In user research, the approach to conducting interviews can significantly impact the quality of insights gathered. Here, I'll address two distinct approaches: the robotic, scripted method and a more human, flexible interaction style. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and understanding when to employ each is crucial for effective research. By examining the benefits and challenges of both styles, researchers can better navigate their choices and find the right balance to optimize feedback sessions.

The Robotic Approach

The robotic approach to interviews involves strict adherence to a scripted set of questions. This method can be especially beneficial for novice interviewers or those who may feel less comfortable with facilitation. When working in unfamiliar problem spaces or exploring new topics, sticking to a well-crafted script enables interviewers to navigate sessions with confidence. A solid script can even include instructions and responses to address participant questions or concerns, especially if unexpected questions arise that could risk derailing the conversation.

In some cases, having an expert observer can enhance this method and compensate for any lack of experience or expertise the interviewer may have. The interviewer can let participants know that their questions will be addressed by an expert at the session's end, maintaining the interview's flow without losing sight of the primary objective. This approach is also valuable for managing stakeholder expectations around participant engagement. Stakeholders may worry that delaying responses could seem inattentive or uninformed. Reassuring them that our priority is gathering insights can help preserve their trust and confidence in the research process. But I digress.

Even experienced interviewers benefit from following strict scripts, regardless of their understanding of the problem space. A well-structured script facilitates unbiased, open responses, enabling the interviewer to gather the information they need without leading the participant. However, crafting this "perfect" script requires a solid grasp of the research context to ensure the questions remain relevant and effective.

The Human Approach

In contrast, the human approach prioritizes a conversational, flexible style that feels more natural to participants. This method tends to create a more comfortable environment, as few enjoy speaking with a robotic interviewer who mechanically moves through questions without engagement. A personable facilitator can bring emotion and empathy into the interaction, potentially leading to deeper insights.

However, this approach is not without its challenges. Flexibility in a human approach may lead to tangents or bias, as a facilitator's attempts to add personality—possibly through humor or personal anecdotes—can inadvertently derail the conversation. While these moments may foster rapport, they can also distract participants from providing focused, relevant feedback. When executed well, though, the human approach can loosen participants up, encouraging them to share insights that go beyond the surface question—an experience similar to peeling back multiple layers of an onion at once, a concept I explored in a previous article.

Moreover, the human approach allows for better adaptability during the interview. If a participant skips over a topic or introduces a new, relevant line of thought, a skilled facilitator can follow that lead, adjusting questions on the fly based on previous responses. Grounding questions in prior statements also helps make the inquiry more relatable while holding participants accountable to their earlier thoughts.

This approach can be further enhanced when the interviewer lacks deep expertise in the problem space by leveraging an expert observer in real time. By maintaining an open chat window on a device visible only to the interviewer, the observer can provide additional context, suggest follow-ups, offer explanations, and share other helpful insights that can be seamlessly woven into the discussion. This collaborative dynamic not only enriches the interviewer's understanding but also helps maintain the flow of the conversation, leading to the collection of more nuanced data. It allows the interviewer to access expertise without disrupting the natural progression of the interview, ensuring that participants feel heard while keeping the conversation focused.

Weighing the Costs and Benefits

Ultimately, choosing between a robotic and human approach involves weighing the costs and benefits of each method. Novice interviewers in straightforward problem spaces may benefit more from a structured script, while those navigating complex or ambiguous issues with expert support might opt for a more conversational style.

Flexibility in scripting can also be advantageous, particularly in unclear landscapes. Creating a discussion guide with documented follow-ups and probing points allows interviewers to draw from a rich set of questions while also adapting the conversation as needed. One of the most critical aspects of building a successful interview framework is establishing a feedback loop during the script creation process. Engaging stakeholders in this loop allows for collaborative refinement of the approach, ensuring that all voices are heard and that everyone involved is aligned with the research goals and methods.

Final Thoughts

Finding the right balance between being robotic and human in user research is crucial for effective feedback sessions. Each approach has its merits, and understanding when to employ them can significantly enhance the quality of insights gathered. By leveraging the strengths of both methods and maintaining open communication with stakeholders, we can create a research environment that fosters genuine dialogue and yields valuable, actionable feedback.