Digital

Aileen Baxter, Lead User Researcher at Social Security Scotland blogs about some common myths around user research.

 User research has never been more important in government, yet it remains widely misunderstood. Even as research becomes more embedded in teams, misconceptions still exist about what it is, when it should be used, and the value it provides. These myths can lead to under investment, or decision‑making not based on evidence.

Below are some common myths and why they persist.

Myth 1: “User research is just asking people what they want.”

Why it persists

Talking to users sounds straightforward. Many colleagues have taken part in interviews, sat in on usability sessions, or handled client feedback. It’s easy to assume that’s all research involves.

The reality

User research is about understanding people’s behaviours, motivations, needs and contexts, not collecting feature requests. Skilled researchers use structured methods to uncover insights people may not be able to express directly, avoid bias, and translate what they observe into evidence that supports better decisions. Research does not ask users what to change, it uncovers what users need so policy and delivery teams can make informed choices.

Myth 2: “Research slows us down.”

Why it persists

Delivery pressures can make research seem like a delay or an optional extra, particularly in fast moving environments.

The reality

Research helps teams make decisions earlier and with greater confidence. It reduces re-work, tests assumptions quickly, and ensures effort is focused on the right problems. Not all research requires long studies, researchers use the most appropriate, proportionate method for the question at hand. In practice, the greatest delays often come from building the wrong thing, not from doing research.

Myth 3: “We already know our users.”

Why it persists

Teams become familiar with their service area. They collect feedback, see performance dashboards, and hear from operational colleagues. This can create a sense that the team already understands its users fully.

The reality

Internal knowledge is valuable but incomplete. It may reflect the views of the most vocal users or those already in contact with the service. People’s needs and circumstances change over time, and staff turnover can reduce collective understanding. Without ongoing research, services risk drifting away from the realities of the people they are designing for.

Myth 4: “Research should only happen at the beginning of a project.”

Why it persists

Legacy project methods sometimes treat research as something done only in the discovery phase before delivery begins.

The reality

Research is most effective when it runs throughout the lifecycle of the service. Early research helps define the problem. Mid stage research shapes and tests solutions. Later research ensures usability, accessibility, and use. Continuous research gives teams evidence at every stage, reducing risk and improving outcomes.

Myth 5: “Small samples can’t tell us anything meaningful.”

Why it persists

It feels natural to assume that small samples are unreliable or unrepresentative.

The reality

Qualitative research is not about statistical representation, it is about depth, meaning, and understanding human experience. Smaller samples are intentional, not a limitation.

Studies are designed to recruit the right participants, those with relevant, lived experience. This allows researchers to explore issues in detail, uncovering motivations, behaviours, and barriers that large-scale surveys often miss.

In qualitative work, value comes from:

Rich, detailed insight into people’s experiences

Identifying patterns and themes across cases, not counting frequencies

Reaching data saturation, where no new insights emerge, rather than aiming for statistical power

Importantly, even a small number of interviews can reveal critical usability issues, unmet needs, or systemic barriers, especially when participants share key characteristics relevant to the research question.

Rather than asking “How many people does this represent?”, qualitative research asks: “What is really going on here, and why?”

Myth 6: “AI can replace user research now.”

Why it persists

AI can analyse data, generate summaries, and simulate interactions, which can appear similar to parts of the research process.

The reality

AI can support research by speeding up analysis or organising data, but it cannot replace human insight. It cannot observe non‑verbal behaviour, understand context, interpret emotion, or reveal needs that people do not explicitly state. AI is a useful tool but not a substitute for engaging with real people living in real circumstances.

Myth 7: “Research always tells us what to do next.”

Why it persists

Teams look to research for certainty, especially when decisions feel complex or high stakes.

The reality

Research informs decisions, it does not make them. It provides evidence, clarity and options, but trade offs, priorities and direction remain the responsibility of policy, delivery and leadership teams. Research reduces ambiguity, but it cannot remove it entirely.

Closing Thoughts

User research is not optional in public services, it is essential for designing fair, effective and accessible experiences. Challenging these persistent myths helps teams work more confidently with evidence, reduce risk, and stay grounded in the needs of the people we are here to support.