hypotheticals ("would you use…") and leading prompts ("don't you find it frustrating that…"), and using silence as a tool. The critical incident technique (Flanagan) and 5 Whys laddering are used in-session to push past surface answers. The practice also includes what NOT to do: solution-prompting, confirmation seeking, anchoring on the interviewer's own hypothesis, interrupting, and steering toward a preferred narrative.
Contextual methods extend interviews into the user's environment. Contextual inquiry treats the user as the master craftsperson and the researcher as an apprentice asking clarifying questions while the user works. Fly-on-the-wall observation removes the researcher's questions entirely. Shadowing follows a single user through their day. Each makes different trade-offs between naturalism (less intrusion → more authentic behavior) and depth (more questions → richer interpretation).
Diary and longitudinal methods cover behaviors that do not surface in a single session. Daily prompts, photo diaries, and experience sampling (Csíkszentmihályi) capture in-context moments and reduce recall bias.
Philosophy of the skill
User research is harder than it looks because the natural conversational instincts that make humans good company — finishing each other's sentences, offering sympathy, confirming what the other person seems to want to hear — actively destroy data quality. The discipline trains interviewers to do the opposite: leave silence intact, ask the participant to "say more about that" instead of paraphrasing, and treat surprise as the signal that the conversation is producing new information.
The practice is grounded in a specific epistemological claim: people are unreliable narrators of their own behavior, especially when asked hypothetical or future-tense questions, but they are reasonably reliable when describing concrete recent episodes. This is why methods skew toward "tell me about the last time" over "would you ever" — episodic memory is more trustworthy than self-prediction. It is also why observation outranks interview when the project can afford it: what people do and what people say they do are routinely different.
Verification
- The interview guide contains no leading, hypothetical, or solution-prompting questions; every question can be answered by describing a real past event.
- Sessions are recorded (with consent) so synthesis works from primary data, not interviewer memory.
- At least one finding from the research contradicts a hypothesis the team held going in — if every finding confirms prior beliefs, the questions were probably leading.
- For contextual studies, observation happened in the user's real environment, not a lab simulation of it.
- Sample composition is documented and matches the recruitment criteria — including who was excluded and why.
- The researcher can name what they don't yet know after the session, not just what they confirmed.
Do NOT Use When
- The question is quantitative (how many, what percentage, statistical significance) — use survey or analytics methods, not generative interviews.
- A working artifact already exists and the question is "does this artifact work for users" — use usability-testing.
- The team needs to make sense of research that has already been collected — use research-synthesis.
- The "user" is an agent or system, not a human — interview methods do not transfer to non-humans.
- The team has not yet agreed on what problem they are studying — return to problem-framing first, then design research to investigate the framed problem.
- The need is to evaluate a feature against a hypothesis with a control group — use experimental methods (A/B, RCT), not interviews.