Why positionality matters in UX research

What happens when the person asking the questions has never lived the reality they’re asking about? What might someone choose not to say to a stranger who looks and sounds nothing like them? What gets written down as an insight, and what gets quietly left out of the notes?

Those questions sit at the heart of what academics call positionality: the idea that a UX researcher’s background, assumptions and identity shape the questions they ask, the dynamics they create, and what ends up counting as “insight”. But how often do we talk about this in UX research?

When positionality is ignored, it doesn’t disappear. Instead, it quietly shapes the entire research process. It affects who feels comfortable speaking, what participants choose to share, and how their words are interpreted and translated into solutions.

In UX, we often pride ourselves on being user‑centred – we talk about empathy, reducing bias, designing for real user needs. Positionality asks something slightly more uncomfortable of us – it asks us to look at ourselves, not just our methods. Who is doing the research? And how might that shape what is said and what we hear?

“Positionality asks us to look at ourselves, not just our methods. Who is doing the research – and how might that shape what is said and what we hear?”

This becomes even more important when we’re speaking with people whose realities differ from our own.

• A student navigating further education might not feel able to challenge a researcher who seems “official” or distant.
• A parent might soften what they say if they sense judgement in the room.
• A young person in the care system might hold back if they feel the researcher won’t really understand their experience.
• Someone from a lower‑income background might assume they need to give the “right” answer rather than the honest one.
• A participant whose first language is not English might agree too quickly, not because they fully agree, but because it feels easier than trying to explain something in a language that isn’t theirs.

In those moments, people might respond in a particular way because it might feel safer for them. And if we’re not paying attention to positionality, we risk designing for what people feel comfortable telling us, rather than what’s actually true for them – and over time, that gap can compound into services and products that work well for some and exclude others.

We see similar dynamics in research with disabled users and people from marginalised communities.

“If we’re not paying attention to positionality, we risk designing for what people feel comfortable telling us, rather than what’s actually true for them.”

That’s one side of it – the gap between researcher and participant. But sometimes the challenge isn’t distance from the people we study; instead, the challenge is the closeness to the thing we’re trying to improve. When you know a product inside out, you understand the logic behind every decision and the constraints that shaped it. That familiarity makes it harder to notice the friction, confusion or assumptions it creates for someone coming to it fresh. And it’s not just the past shaping our view, we often have our own ideas about where a product should go next, which can breed “confirmation bias” – picking up on evidence that supports that direction and dismissing that which does not.

So what do we do about it?

In UX research, that means designing our studies with an honest view of our own lens, and the power dynamics between researchers and participants.

1. Recognise our lens – We let go of the idea that neutrality is possible. Every researcher brings a lens. The work is not to remove it, but to recognise it and understand its impact.

2. Build in reflection – We make reflection a real part of the process, not an afterthought. Before and after research, it’s worth asking:

• What assumptions am I bringing into this?
• How might participants be reading me?
• Whose voices came through most clearly, and whose didn’t?

3. Introduce different perspectives – We look at who is involved in the research – not just as participants, but as researchers. Different perspectives in a team don’t just add variety; they help reveal what one perspective alone can’t see. Structured research training can help teams notice their own assumptions and design studies that bring in a wider range of perspectives.

4. Pay attention to power – Small details matter here: how we introduce ourselves, the language we use, how we frame questions, even how we position the purpose of the research. These choices shape whether someone feels they can be honest, or whether they default to what feels acceptable.

5. Be transparent – Be clear about where findings come from – who did the research, and what might have shaped what they heard. That doesn’t weaken the work – it makes it more credible.

6. Value independence – Sometimes, reflection and good intent aren’t enough. There are moments where the answer isn’t more self‑awareness, but a different set of eyes entirely – someone with no stake in the product’s direction and nothing to defend. Bringing in independent accessibility audits at that point can surface the friction and the assumptions a close team has simply stopped being able to see.

Positionality isn’t about adding complexity for the sake of it. It’s about doing better research – recognising that understanding people isn’t just about asking good questions, but about understanding how we, as researchers, are part of the answer.

“Understanding people isn’t just about asking good questions; it’s about understanding how we, as researchers, are part of the answer.”

If you’re making decisions based on user research, it’s worth asking whether your positionality – and your closeness to the work – makes it harder to see the whole picture. User Vision can bring an independent perspective – helping you uncover hidden assumptions, hear what users are really saying, and make decisions with greater confidence.