The past, present, and future of UX empirical research

Joy Robinson University of Alabama in Huntsville ; Candice Lanius University of Alabama in Huntsville ; Ryan Weber University of Alabama in Huntsville

Abstract

Rethinking UX requires mapping trends in empirical research to find out how the field has developed. This study addresses that need by analyzing over 400 academic empirical studies published between 2000--2016. Our research questions are, "How have the artifacts, analysis, and methods of UX research changed since the year 2000?" and "Do scholars use research questions and hypotheses to ground their research in UX?" Our research found that services, websites, and imagined objects/prototypes were among the most frequently studied artifacts, while usability studies, surveys, and interviews were the most commonly used methods. We found a significant increase in quantitative and mixed methods studies since 2010. This study showed that only 1 out of every 5 publications employed research questions to guide inquiry. We hope that these findings help UX as a field more accurately and broadly conceive of its identity with clear standards for evaluating existing research and rethinking future research opportunities as a discipline.

Journal
Communication Design Quarterly
Published
2018-02-16
DOI
10.1145/3188173.3188175
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Gold
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (5)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. Communication Design Quarterly
  3. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  4. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  5. Communication Design Quarterly

References (48) · 4 in this index

  1. About Google Scholar
  2. Improving research communication
    Technical Communication
  3. 10.1145/2639189.2641208
  4. 10.1145/1978942.1979336
  5. 10.1145/2377783.2377790
Show all 48 →
  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Driving user adoption: making sure your employees are engaged users
  3. Proceedings of the Workshop UXEM.
  4. Academics are from Mars, practitioners are from Venus: Analyzing content alignment within…
    Technical Communication
  5. C. Bruce, K. Davis, H. Hughes, H. Partridge, & I
  6. The user experience team of one: A research and design survival guide
  7. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
  8. 10.1145/2838739.2838833
  9. UX Research Cheat Sheet. Retrieved
  10. Research questions, hypotheses and objectives
    Canadian Journal of Surgery
  11. Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
  12. 10.1145/2824893.2824914
  13. 10.1145/2399016.2399067
  14. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  15. Harford T. (2016 October 18). Crash: How computers are setting us up for disaster. The Guardian 1--14. Retrie…
  16. 10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y
  17. 10.1145/1512714.1512717
  18. 10.1080/01449290500330331
  19. A survey of user experience practice: A point of meet between academic and industry In Pr…
  20. 10.1371/journal.pone.0093949
  21. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.048
  22. 10.1145/1996461.1996485
  23. 10.1145/1518701.1518813
  24. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.006
  25. N. Streitz & P
  26. 10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.008
  27. 10.1007/978-3-642-39209-2_38
  28. 10.1093/reseval/rvv049
  29. 10.1177/0018720812465006
  30. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  31. December 10). When to use which user-experience research methods
  32. User Experience Evaluation in Nokia. Programme for UXEM workshop in CHI'08
  33. User Experience White Paper
  34. User Experience Evaluation - Which Method to Choose? Lecture Notes in Computer Science (p…
  35. A.
  36. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  37. Reflections on research: Examining practitioner perspectives on the state of research in …
    Technical Communication
  38. 10.5555/3040226.3040227
  39. Proceedings of the ACHI Fifth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Inte…
  40. The UX book: Process and guidelines for ensuring a quality user experience
  41. 10.1145/1868914.1868973
  42. 10.1145/503376.503460
  43. 10.1109/INTECH.2013.6653647