UX research is facing an identity crisis. The ongoing debate about democratization is a new symptom of a problem that has long existed: the unclear role of UX research in companies. This lack of clarity within our field has led to a lack of understanding on the part of our organizations of what a research team does. And that, in turn, leads to research being undervalued, under-utilized, and under-resourced.

But what is the value we provide? Does it come from teaching others to do what we do, so that research is never a blocker? Do we argue for huge increases in headcount so we can embed in every team? Do we try to guard research, or democratize it? Or can we do both?

The role of research is to help organizations make the best possible decisions by providing critical insights about people and their needs. We can’t do that if organizations don’t trust us. And we can’t build trust if organizations don’t understand what we do. What makes having an internal research team a better use of resources than, say, teaching every product team to conduct their own research, or hiring contractors as needed?

The value of research comes from the intersection of expertise and context. Internal UX research teams are uniquely situated to rapidly answer complex questions about strategy and product direction. We do this by being experts in a range of research methodologies, as well as experts in the product itself. UX research does its best, most impactful work when we focus on this top right quadrant.

This isn’t to say the other quadrants aren’t important (except that bottom left one – that’s where things like anecdata and Hacker News comments live), but they aren’t the best use of an internal UX research team. In the top left are things like white papers and academic publications, as well as external contractors, which are valuable and require deep research expertise, but no internal context. In the bottom right are things like usability testing, which require basic research training but greatly benefit from a higher degree of organizational context*. Using this framework, we can make the case for thoughtful democratization of high context, low expertise projects while acknowledging the unique contributions of dedicated UX researchers.

With this, each individual researcher on my team has a clear way to articulate why we work on the projects we do – they’re the ones that require both specialized skills and a high degree of organizational context. It’s not just research skills that internal UX research teams bring to the table, it’s a deep understanding of the product and the organization, as well as a vested interest in the success of those things. This means that the projects we work on are those that are critical to the organization’s success, aligned to company initiatives and the long-term product strategy. This framework situates our work in the context of the organization’s needs, and provides a visual representation of how our team creates unique value.

Part of our job is to help organizations understand our role as UX researchers, rather than waiting for them to define it for us. This is the the best way for our organizations to understand how and when to work with us, and the only way they’ll be able to appropriately value our work. That’s why it’s vital that we articulate our purpose and our value clearly and accurately. As a discipline, we can’t afford to become overly possessive of research, but we should vociferously defend the value that UX research is uniquely suited to provide to an organization.

The framework I’ve shared here clarifies the purpose and value organizations should expect from us. More UX research teams should use it, or create their own based on their team’s unique role in their company. The more we can define and clarify the value of UX research, the more our discipline will be appropriately valued by our organizations.

*Usability testing doesn’t actually require organizational context, but it benefits hugely from it. Having organizational context when usability testing results in better, more tailored recommendations that take into account the team’s specific constraints and goals. It also enables the team to more rapidly apply learnings from the test, and develop a better sense for their users’ needs.