Member-only story
Really, it’s OK not to be a mixed methods researcher
Breaking into UXR can be hard– really hard. As the industry continues to grow both in size and demand for skills, researchers are trying to figure out how to stand out from the crowd. Some vocal leaders and bootcamps claim that successful entry and advancement in UXR comes easiest (or exclusively) with a mixed methods toolkit. But what does it actually mean to be mixed methods, and is it really all that imperative to succeed?
tl;dr: nope, not at all. Let’s dive in.
If thought articles are to be believed, mixed method researchers are officially the UX equivalent of hand sanitizer in March of 2020– uniquely valuable, and imperative for success. “Mixed Methods or Bust” is becoming a common creed, especially among those just entering the field of UXR, and qualitative research is as out as bell bottoms.
However, dismissal of single-discipline research does not make sense in a variegated industry where the role, scope, and value of UX Research is still developing, and the true power of research is still being discovered. (Quick reminder, UXR is new. Really new).
But mixed methods seem to stand out as people try to fit into the increasingly competitive field — it’s logically appealing to be a ‘jill of all trades’. If you have every tool, no one can say you’re not qualified…right?
This approach misses two key points:
- There’s huge and unique value in each of the research disciplines (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods)
- Overstating qualifications for a method (most commonly seen when discussing quant skills) creates huge risk, both in the hiring pipeline and once hired.
In this article, I’ll define mixed methods, discuss three common myths that are over-emphasizing the value of mixed methods, how we got to this point, and why UXR as a discipline (and your career) will best thrive when embracing all of forms of research.
