.png)
UX research democratization is a divisive topic, and it’s easy to see why.
Done right, democratization is a tide that lifts all boats. It can empower your entire organization to put the voice of the user at the heart of key decisions. It can remove bottlenecks and increase speed to insight for product and design teams while freeing up researchers to focus on more strategic, impactful work.
Done wrong, democratization is the Wild West. It can hurt research quality and rigor, allowing cross-functional stakeholders to misinterpret data and cherry-pick insights that confirm biases. It can compromise data privacy and create uncertainty for researchers, both in their current roles and in future career opportunities.
At Great Question, we advocate for democratization done right: a controlled approach led by UX Research and Research Operations professionals who provide training, guardrails, and oversight to set non-researchers up for success when engaging with research. But without the right maturity, infrastructure, or leadership, we recognize it can be a slippery slope toward democratization done wrong.
So, to better understand the current state of democratization in practice today, we surveyed 301 UX Research and UX Research Operations professionals from around the world. This report shares what we learned: the good, the bad, and everything in between.
Enjoy!
About our methodology & sample
From February 19th to March 13th, 2025, we asked 301 UX Researchers and UX Research Operations professionals from 34 countries about their views on and experiences with:
- Democratizing the execution of UX research studies
- Democratizing access to UX research repositories
- Democratizing the synthesis of UX research findings
As part of our screening process, we asked candidates to identify which job function category best describes their current role: UX Research, UX Research Operations, Design, Product Management, or Other. Applicants who selected UX Research or UX Research Operations were manually verified via LinkedIn or personal website and then invited to participate. Applicants who selected Design, Product Management, or Other were not invited to participate.
While research democratization is impossible without participation from non-research roles, gathering their insights and perspective was not the goal of this survey. Rather, we wanted to better understand the perceptions and reality of democratization through the lens of those most affected, for better or worse. Because successful research democratization has always, and will always, require UX Research and Research Operations professionals to lead the way.
To the many Designers, Product Managers, and more who applied: Thank you for your interest! This was one for Research and ResearchOps folks, but we look forward to hearing your insight and perspective on this topic in the future.
Two notes before we dive in:
- For the purpose of our survey, we are referring to non-researchers who conduct and engaged with research as just that: non-researchers. While some use the phrase People Who Do Research (PWDR), us included, we did not want to assume this widely used by everyone.
- Although all participants have been independently verified, all responses shared in this report have been anonymized.
All participant responses in this report are anonymous.
Sample breakdown by primary job function
84.1% of our survey respondents (253) identified their job function as UX Research, while 15.9% of respondents (48) identified their job function as UX Research Operations.
Note: Several applicants selected "Other" and entered a job title like "UX Research Manager" or "Research Strategy and Operations." These job titles were verified, then appropriately grouped into our two job function categories so they could still participate.
Sample breakdown by experience level
Our survey sample contained a range of UX Research experience levels.
While we did not ask respondents to self-report years of experience, we did categorize their job titles as part of our manual verification process.
- 30.6% of survey respondents (92) hold the title of "Senior" (ie: Senior UX Researcher)
- 11.3% of survey respondents (34) hold the title of "Lead" (ie: Lead UX Researcher)
- 11.0% of survey respondents (33) hold the title of "Manager" (ie: UX Research Manager)
- 6.0% of survey respondents (18) hold the title of "Principal" (ie: Principal UX Researcher)
- 4.3% of survey respondents (13) hold the title of "Director" (ie: Director of UX Research)
- 4.0% of survey respondents (12) hold the title of "Head of" (ie: Head of UX Research)
- 4.0% of survey respondents (12) hold the title of "Staff" (ie: Staff UX Researcher)
- 3.0% of survey respondents (9) hold the title of "Consultant" (ie: UX Research Consultant)
- 0.7% of survey respondents (2) hold the title of "CEO" or "Founder" (ie: UX Researchers who have started their own companies)
- 0.7% of survey respondents (2) hold the title of "VP" (ie: VP of UX Research)
- 0.3% of survey respondents (1) hold the title of "Junior" (ie: Junior UX Researcher)
- 24.3% of survey respondents (74) hold other UX Research titles we have verified (ie: UX Researcher, UX Researcher II, UX Researcher III)
Sample breakdown by country
We were fortunate to gain the insight and perspective of UX Research and UX Research Operations professionals from 34 countries across six continents. 56.2% of our survey respondents (169) live in the United States, with 9.0% (27) from the United Kingdom and 4.65% (14) from Germany, respectively.
Note: Countries with less than five participants have been aggregated under 🌏 Rest of the world. These countries include: Italy (3), Brazil (3), Norway (3), United Arab Emirates (2), Pakistan (2), Austria (2), Kazakhstan (2), Singapore (1), Croatia (1), Israel (1), Puerto Rico (1), Ukraine (1), Kenya (1), South Korea (1), France (1), Finland (1), Lithuania (1), Japan (1), Honduras (1), Switzerland (1), Czechia (1), and China (1).
Sample breakdown by company size
Our survey sample varied widely by company size, from respondents who work at large enterprises with 10,000+ employees (17.6%) to the self-employed (8.0%)
21.9% of respondents (66) are employed by organizations with 1,001-5,000 employees, while just 2.3% of respondents (7) are employed by organizations with 2-10 employees.
Note: Some questions in our survey are less applicable to the self-employed. However, we still felt it was important to include their insights and perspectives, given the unique points-of-view they may offer as advisors, consultants, freelancers, etc to organizations who are democratizing research.
Sample breakdown by familiarity with UX research democratization
As part of our screening process, we asked candidates about their level of familiarity with UX research democratization.
For the purpose of this survey, we specifically wanted to hear from individuals who are either "very familiar" or "somewhat familiar" with UX research democratization. While individuals who are new to concept of UX research democratization surely may have valuable insight and perspective to contribute as well, this survey was designed to better understand the current real-world applications of democratization from professionals who have experienced it firsthand.
To this end, candidates who selected, "I've heard of UX research democratization, but not familiar with what it involves," or, "I've never heard of UX research democratization," were not invited to participate.
That said, 72.1% of survey respondents (217) consider themselves"very familiar" with UX research democratization, while 27.9% (84) consider themselves "somewhat familiar."
Part I: Democratizing the execution of UX research studies
To begin our survey, we asked respondents about whether their organizations are democratizing the execution of UX research studies. In other words, are non-researchers like designers and product managers currently conducting user interviews, surveys, or usability tests.
Non-researchers who conduct UX research studies
When asked if their organizations currently allow non-researchers to conduct UX research studies:
- 51.8% of respondents (156) answered: "Yes, but in a limited capacity (only specific teams or roles)"
- 32.2% of respondents (97) answered: "Yes, widely (multiple teams regularly conduct research)
- 9.0% of respondents (27) answered: "No, and we are not considering it"
- 5.0% of respondents (15) answered: "No, but we are considering it"
- 2.0% of respondents (6) answered: "Unsure / I don't know"
In total, 84.0% of UX Research and UX Research Operations professionals (253) who completed our survey work for organizations that allow non-research to conduct studies at least in a limited capacity.
Job functions of non-researchers who conduct UX research studies
So who exactly are these non-researchers doing all this research?
Note: This question only applies to the 84.0% who answered "yes" to the previous question, so the data below excludes the other 16.0% who answered "no" or "unsure."
- 94.5% of respondents (239) answered: Design
- 79.8% of respondents (202) answered: Product Management
- 32.8% of respondents (83) answered: Marketing
- 17.8% of respondents (45) answered: Customer Support / Success
- 5.9% of respondents (15) answered: Sales
- 11.5% of respondents (29) answered: Other
Across 253 respondents who answered this question, the average number of job functions selected was 2.42.
In other words, organizations represented in our sample allow employees from roughly two to three different non-research job functions to conduct their own studies.
Percentage of UX research studies conducted by non-researchers
Next, we asked our respondents to estimate what percentage of UX research studies conducted in their organization are conducted by non-researchers.
Note: Once again, this question only applies to respondents who said their organizations allow non-researchers to conduct studies.
- 32.1% of respondents estimated that 1-10% of studies are conducted by non-researchers in their organizations
- 28.2% of respondents estimated that 11-25% of studies are conducted by non-researchers in their organizations
- 18.3% of respondents estimated that 26-50% of studies are conducted by non-researchers in their organization
- 7.9% of respondents estimated that 51-75% of studies are conducted by non-researchers in their organizations
- 7.1% of respondents estimated that 76-100% of studies (most or all) are conducted by non-researchers in their organizations
- 6.3% of respondents said they are unsure
While 84.0% of our total survey sample is actively democratizing the execution of research at least in a limited capacity, only 15.0% of them estimate over half of their organization's UX research studies are conducted by non-researchers.
Support for democratizing the execution of UX research studies
The presence of UX research democratization in the organizations where our survey respondents work is clear. But do they actually support it?
Broadly speaking:
- 74.1% of respondents (223) said they support democratizing the execution of UX research studies
- 16.6% of respondents (50) said they don't support democratizing the execution of UX research studies
- 9.3% of respondents (28) said they're unsure
Among the 253 UX Research and UX Research Operations professionals who work for organizations that allow non-research to conduct studies at least in a limited capacity, support increases, but only slightly to 78.3%. This means 31 of our survey respondents are currently witnessing democratization efforts in their organizations they don't support.
Main concerns about democratizing the execution of UX research studies
While roughly three out every four of our survey respondents expressed support for democratizing the execution of research, they still have concerns. Plenty.
When asked about their main concerns:
- 91.7% of respondents (276) cited: Research quality and reliability
- 81.7% of respondents (246) cited: Cherry-picking insights
- 79.1% of respondents (238) cited: Misinterpretation of data
- 72.1% of respondents (217) cited: Lack of methodological rigor
- 48.8% of respondents (147) cited: Devaluation of professional UX research expertise
- 45.2% of respondents (136) cited: Time/resource constraints on researchers to train others
- 42.5% of respondents (128) cited: Ethical considerations and compliance risks
- 42.2% of respondents (127) cited: Lack of proper tooling and infrastructure to support democratization
- 33.9% of respondents (102) cited: Data privacy and security issues
- 27.6% of respondents (83) cited: Less job security and more career uncertainty for UX researchers
- 6.3% of respondents (19) cited: Other
On average, our survey respondents cited almost six concerns (5.98) they have today.
Current state: Guardrails and support for non-researchers who conduct studies
Successful UX research democratization requires strategic guardrails and support to minimize risk and maximize quality. With research quality and reliability reported as the #1 concern among our survey respondents, we next asked them about what types of guardrails and support their organizations currently have in place for non-researchers who conduct studies.
Note: This question only applies to segment of our survey sample (84.0%) who reported their organizations do allow non-researchers to conduct UX research studies.
- 72.7% of respondents (184) cited: Researcher oversight or review
- 65.2% of respondents (165) cited: Standardized research templates and guides
- 55.7% of respondents (141) cited: Access and permission controls for research tooling
- 41.5% of respondents (105) cited: Best practices for data governance, privacy, and compliance
- 33.6% of respondents (85) cited: Regular researcher office hours (weekly, monthly, etc.)
- 28.9% of respondents (73) cited: Research training or certification before conducting studies
- 10.3% of respondents (26) cited: No guardrails or support in place
- 5.9% of respondents (15) cited: Other
On average, our survey respondents identified three types of research guardrails or support (3.04) that their organizations currently have in place.
Ideal state: Guardrails and support for non-researchers who conduct studies
Some guardrails and support are better than none. But how many types of guardrails would UX Research and UX Research Operations professionals ideally like to see in place?
Note: This question only applies to the segment of our survey sample who reported their organizations allow non-researchers to conduct UX research studies (84.0%).
- 76.7% of respondents (194) cited: Standardized research templates and guides
- 71.2% of respondents (180) cited: Research training or certification before conducting studies
- 71.2% of respondents (180) cited: Researcher oversight or review process
- 69.6% of respondents (176) cited: Best practices for data governance, privacy, and compliance
- 62.1% of respondents (157) cited: Regular researcher office hours (weekly, monthly, etc.)
- 57.7% of respondents (146) cited: Access and permission controls for research tooling
- 12.3% of respondents (31) cited: Other
On average, our survey respondents identified roughly four types of research guardrails or support (4.21) they would ideally like their organizations to have in place.
A closer look at the current and ideal states of democratization show some notable gaps:
- "Researcher oversight or review process" is the only type of guardrail or support in which respondents identified that their current state meets or exceeds their ideal state
- "Researcher training or certification before conducting studies" has the largest difference between current and ideal states: 42.3%
- "Regular researcher office hours (weekly, monthly, etc.)" and "Best practices for data governance, privacy, and compliance" have gaps of 28.5% and 28.1%, respectively
Impact of democratization on the future of the UX research industry
We then asked our survey sample how they believe democratizing the execution of UX research studies will impact the future of the UX research industry:
- 10.3% of respondents (31) believe it will have a very positive impact
- 45.5% of respondents (137) believe it will have a somewhat positive impact
- 19.6% of respondents (59) believe it will have a neutral impact
- 18.6% of respondents (56) believe it will have a somewhat negative impact
- 6.0% of respondents (18) believe it will have a very negative impact
In total, over half of respondents (55.8%) are of the opinion that democratizing the execution of UX research will at least have a somewhat positive impact on their industry. Roughly one in four respondents (24.6%) believe it will at least have a somewhat negative impact.
When we asked our respondents the biggest reasons for their previous answers, here's what they said.
Positive impact
A UX Research Professional from a software company with 501-1,000 employees who selected "very positive" shared:
“The benefits here are manifold, but mostly: 1) it shows people how much work goes into Research and how hard it is to get right, and 2) it frees up dedicated Researchers to do more important/impactful work.”
A UX Research Operations professional from a gambling company with 201-500 employees who selected "somewhat positive" shared:
“Democratization of some UX research (not all, it should be intentional by method in my opinion) would help free up researchers time to focus on the meaty, more strategic work while not blocking evaluative research from happening from a capacity lens. Allowing others to speak with and get insights from users is important for everyone who plays a role in building the product. “
Neutral impact
A UX Research professional from a software company with 51-200 employees who selected "neutral" shared:
“I'm on the fence. In some cases—depending on methods, staff competencies, and research ops processes—I see democratization as a net benefit. In other cases, I see it having the potential for more harm than good. For instance, most—if not all—PM & PDs that I have ever worked with lack foundational skills in inferential statistics and survey design methodology. Thus, survey research would be poorly fit to be democratized among them. In contrast, Data Scientists I've worked with do have these skills, and thus, democratization of survey methods with them would be a good fit. Ultimately, I am concerned that the tool will be polarized—seen as entirely good or bad—by executive leadership without understanding the parameters of when and who should wield the tool to lead to effective outcomes.”
A UX Research Professional from a business consultancy with 1,001-5,000 employees who selected "neutral" shared:
“I guess my take is kinda like Master Oogway in Kung Fu Panda: ‘There is just news. There is no good or bad.’ Things change. Researchers need to adapt. There are so many tech roles from decades ago that are obsolete. Was it good or bad? Neither, really. People learned new skills and new tech.”
Negative impact
A UX Research Professional from a software company with 10,000+ employees who selected "somewhat negative" shared:
"In a job market that is becoming limited and unstable, this might result in job loss and devaluation of our expertise. Also, I am concerned with data protection and ethics, and in cherry-picking of the data, which is something that happens regularly when the focus is not in neutral data driven research, but a very high emphasis on validation of product decisions.”
A UX Research professional from a software company with 10,000+ employees who selected "very negative" shared:
“I would not be as concerned about research democratization if any organization that did it had the strict guardrails in place. My opinion is that the majority of organizations that have any form of research democratization allow any type of research done by any role; and therefore, decision-makers will look at UX research professionals as expendable because the impression will be that 'UX research can and is done by anyone who wants to do it.' This also dilutes the impact UX researchers may have in implementing rigorous UX research methodologies and approaches because these organizations will perceive UX researchers as just making the process more complicated, cumbersome, and time-consuming.”
Impact of democratization on the future of their organization/business
When asked about the impact that democratizing the execution of research studies will have on their organization/business, the gap between positive and negative impact widened, while those who believe the impact will be neutral remained about the same.
- 21.9% of respondents (66) believe it will have a very positive impact
- 43.5% of respondents (131) believe it will have a somewhat positive impact
- 20.3% of respondents (61) believe it will have a neutral impact
- 9.6% of respondents (29) believe it will have a somewhat negative impact
- 4.7% of respondents (14) believe it will have a very negative impact
In total, 65.4% are of the opinion that democratizing the execution of UX research will at least have a somewhat positive impact on the future of their organization/business. This is 9.6 percentage points higher than the amount of survey respondents' who believe democratization will have at least a somewhat positive impact on the future of the UX research industry.
On the other hand, just 14.3% of respondents believe it will at least have a somewhat negative impact on their organization/business. This is 10.3% percentage points lower than the amount of survey respondents' who believe democratization will have at least a somewhat negative impact on the future of the UX research industry.
When we asked our respondents the biggest reasons for their previous answers, here's what they said.
Positive impact
A UX Research Operations professional from a financial services company with 10,000+ employees who selected "very positive" shared:
“Democratizing research isn’t just about making product managers do their own customer interviews: it’s about having a broader framework for how more people are engaging with research and insights—whether that’s collecting it themselves or just being able to engage with it in new ways doesn’t matter. Democratizing broadly can help an organization be better informed and make better decisions.”
A UX Research professional from a medical equipment manufacturing company with 10,000+ employees who selected "somewhat positive" shared:
“Democratization allows for a more unified and overall better understanding of our user's needs across all functions in our organization, allowing us to have more productive conversations about design and implementation of core features impacting their experience. It also brings user needs more top of mind for decision-makers, ultimately improving the chances that user requirements will win out over other types of tradeoffs.”
Neutral impact
A self-employed UX Research professional who selected "neutral" shared:
“When research is democratized, sometimes you are trading rigor for speed. This is a positive trade-off, as the speed of research is important to organizations. But this speed and reduction of rigor can affect the quality and interpretation of research findings which may have negative effects on the org.”
A UX Research professional from a health care company with 201-500 employees who selected "neutral" shared:
"I think I'm optimistic that people might value and respect rigor and integrity but usually when it comes to money and speed, those things are the first to go."
Negative impact
A UX Research professional from a technology company with 2-10 employees who selected "somewhat negative" shared:
“If research studies or tests are conducted with insufficient rigor, training, or preparation, they can lead to unreliable insights, increasing the risk of poor business decisions. This weakens the impact of UX research, making it difficult to demonstrate its contribution to positive outcomes, such as improved metrics and KPIs. Without strong evidence, UXR loses credibility and business value, putting research roles at risk of being deprioritized or even made redundant.”
A UX Research professional from an IT company with 5,001-10,000 employees who selected "very negative" shared:
"Lack of good quality research slows innovation and results in missed opportunities to create high quality products for customers."
Part II: Democratizing access to UX research repositories
Democratization isn't just about conducting new research. It's also about providing secure internal access to an organization's past research artifacts and insights. In the next section of our survey, we briefly explored our respondents' experience with and views on democratizing access to their organizations' UX research repositories.
Percentage of respondents whose organizations have a UX research repository
The majority of our survey sample confirmed their organizations do have a central location to store and access past research artifacts and insights:
- 85.0% of respondents (256) said they do have a UX research repository
- 14.3% of respondents (43) said they do not
- 0.7% of respondents (2) said they're not sure
Support for democratizing access to UX research repositories
While support for democratizing the execution of research studies was quite high, support for democratizing access to research repositories was overwhelming.
Broadly speaking:
- 95.0% of respondents (286) said they support democratizing access to their organizations' past research
- 2.7% of respondents (8) said they're not sure if they support democratizing access to their organizations' past research
- 2.3% of respondents (7) said they do not support democratizing access to their organizations' past research
It's worth noting that when excluding the 15.0% of respondents who either said their organization does not have a UX research repository or they're not sure if they have one, the percentage of respondents in favor of democratizing access to UX research repositories only increases slightly, to 95.3%.
When we asked our respondents the biggest reasons for their previous answers, here's what they said.
Note: Given the overwhelming majority of support, the section below includes more reasons for "yes" responses than it does for "no" and "unsure" responses.
Reasons why respondents answered "yes"
A UX Research Operations professional from a technology company with 5,001-10,000 employees who answered "yes" shared:
“Information is the key to any and all research work; it’s what needs to be delivered. I believe the best ran companies work on a free flow of information that involve understanding customers. There are so many overlaps to what research can and should touch but on a weekly basis, I, my ops team, our UXR coach, and research leads are asked by design, product, and across business lines about customers. A well built repo, one that prioritizes consumption of information will have a company well in touch with their customers and offers the ability to meet their needs and best promise their time and resources.”
A self-employed UX Research professional who answered "yes" shared:
"It helps avoid redundant/duplicate work, it helps new starters get up and running faster, it avoids losing lots of knowledge once someone leaves. It also helps people answer questions without the curation of a researcher, and offers a low-friction approach to embedding more insights throughout one's work."
A UX Research professional from a financial services company with 5,001-10,000 employees who answered "yes" shared"
"Even if we don't democratize the execution of research, I definitely think wide democratization of research repositories is necessary. The whole point of doing research is for the company to better understand their customers—if we hide those results, then all that hard work we spent collecting and distilling insights goes to waste. The entire company should have access to some form of past and current research insights, especially summaries. The only thing that should be carefully gated are raw data that can be tied back to individual persons.”
A UX Research Operations professional from a software company with 10,000+ employees who answered "yes" shared:
"It's important that research insights are accessible in an organization so people feel informed about their decisions. Researchers should not be 'gatekeepers' to information. However, they are responsible for protecting participant data/privacy and ensuring the insights presented are clear and understandable."
Reasons why respondents answered "no"
A UX Research Operations professional at a software company with 1,001-5,000 employees who answered "no" shared:
“Research is highly contextual and each study is designed differently. Therefore if someone searches without prior knowledge on the topic they can draw the wrong conclusions.”
A UX Research professional from a software company with 10,000+ employees who answered "no" shared:
“The research repository should be accessible to other researchers only because of concerns around misinterpretation of results from other xfn.”
Reasons why respondents answered "I'm not sure"
A self-employed UX Research professional who answered "I'm not sure" shared:
“In theory, yes... but again, it's about what that looks like in practice. Not the guidelines and ideal vision. But the actual execution... the time folks are willing to put in to contributing to a repository. In my experience, it almost always requires a dedicated researcher to pull the reporting and knowledge management over the finish line, even when PWDRs contribute. At the end of the day PWDRs are doing research for insights that they need to consume... so once they have those insights and clarity on their next steps, it can be hard to motivate follow-through around knowledge sharing and stewardship.”
A UX Research Operations professional from a software company with 10,000+ employees who answered "I'm not sure" shared:
“I would much prefer having guardrails in place for such democratization. As research functions, we house a lot of PII and secondary research reports that are not allowed to be used by anyone outside the research function. While I'd love to democratize this, Im also worried about too many people having access to data very few should have :)”
Part III: Democratizing the synthesis of UX research findings
In the final section of our survey, we asked our survey respondents about their views on and experiences with democratizing the synthesis of UX research findings—with and without AI.
Support for democratizing UX research synthesis via manual analysis
First, we asked respondents if they supported democratizing the synthesis of UX research findings without the help of AI.
Whereas support for democratizing the execution of UX research studies (74.9%) and access to UX research repositories (95.0%) has been high, synthesis is where the majority of UX Research and UX Research Operations professionals who took our survey draw the line.
Broadly speaking:
- 50.6% of survey respondents (127) said they support democratizing the synthesis of UX research via manual analysis
- 31.1% of survey respondents (78) said they're not sure if they support democratizing the synthesis of UX research findings via manual analysis
- 18.3% of survey respondents (46) said they do not support democratizing the synthesis of UX research findings via manual analysis
Note: A considerable portion of our survey respondents (16.6%) indicated in the open response section they did not understand the question we asked, so they have been excluded from the data displayed above and below. We understand now we could have been more clear and regret our error. We'll do better next time.
Reasons why respondents answered "yes"
A UX Research professional from a financial services company with 1,001-5,000 employees who answered "yes" shared:
“I believe in a xf approach to synthesis, because the different perspective a xf team member brings can be super helpful. Also, the researcher is able to influence/train non-researcher teammates, such as in how to synthesize without overly biasing particular data.”
A UX Research professional from a software company with 501-1,000 employees who answered "yes" shared:
“This is the biggest risk from my perspective, and the hardest part to get right. Teaching people how to draw conclusions is really difficult and takes years of practice, so while we're in favor of people doing it themselves, we also usually have a Researcher or ReOps person double-check their work (which takes time, but still less than it would if they did it themselves).”
Reasons why respondents answered "I'm not sure"
A UX Research Operations professional from a software company with 10,000+ employees who answered "I'm not sure" shared:
“This is tough - and I think guidance is needed even for broad discovery projects. Being able to pick out qualitative insights across many data points definitely requires some skill. I fully support training, and involving non-UXRs in this process. It's hard to recommend more UXR resources be leveraged for this, but the training & teamwork necessary to synthesize findings is impactful. For more complicated research, and all quantitative analysis/synthesis, a UXR needs to be involved at all points, ideally leading these efforts with input & support from the rest of the product team. Data can be misinterpreted, and overlooked without proper scrutiny.”
A UX Research professional from an information services company with 501-1,000 employees who answered "I'm not sure" shared:
“Only for lightweight research which is low stakes. All our researchers are academically trained in research synthesis methods, most non-researchers do not have the ability to bracket and the skills to rigorously synthesise research, however for the type of research they are doing it is probably ok.”
Reasons why respondents answered "no"
A UX Research professional from an advertising agency with 51-200 employees who answered "no" shared"
“I do not allow non-researchers to conduct much synthesis - they are not trained for this, and this is where I see the biggest issue with improperly democratizing research. We allow non-researchers to conduct studies where the synthesis is tracked by a platform, like usability, click rates, preference studies, etc. If you allow non-researchers to synthesize, that's where you'll see the most amount of bias, cherry-picking, and misunderstanding of insights and data.”
A UX Research professional from an information services company with 1,001-5,000 employees who answered "no" shared:
“Leaning toward no, but the answer is somewhere between yes and no. We touch base with stakeholders so they can get immediate insight on how the research went (and can prioritize sprints and timelines accordingly.) We have built up trust where they know we are accurately summarizing different user journeys and emotions throughout the process. We invite them to take a look at the analysis process with a broad brush while the research team sweeps the data with an unbiased, fine tooth comb.”
Support for democratizing AI-assisted UX research synthesis
Then, we asked respondents if they supported democratizing the synthesis of UX research findings with the help of AI.
Broadly speaking:
- 37.8% of survey respondents (112) said they support democratizing the synthesis of UX research findings via AI
- 32.8% of survey respondents (97) said they're not sure if they support democratizing the synthesis of UX research findings via AI
- 29.4% of survey respondents (87) said they do not support the democratizing the synthesis of UX research findings via AI
Reasons why respondents answered "yes"
A UX Research Operations professional from a software company with 10,000+ employees who answered "yes" shared:
“I agree. AI has the potential to revolutionize how we share and utilize research learnings. While current AI capabilities may present quality challenges, I anticipate that with further development, AI will enable us to consistently improve research quality while simultaneously lowering the barrier to entry for non-researchers.”
A UX Research Operations professional from an electronics manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees who answered "yes" shared:
“Yes, BUT it should be used as a checks and balances mechanism. People bring their different lived experiences that shape the creation of insights, and those are extremely important. AI just isn't there yet. But AI can give early summaries and can reveal themes that could be missed with manual analysis.”
Reasons why respondents answered "I'm not sure"
A UX Research professional from a religious institution with 201-500 employees who answered "I'm not sure" shared:
“I'm torn on this. Generally speaking, there is a lot of potential, but genAI so often says things confidently that people don't question it, but I personally don't have the confidence yet that it can draw out all insights strictly from notes or transcripts. As far as I know, it still can't observe the screen recording and see what users are clicking on, what micro expressions they're making or that hesitations might point to an insight. So I guess I feel it can help synthesize some findings, but is likely to miss things; but maybe the things it misses are so small it's not a big deal.”
A UX Research professional from an IT company with 10,000+ employees who answered "I'm not sure" shared:
“This is a tricky one. So our repository does this. What the researchers on my team will do is allow for the AI synthesis, but then they need to spend time going through that and correcting it and adding more supporting data and content. This space is obviously evolving very quickly, so where my researchers see errors or incomplete areas today, they may not see that in another 6 months to a year. Hard to anticipate what it could look like in 5 years. So I think we're well on our way to getting to a point where we can trust AI's synthesis, but I don't think we're there now.”
Reasons why respondents answered "no"
A UX Research professional from an IT company with 5,001-10,000 employees who answered "no" shared:
"In its current form, using AI for synthesizing research findings and insights can cause more harm to decision-making than benefits. I prefer to use AI for applications around data mining, clean-ups, and analysis, rather than for direct insights generation because the currently available AI delivers only highly superficial insights that we don't have much use for as a mature organization."
A UX Research professional from a retail company with 10,000+ employees who answered "no" shared:
"No AI synthesizing research ever. I'm firmly against it on principle. LLMs are basically text prediction algorithms, they're not minds. I may as well let an elementary schooler synthesize my research.”
Other takes on UX research democratization
Finally, we asked our survey respondents if they had anything else they'd like to share with about democratization that we had not already covered. They didn't disappoint.
Business impact
A UX Research professional from a technology company with 1,001-5,000 employees shared:
"Democratizing research is not about cutting researchers or cutting research out of the process. It's about optimizing for the unique value researchers can provide and creating a customer-centric mindset across the whole organization, which are positive things."
A UX Research professional from a software company with 501-1,000 employees shared:
"While non-researchers will be owning more of their research, the next evolution of user researchers will be more business-oriented with a big-picture focus and long-term impact. Centering user needs won't be the only focus. We will need to show how research contributes to generating revenue. Mixed-methods researchers will be more valuable to organizations marrying the quant and the qual more than ever."
A UX Research professional from technology company with 1,001-5,000 employees shared:
"It's here and it's not going away. I think we need to understand what the impact of democratization is to the business. This is a tall order because even UXR teams right now have a hard time assessing that. Until we know the impact of research on a business down to the insight level, we won't really know what democratization is good or bad for companies."
A UX Research professional from a financial services company with 1,001-5,000 employees shared:
"Once they realize the power of good research to drive better outcomes, smart business people are going to want to do research themselves. We can either help them do it better, and gain their respect for the expertise impactful research demands, or not help, and be increasingly seen as roadblocks to their (DIYers') progress, irrelevant and redundant."
Culture & maturity
A UX Research professional at a software company with 51-200 employees shared:
"It can sometimes depend on the culture of the organization as to what's appropriate. If they don't value research to begin with, then democratizing research is going to devalue the role of the individual Researcher. If the culture already respects the research process, but just requires scale, then think this is an appropriate path with guardrails."
A self-employed UX Research professional shared:
"In general, democratization is a net negative because it’s implemented poorly. If UXRs had the respect and resources to implement it well (plus many more years of maturity within UXR and product management), then answers would change."
A UX Research professional from a software company with 1,001-5,000 employees shared:
"Think it really matters the organization you're in - have been in orgs where data is weaponized/cherry picked for someone's own purposes but it's much easier and positive to democratize research if you've built a culture where research/insights are respected and valued as a skill and people have good intent around truthseeking."
Wise words
A self-employed UX Research professional shared:
"Conducting research is a privilege. Building trust, leading with empathy and ethics should always be the north star of any research, design and democratization program."
A UX Research professional from a computer and network security company with 201-500 employees shared:
"As hinted in an earlier response, I tend to see democratisation not as a binary thing, but as a spectrum to navigate. I believe that _some_ democratisation will always be valuable (e.g. allow everyone in an org to query insights repo) but equally think that a fully democratised practice with zero expert/centralised research is likely to be a risky choice."
A self-employed UX Research professional shared:
"I think most of the time democratization initiatives are seen as a one-off heavy lift that researchers do and then their workload will decrease quickly and people will be happy with getting access. They are usually done by running one or a few workshops, sharing templates, and then letting people do their thing, which then often leads to really bad results and subpar experiences for non-researchers. This is why I think it's worth truly thinking about making this a sustainable and scalable initiative, and also dedicating the appropriate budget (time, money, people) to it to make sure it's a success."
Time for a rebrand?
A self-employed UX Research professional shared:
"I wish there was another word to describe it. The opposite of democratize is dictatorship - and I feel that is too often how researchers are perceived. The more people understand the value of observation and direct feedback from customers, the sooner opinion-based decisions (masked by numbers) will give way to actual user-informed decisions."
A UX research professional from a government agency with 1,001-5,000 employees shared:
"I think the phrase is a turn off to non-researchers. The more I spend time in my career, the more I find the way we explain what we do and what human centered design to do to be a whole song and dance. Maybe I'm getting cynical. It's also a turn off to me. I don't like the position it puts me in with my colleagues. Do they use that phrasing when they get me into the agile or product cycle? I don't have a better phrase for it but those are my thoughts."
A UX Research Operations professional from a software company with 10,000+ employees shared:
"The phrase 'research democratization' centers the professional researcher, not the research itself (which is useless and was a waste of time if not acted upon) or the outcomes (business improvement, user improvement), and as such continues to be the wrong framing for the entire discussion."
A self-employed UX Research professional shared:
"I would love to see us talking about building internal cultures of research rather than 'democratizing' the skills."
Key takeaways
Support for democratization among UX Research and Research Operations professionals is stronger than we expected.
- 74.1% of survey respondents support democratizing the execution of UX research studies
- 95.0% of survey respondents support democratizing access to UX research repositories
However, synthesis is where many of our respondents draw the line: About half (50.6%) support democratizing the synthesis of UX research findings through manual analysis (without AI) and 37.8% support democratizing the synthesis of UX research findings with the use of AI.
Still, the outlook on the impact of democratization on the future is more positive than negative.
- 56.1% of survey respondents believe democratizing the execution of UX research studies will have a somewhat or very positive impact on the future of the UX research industry
- 65.4% of survey respondents believe democratizing the execution of UX research studies will have a somewhat or very positive impact on the future of their organization/business
While support for democratization is strong and outlook for its future impact is at least somewhat positive, that doesn't mean UX Researchers and Research Operations professionals are satisfied with the status quo. On average, our survey respondents cited a total of six concerns with research democratization. At the top of the list:
- 91.7% are concerned about the quality and reliability of research conducted by non-researchers
- 81.7% are concerned about the cherry-picking of insights by non-researchers
- 79.1% are concerned about the misinterpretation of data by non-researchers
Clearly there's plenty of work left to be done. Our findings about research guardrails and support shed a little light on what a path forward might look like.
On average, our survey respondents identified three types of research guardrails or support their organizations currently have in place. Although that's not far off the ideal number of types of research guardrails or support our survey respondents identified (four), there were some considerable gaps to note.
- 71.2% of survey respondents identified "research training or certification before conducting studies" as an ideal form of support they'd like to have for non-researchers, but only 28.9% said they're organizations currently have this in effect today.
- 69.6% of survey respondents identified "best practices for data governance, privacy, and compliance" as an ideal form of support they'd like to have for non-researchers, but only 41.5% said they're organizations currently have this in effect today.
- 62.1% of survey respondents identified "regular researcher office hours (weekly, monthly, etc.)" as an ideal form of support they'd like to have for non-researchers, but only 33.6% said they're organizations currently have this in effect today.
So... now what?
How Great Question can help
Thanks for reading our 2025 State of UX Research Democratization Report. We really appreciate it.
If you enjoyed this report, there are a few other ways we might be able to help.
1. Book a democratization strategy session with us
Are you UX Researcher or ResearchOps pro who wants to democratize research in your organization, but don't know where to start? From tools, training, and templates to data governance and guardrails, we'd love to help you assess your needs and tailor a strategic approach to democratization for your organization.
Feel free to book time with us below.
3. Try Great Question for free
Rather cut to the chase? Create a free Great Question account.
Great Question is the all-in-one UX research platform trusted by world-class companies like Canva, Gusto, and more. With Great Question, you can:
- Recruit participants: Upload a list or integrate with your CRM to build a panel of your own users, or recruit from Respondent’s panel of 3M+ B2B and B2C verified participants.
- Schedule research: Sync calendars, customize availability, and schedule 1:1, collective, or round-robin user interviews without conflicts.
- Conduct user interviews, focus groups, unmoderated prototype tests, and more.
- Say thanks by sending automated global incentives to your research participants anywhere in the world.
- Store, analyze, and share all of your insights, highlights, reels, recordings, and transcripts in our enterprise-grade research repository
- Great Question AI: Automatically generate summaries, chapters, highlights, and tags after every interview, query studies with up to 50 hours of interview data in seconds, and more.
Our Personal plans are free forever, with the option to upgrade to a Team plan ($35 per seat/month) or an Enterprise plan (custom pricing) any time.
Interested? We hope to connect with you soon, one way or another.
Thanks again for reading,
✌️ Jack and Harri from Great Question
