Episode #49: Preparing Better UX Research with James Dunckley

James Dunckley began as a graphic designer, moved deeply into web design, and became interested in SEO research. That research exposed him to methods already common in UX, giving him a name for work he had begun to practice. The field's mix of efficiency, inquiry, and visual problem solving appealed to him, especially because he wanted to operate as a generalist rather than remain inside one narrow specialty.

As Lead UX Designer at Edelman, James worked in a consulting environment across varied projects, including consumer-facing work and projects for large companies. His conversation with Dwayne Samuels centers on a practical theme: UX improves when researchers prepare for uncertainty, keep asking why, and build working relationships with the people affected by design decisions.

What you'll learn

• Why problem definition and stakeholder needs belong at the start of research

• How to prepare follow-up questions for both positive and negative responses

• Why usability testing often overturns a designer's predictions

• How product governance can give every discipline a fair role in decisions

• Why emotional intelligence supports empathy with users, developers, product managers, and clients

Define the problem before selecting a test

James starts research by identifying the problem area. Interviews and analysis help the team understand what it is actually trying to improve. Stakeholder interviews are also critical because a useful study has to account for business needs, not only the designer's initial interpretation.

He is especially enthusiastic about usability testing because it is where an interface meets real behavior. Prediction alone is unreliable. Users regularly surprise the team, showing where its assumptions were incomplete or where a seemingly clear experience breaks down.

The test itself is only part of the work. James stresses preparation. Before a session, he thinks through possible responses and maps where the conversation could go. If a participant answers positively, what should the researcher ask next? If the answer is negative, which follow-up will expose the reason? Preparing branches makes it easier to stay focused while still responding to what the participant actually says.

This is not an attempt to script the person's answer. It is a way to prevent the researcher from accepting a shallow yes or no because no useful next question comes to mind.

Keep asking until the reason becomes visible

James describes follow-up questions as the path to the information behind a user's first response. Someone may know something important through habit or experience without having articulated it. A persistent researcher can help surface that knowledge by asking why a choice was made and refusing to settle for the simplest answer.

The technique requires care. The purpose is not to pressure a participant into agreement. It is to understand the reasoning, context, or constraint that shaped the behavior. Preparation helps the interviewer stay curious rather than become attached to a preferred explanation.

For a generalist designer, this habit connects research to execution. James can move between a broad view of the product, visual design, user behavior, and stakeholder concerns. The value of that range is not that one person replaces every specialist. It is that the designer can connect evidence from several parts of the problem and recognize where deeper expertise is needed.

Design the decision process too

Earlier in his career, James found it frustrating when decisions made higher in an organization stopped or changed a project without clear context. With experience, he came to understand more of the interactions behind those changes and reached a position where he could influence them.

He points to product governance as a concrete design concern. UX professionals often talk about wanting a seat at the table, but the stronger question is how the organization creates checks and balances so UX, product, engineering, business partners, and other participants can contribute fairly and still get work done efficiently. Governance affects whether a design team can apply its skills, not just whether its work looks good.

Consulting changes the situation because an outside team is hired to address a defined problem. Internal teams live with governance continuously. In either setting, James argues that effective work depends on understanding the perspectives and constraints around the decision.

Use emotional intelligence to build working trust

James identifies emotional intelligence as a weakness he deliberately developed. Learning to consider another person's perspective without treating it as a judgment of himself changed how he worked. It strengthened his ability to empathize not only with end users, but also with developers, product managers, business partners, and clients.

That skill has an immediate practical result: rapport. When a consultant or designer can connect with someone quickly and genuinely, it becomes easier to ask difficult questions, hear disagreement, and form a useful working relationship. Research preparation finds better questions. Emotional intelligence helps create the conditions in which people can answer them honestly.

Listen to Episode #49 for James Dunckley's discussion of usability testing, follow-up questions, governance, and stronger cross-functional relationships.