To dive into the last chapter of this guide to research enablement, which explores research culture, we’ll first do a small mental time travel and recap the previous section on cumulative research and the benefits of creating research insights with compounding impact.
Getting an organization to the point where research builds on itself usually does not happen organically. This is because most organizations have grassroots research before they start labeling learning as research, before they hire dedicated researchers, let alone research operations or adopt the explicit goal of research enablement.
To create macro perspectives with cumulative research, unity is needed, change is needed. And change is hard. So often efforts to centralize, despite great intentions, end up risking flexibility, creativity, and autonomy. And in a decentralized, grassroots research environment, those risks end up on the shoulders of the very people who have self-identified as research’s biggest potential allies.
The political nuance surrounding the practical challenges for doing cumulative research is one of countless examples where this framework could win in theory, but fail in practice.
In theory, a research enablement strategy that is continuous, collaborative, centralized, cumulative, and cultural creates the perfect recipe for high-quality insights, shared understanding, and momentum toward a common purpose. In practice, all four of the previous sections depend much more disproportionately on this last and final section of this guide to research enablement: culture.
In this section of our guide, we will discuss what research culture means, what great and not-so-great research cultures look like, and how research culture impacts research enablement efforts within organizations.
To dive into the last chapter of this guide to research enablement, which explores research culture, we’ll first do a small mental time travel and recap the previous section on cumulative research and the benefits of creating research insights with compounding impact.
Getting an organization to the point where research builds on itself usually does not happen organically. This is because most organizations have grassroots research before they start labeling learning as research, before they hire dedicated researchers, let alone research operations or adopt the explicit goal of research enablement.
To create macro perspectives with cumulative research, unity is needed, change is needed. And change is hard. So often efforts to centralize, despite great intentions, end up risking flexibility, creativity, and autonomy. And in a decentralized, grassroots research environment, those risks end up on the shoulders of the very people who have self-identified as research’s biggest potential allies.
The political nuance surrounding the practical challenges for doing cumulative research is one of countless examples where this framework could win in theory, but fail in practice.
In theory, a research enablement strategy that is continuous, collaborative, centralized, cumulative, and cultural creates the perfect recipe for high-quality insights, shared understanding, and momentum toward a common purpose. In practice, all four of the previous sections depend much more disproportionately on this last and final section of this guide to research enablement: culture.
In this section of our guide, we will discuss what research culture means, what great and not-so-great research cultures look like, and how research culture impacts research enablement efforts within organizations.
What makes research cultural?
Research is a catalyst for the future. And that means researchers themselves are also catalysts. What an organization researches, who is doing the research, and with who... all of these choices reflect the priorities, confidence, and research skills of an organization.
In some ways research is a reflection of an organization’s ego. For example, the research happening inside an organizations answers questions like:
- What we think we know.
- How confident we are.
- Which unknowns create fears.
- How much fear and risk we tolerate in decision making.
- Who’s perspectives we prioritize and those we don’t.
- How much of an appetite we have for hard problems, curiosity, and humility.
When we talk about research enablement strategies they’re often referencing large organizations with lots of complexity and the need to scale knowledge and learning. However, the seeds for research culture and research enablement were often planted long before an organization grew into its present need for research. A research culture started to form from the very inception of the company’s overall culture.
At some point all companies at a certain size realize their need for research. With scale comes complexity. And with the passage of time comes the need to evolve, invent, and stay relevant to compete in the modern competitive landscape. If you’re not learning, you’re not growing. Whether an organization realizes this early-on and leverages research as a unique competitive advantage or realizes it later on and needs to begin first to unravel its complexity, reflects the maturity of its research culture.
What is a Research Culture?
There are numerous definitions and perspectives of research culture and what entails a good or bad research culture. Generally, research culture refers to various ways an organization demonstrates its values for evidence-based decision making and learning.
If an organization tolerates guessing and risk-taking, that is a reflection of its research culture.
If an organization celebrates research by recognizing contributions and celebrating its impact, that is a reflection of its research culture.
If an organization tolerates mediocre research, perhaps by celebrating in easy public ways like emoji reactions and “nice work”s in Slack, but ignoring, criticizing, or dismissing research when it matters, when decisions are made that is a reflection of its research culture.
What is the Role that Research Culture Plays in Research Enablement?
Research enablement describes the people, processes, and tools inside an organization that help them learn.
For an organization to have these resources in place for learning, they first need to be prioritized. If an organization wants to innovate in its market, it first has to innovate within itself. Innovation doesn’t come from solving problems with obvious solutions. If it does it usually isn’t long until those solutions are flooded with competition and commoditized. So to stay relevant in an ever-changing world, organizations should strive for a work environment that celebrates solving hard problems, where not knowing something isn’t a failure but an opportunity.
Research culture also sets the tone for what good research looks like in its appropriate context. For example, when teams recognize scenarios where research is needed, when they instinctively know when to seek more information for decisions or creative work, it’s a huge green flag that research culture is maturing within the organization.
A positive research culture creates a safe space for taking risks and learning from mistakes. This ends up creating a sense of shared responsibility for knowledge which means more people look to research not as a task but as a responsibility.
How to create a great research culture… no matter where you’re starting from.
Whether your organization is interested in research enablement because a great research culture already exists and is driving demand, you find yourself part of an organization that is still finding its research identity, or even part of an organization with bad research culture… it is never too late to start building or improving research culture. In fact, if your organization is committed to long-term growth and innovation, the sooner you start, the better.
Here a few tips to improve research culture:
Start with introspective.
Examine the research and impact that is currently happening. Is the quality high? Is it efficient? Timely? Accessible? Don’t branch out and expect to gain trust or support externally, if internally the research house isn’t in order first. A lot of times this looks like doing great research over a couple cycles and then starting to show your work in a more centralized and consistent way.
Internal stakeholder interviews
We’re excited to see a rising trend in more companies realizing that some of their richest insights come from internal stakeholders. If you want to instill an appreciation for the research process with department leads, there are few better shortcuts than inviting them into the research process as a participant. By launching internal studies, you get to show colleagues what being a participant is like, build rapport, and also demonstrate how their participation impacts synthesis and insights. Don’t think the only way to involve stakeholders is by inviting them as passive observers. Their active participation as a participant is much more likely to leave an impression. One of my favorite examples of this from an internal study I ran for a client was when I had the opportunity to interview a customer support rep inside a B2C application. She’d worked there for 7 years and it was the first time anyone had ever asked her questions about *she* thought the company might improve their products for customers. Her ideas and contributions ended up being a major part of the study and was an eye-opening experience for upper management to realize their sources for creativity were so far off their radar and yet so simple and close to tap into.
Simplify. Don’t contribute to complexity.
One of the more divisive patterns we see in organizations where despite having a mature research function (qualified researchers, dedicated R&D budgets, etc) but still having a struggling research culture, comes down to trust. People cannot trust things they do not understand. When researchers have to routinely justify themselves inside a skeptical organization, in the pursuit of self-preservation sometimes research teams use the wrong defense mechanism: complexity. And while the “this job is so hard to do only we can do it” mantra isn’t a corporate self defense mechanism unique to research, it is uniquely going to fail for research more so than it will work in any other department. The role of research is to replace complexity with simplicity, to replace the unknown with new knowledge. When research teams allow fear and ego to become factors in how they share data, access, or transparency around their methods, or to influence even small factors like they language they use to describe their work, it almost never plays out in their favor. Consider the UX of your stakeholders. We know that users don’t have to understand the technical inner workings of a product to find its value, but they do need to understand basic principles to feel confident and safe. Stakeholders interacting with research are no different. There’s a balance to be struck and it’s the job of research to find it.
Develop a research manifesto.
This small but mighty document can go a long way in helping define a research practice. Don’t assume that the vision and values from the overall organization are enough to trickle down into the vision and values of research. They aren’t. And they especially aren’t at scale. A manifesto (or research playbook if you’re not a fan of dramatic effects) is a simple place for the team to align on how the research team functions, what its principles are, build shared vocabulary, and so much more.
What Does Good Research Culture Look Like?
Now that we have more understanding about the role of research culture in enablement, let's highlight some qualities of good research culture.
- Encourages Asking Questions: A good research culture means that having a lot of questions is considered a good thing. When more people are curious and constantly ask questions, research is conducted more frequently. By encouraging asking questions and exploring curiosity, deeper learning takes place.
- Includes Research as a Dedicated Phase: In an organization with good research culture, research has at least one dedicated phase in the product development cycle. Not all research projects have to be a large undertaking. Even small, one-off studies can create large impacts. By making research a habit at the beginning of a sprint, discovery helps guide the design process. And with a research habit at the end of a sprint, usability testing informs future iterations and improvements.
- Encourages Experimentation: In a good research culture trying and failing is seen as part of the learning process. Every research project will not “validate” ideas and hypotheses and that’s ok. There is value in the things research proves and the things it disproves.
Run an end-to-end research project for free in Notably
Use AI-powered research analysis to create better, faster research insights.
What Does Bad Research Culture Look Like?
Like all things in life, there’s a flipside. If greatness exists, then so does mediocrity, and worse. A sign that the research culture may not be so great is when research either doesn’t exist as an alternative to guessing or if it does, researchers or stakeholders do not feel comfortable with curiosity or suggesting new, innovative ideas. Some examples of a struggling research culture look like:
- Egocentric Behavior: When there are big egos and sacred cows, there’s a notion of some special individuals having more influence than others. And while it might be an inherent truth in the corporate hierarchy, an effort to create equality in the sense that good ideas and insights can come from anyone, no matter their rung on the corporate ladder, is a requirement for optimizing an organization’s creativity.
- Decisions Without Data: With a not-so-great research culture, decisions are often made without data. Jared Spool, one of our favorite UX leaders, famously says there is a technical word for making decisions without data: guessing.While guessing can work in some scenarios for certain people, eventually luck runs out and all that guessing can come back to haunt an organization in very expensive ways.
- High-Risk Projects: Another characteristic of bad (or no) research culture is when stakeholders find themselves often taking up high-risk projects. While high risk sometimes means high returns, high risk always means the potential for tremendous losses. Those losses have real dollar value associated with them. According to recent reports from CISQ, that’s to the tune of $1 trillion a year on failed software initiatives. But those costs also take shape in forms that are difficult to measure, but costly including burnout, attrition, and technical debt.
- Mistrust and Cynicism: Last but certainly not least, a not-so-great research culture usually has a skepticism that starts healthy but slowly morphs into cynicism. If devil’s advocates are sucking the optimism out of the room, even great research can have a hard creating momentum and overcoming “paralysis by analysis” so often fills the void created by a lack of trust.
Conclusion
Now that we’ve taken a broad look at research culture and how it contributes to the overall strategy and success of research enablement, we hope you’ll find this message an encouraging one. Maybe it’s helped you put a label to some of the cultural innerworkings of your organization that you’ve been feeling, but not able to identify. Maybe you’re realizing that the culture at your organization needs a little love before going all in on research enablement tools and process or realizing how culture might be impacting adoption across your efforts.
Here at Notably we specialize in helping organizations introduce research enablement to their organizations, both with our platform, but also through our onboarding, custom templates, workshops, and more. We’ve worked with customers across industries and across the spectrum of research culture, maturity, and support. While every organization has its own unique challenges in regards to research enablement, we’re inspired by the researchers out there who answer those challenges with the spirit of research itself: all things are possible.
Brittany Fuller
Brittany is the co-founder and CEO at Notably.
