At AnswerLab, we envision a world full of experiences that enrich people’s lives, and we know that these kinds of experiences stem from insights about why they think, feel, and behave the way they do.
But what exactly do we mean by “insights”? Over the past few years, the term’s been increasingly overused - it’s become a catch-all for everything from “observation” to “finding” to “idea” and beyond.
Given this, it’s no surprise that the concept of insights can feel ambiguous.
What is A Research Insight?
A research insight might come in the form of a jolt of recognition, surprise, or curiosity. It provokes a strong reaction. Insight generation isn’t always linear, and it’s difficult to communicate an insight without the context behind it. However, it generally has the following qualities:
- Well-informed: Multiple findings, levels of "why", and other pieces of evidence, e.g., researcher observations, should contribute to each insight. It should go without saying, but just in case: accuracy is a key part of this criterion.
- Illuminating: Insights must help explain or contextualize why something is (or is not) happening.
- Impactful: By definition, insights must be about something that matters; they should clearly relate to the research objectives.
- Easy to understand: Insights should be clear, direct, and memorable. They should be communicable in 1-2 sentences rather than entire paragraphs. (Of course, the evidence for them can - and should - be much more in-depth.)
- Evocative: Think of insights as diving boards into pools of exciting new ideas, directions, or possibilities. (But remember that insights are not themselves recommendations! While related, insights are fundamentally problem-centric - they shine light on a current situation, need, or issue - whereas recommendations are solution-centric.)
Breaking down the relationship between findings and insights
Insights have a circular relationship with findings. On the one hand, we explore and combine findings to arrive at insights. On the other hand, once insights are discovered and articulated, they help us make sense and meaning out of findings; they can also help tie seemingly disparate findings together by shining a light on what underlies them.
Despite their clear connection, it can’t be emphasized enough: insights are not the same as a finding
| Findings | Insights |
|---|---|
| Report what happened | Connect the dots between happenings |
| Deal with the “what” or shallow “why” | Encompass the deep “why” |
| Emerge directly from explicit statements or actions | Explain underlying motivations, beliefs, or mental models |
| Can take a few hours of post-session analysis to identify and refine | Can take several days of sensemaking to uncover and stress-test |
| May be surprising in terms of results, but are unlikely to challenge existing worldviews | Provoke a new or reframed way of understanding |
While adding an explanation for a finding almost always uplevels that finding, it doesn’t automatically transform it into an insight; this is a common misconception.
For example, take this genericized takeaway from research sessions: “When creating an account on [platform], most participants chose to use their initials rather than their full name.”
Clearly, this is a finding, not an insight: it’s an explicit statement about what happened. It’s also clear that it could be improved by addressing the rationale behind the behavior.
Imagine that we review our notes from these research sessions and find the following participant quotes (and for simplicity, imagine that they are broadly representative):
- "I mean, I don't really know what I'm going to be sharing [or] who else is here. Maybe I don't want other people to know that it’s me."
- *"I don't get why other people would need to know who I am on here. I like having a little more privacy.” *
- *“I guess I just think initials are a little bit safer, like, from a privacy point of view.” *
Given that, we can elaborate: “When creating an account on [platform], most participants chose to use their initials rather than their full name because they valued their privacy.”
This is a definite improvement over the original iteration. However, this new information - the “why” - did not automatically transform the finding into an insight. As you can see from the verbatims, “[participants] valued their privacy” was communicated by the participants themselves. Referring back to our table, anything that emerges from explicit statements or actions is a finding, not an insight. (That said, digging more deeply into why participants valued their privacy, or what they feared might happen if it wasn’t protected, might have resulted in an insight.)
Both research insights and research findings have their place
With all this focus on insights - both within this article and across the field of UX research - it can be easy to conclude that insights must be inherently superior to findings. Not so! Different research objectives call for different outcomes.
Just like it makes sense to answer “What’s two plus two?” with a number and “What’s your favorite color?” with an option from the rainbow, it’s logical that evaluative research questions are normally addressable with findings, whereas generative ones often require insights.
In evaluative research - research to assess the current state of a product or service and whether it meets users’ expectations and needs - you typically know exactly what you’re looking to learn. Success comes from accurately answering questions like, Did users understand [X]? How did they engage with [Y]? Did they enjoy the experience of [Z]? In these cases, well-crafted, evidence-based findings are almost always sufficient.
On the other hand, generative research is all about gaining a more nuanced understanding of a situation, problem, or need; “unknown unknowns” are far more common in this type of research, and accordingly, “a deeper interpretation or understanding” is often necessary.
Insights require substantial investment of time, energy, and focus. It’s important to be sure you’re investing appropriately.
To learn more about AnswerLab's approach to uncovering insights, get in touch with a strategist.
