We Don’t Have a Research Problem. We Have an Impact Problem.

Years ago, I gave a research readout that everyone called 'really helpful' and then watched as nothing changed. I assumed it was a one-time thing. Twenty-five years later, I know it isn't.

If you’ve ever presented research, you know this feeling. You walk out of a readout feeling good. Stakeholders were engaged. They nodded along. Someone even says, “This is super helpful.” You have clear themes, strong quotes, maybe even a few compelling clips. By all accounts, you did everything right.

And then nothing happens. Nothing changes in the product backlog or roadmap, and your work quietly fades into the background.

As a consultant, I have no control over what happens after I leave. But I have learned that I can shape what happens next.

Instead of simply presenting findings, I think carefully about how those findings show up in the room. I focus on a small set of clear priorities and make the "so what now?" impossible to miss. Then I bring the insights to life in a way that connects with the decisions the team needs to make. In that moment, the readout is often your best shot at influencing what happens next.

You may not control the decisions, but you can control what informs them.

For a long time, I thought the solution was better research: better methods, more rigor, stronger synthesis.

But after 25+ years of doing this work and following and learning from others in the field I deeply respect, one thing has become clear.

We do not have a research problem. We have an impact problem.

Researchers like Nikki Anderson, Tamara Adlin, Julie Francis, Vitaly Friedman, and others have been calling out this same gap.

Most UX research today is technically solid. We know how to run interviews, conduct usability tests, and identify patterns in the data. That is not where things are breaking down.

The breakdown happens after the insights. It shows up in the gap between what we learn and what actually gets acted on.

Insights do not drive decisions. At least, not on their own.

Decisions are driven by urgency, clarity, confidence, and what people remember when you are not in the room. Most research, no matter how well executed, doesn't account for that. We present findings rather than making arguments, share observations without clearly defined implications, and hand off decks, hoping something changes.

Meanwhile, our insights are competing with strong opinions, pre-set roadmaps, tight timelines, and stakeholders who were not part of the research in the first place.

Case in point, I was once asked to include a recommendation in one of my readouts that supported a decision the product team had already made. There was no research to back it up. I left it out. But the request itself told me everything about how research was being used in that organization. Manipulated, really.

Decisions are made based on what people remember, and what people remember is what they felt. How you tell it shapes what they feel. Storytelling is the link in the chain that most researchers underinvest in. 

Stanford ran a study on retention rates that I think about constantly. They found that with statistics alone, you only get a 5-10% retention rate. Now, if you pair that data with anecdotes (or short stories), the retention rate shoots up to 60-70%.

So, what story should you tell? The one that’s going to answer the most important question on the minds of everyone listening to a research readout: “Why should I care?” If your presentation doesn't answer that early and clearly, you’ve lost them.

Erika Hall puts it bluntly: “If you don't understand how people make decisions in your organization, you'll never influence them.” That's the work. Knowing who decides, what they care about, what they trust, and then telling the story that lands with them. You need to know this to reach them.

In future posts, I’ll do a deeper dive into how to use storytelling in your readouts and structure them around answering the all-important question: “Why should I care?”. 

Once you start seeing this as an impact problem, everything shifts. You stop focusing only on what you learned and start thinking about what needs to happen next.

• Will this change a decision?
• What is the “so what now?” in plain terms?
• What's the one thing I need this audience to remember next week when I'm not in the room?

Because if research is not driving decisions, it is just documentation. This is what Making Research Matter is about, and what I'll be exploring in the posts ahead.