A UX Research lookback: A fresh interpretation on how we got here and insights on how to move forward

A response to James Lang's diagnosis on how a focus on process, not impact, created an identity crisis.

The state of user research (UXR) is often a hot issue of who actually has a pulse on it. James Lang seems to give a list of salty insights of where things were missed over recent years:

" 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚒𝚍𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝚒𝚗𝚟𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚑𝚒𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚕𝚞𝚕𝚕𝚎𝚍 𝚞𝚜 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚘 𝚋𝚎𝚕𝚒𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚠𝚎’𝚍 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚘𝚕𝚟𝚎𝚍 𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜 𝚊𝚋𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚄𝚇𝚁’𝚜 𝚟𝚊𝚕𝚞𝚎, 𝚠𝚑𝚒𝚕𝚎 𝚠𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚎𝚍 𝚘𝚗 𝚜𝚌𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚎𝚡𝚎𝚌𝚞𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚊𝚍 𝚘𝚏 𝚜𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚏𝚢𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗. "

"...𝚠𝚎 𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛-𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚏𝚒𝚎𝚍 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚌𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚎𝚜 𝚘𝚏 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚖𝚊𝚛𝚢 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚌𝚑 (𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚍𝚞𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚘𝚏 𝚔𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚕𝚎𝚍𝚐𝚎). "

"...𝚠𝚎 𝚎𝚡𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚠𝚘 𝚠𝚊𝚟𝚎𝚜 𝚘𝚏 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚖𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗. 𝚃𝚑𝚎 “𝚏𝚒𝚛𝚜𝚝 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚖𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗” 𝚘𝚌𝚌𝚞𝚛𝚛𝚎𝚍 𝚊𝚜 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚖𝚊𝚛𝚢 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚌𝚑 𝚋𝚎𝚌𝚊𝚖𝚎 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚝 𝚘𝚏 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚍𝚞𝚌𝚝 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚐𝚗 𝚛𝚘𝚕𝚎𝚜 𝚝𝚑𝚛𝚘𝚞𝚐𝚑 𝚙𝚛𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚎𝚜 𝚕𝚒𝚔𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚌𝚑 𝚍𝚎𝚖𝚘𝚌𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚣𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝙲𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚞𝚘𝚞𝚜 𝙳𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚢. 𝚃𝚑𝚎 “𝚜𝚎𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚍 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚖𝚎𝚍𝚒𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗” 𝚒𝚜 𝚑𝚊𝚙𝚙𝚎𝚗𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚗𝚘𝚠 𝚊𝚜 𝚜𝚢𝚗𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚜 — 𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚍𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚢 𝚊 𝚍𝚘𝚖𝚊𝚒𝚗 𝚠𝚎’𝚟𝚎 𝚝𝚛𝚒𝚎𝚍, 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚐𝚐𝚕𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚘𝚠𝚗 — 𝚒𝚜 𝚋𝚎𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚌𝚕𝚊𝚒𝚖𝚎𝚍 𝚋𝚢 𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜, 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝙿𝚛𝚘𝚍𝚞𝚌𝚝 𝚝𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚜 𝚍𝚎𝚟𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚙𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝚔𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚕𝚎𝚍𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚊𝚗𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝 𝚏𝚞𝚗𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜: 𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝚛𝚎𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚒𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚒𝚎𝚜 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝙻𝙻𝙼𝚜 𝚝𝚘 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚐𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚎 𝚏𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚜 𝚊𝚌𝚛𝚘𝚜𝚜 𝚜𝚘𝚞𝚛𝚌𝚎𝚜."

"...𝚠𝚎 𝚜𝚔𝚎𝚠𝚎𝚍 𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚑𝚞𝚜𝚒𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚢 𝚝𝚘𝚠𝚊𝚛𝚍𝚜 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚛𝚘𝚕𝚎 𝚊𝚜 ‘𝚞𝚜𝚎𝚛 𝚊𝚍𝚟𝚘𝚌𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚜’, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚎𝚗𝚐𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚍 𝚘𝚗𝚕𝚢 𝚛𝚎𝚕𝚞𝚌𝚝𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚕𝚢 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚠𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚍𝚛𝚒𝚟𝚎𝚜 𝚟𝚊𝚕𝚞𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚋𝚞𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚎𝚜𝚜."

"...𝚠𝚎’𝚟𝚎 𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚐𝚐𝚕𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚞𝚗𝚒𝚚𝚞𝚎 𝚟𝚊𝚕𝚞𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚕𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚟𝚎 𝚝𝚘 𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝚏𝚞𝚗𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜 (𝙳𝚊𝚝𝚊 𝚂𝚌𝚒𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚎, 𝙼𝚊𝚛𝚔𝚎𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚁𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚌𝚑)"

"...𝚠𝚎 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎𝚗’𝚝 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚋𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚑𝚎𝚍 𝚠𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚢 𝚊𝚌𝚌𝚎𝚙𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝚖𝚎𝚝𝚛𝚒𝚌𝚜 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚌𝚑 𝚚𝚞𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚘𝚛 𝚋𝚞𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚎𝚜𝚜 𝚒𝚖𝚙𝚊𝚌𝚝. 𝚆𝚒𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚜𝚞𝚜 𝚘𝚗 𝚠𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚝𝚞𝚝𝚎𝚜 “𝚋𝚎𝚝𝚝𝚎𝚛” 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚌𝚑 𝚘𝚛 𝚑𝚘𝚠 𝚝𝚘 𝚖𝚎𝚊𝚜𝚞𝚛𝚎 𝚁𝙾𝙸, 𝚠𝚎’𝚟𝚎 𝚋𝚎𝚎𝚗 𝚟𝚞𝚕𝚗𝚎𝚛𝚊𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝚝𝚘 𝚜𝚒𝚖𝚙𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 𝚊𝚛𝚐𝚞𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚜 𝚏𝚊𝚟𝚘𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚎𝚍 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚟𝚎𝚗𝚒𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚎 𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚎𝚙𝚝𝚑 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚘𝚛."

James does give a hopeful reprive. Continue reading at here.