A Growing Mandate: The Path to Stakeholder Trust and Research Influence

Researchers and stakeholders agree on the tablestakes: research needs to be fast, timely, and rigorous (we’ll come back to the rigor challenge later). Timeliness and speed were the most often cited challenges, with researchers stating that “tight deadlines make it hard to run proper studies” while stakeholders shared that “decisions are made before research finishes.” 

When it came to solving these challenges, researchers and stakeholders had different perspectives. Researchers pointed out the need for more budget for staffing and tools, whereas stakeholders favored an approach of scaling through “integration” and involvement. The difference revealed an unlock: scale doesn’t come from adding more people—it comes from expanding roles.

Interestingly, our sample skewed heavily toward organizations where stakeholders were involved in conducting research, with only 22% of stakeholders reporting that research lives exclusively with researchers. Even within this smaller base of non-democratized practices, the differences are meaningful. When stakeholders participated in conducting research, they were 2x more likely to use findings on at least a monthly basis (86% vs 42%). Integration scores also improved by nearly a full point (+0.8 on a 7-point scale).

The qualitative evidence suggests that democratization can lead to better integration when researchers go beyond simply handing over tools. Instead, they build systems and guardrails that allow more people to contribute while maintaining rigor. High-impact teams highlighted practices such as:

In this model, democratization scales research without diluting it, transforming it from a siloed function into a true organizational capability.

When asked about best practices for involving stakeholders in the research process, participants pointed to the role of the researcher as an integrated “expert in the loop”, helping align decisions, methods, and timelines to meet varying needs across the organization:

Our research showed that integration of research into decision workflows emerged as a top priority for stakeholders. Those who rated research as “Highly Integrated” scored research impact 6.0/7, compared to 4.6/7 in poorly integrated environments—a 30% lift. So, what does integration mean?

Stakeholders came to interviews with a clear call to action: bring research in earlier. They want it embedded not just in design, but at the very start of decision-making and product development. While 79% of organizations include research during design, only 48% do so in the definition phase—exactly when the most strategic decisions are made.

The language researchers and stakeholders use to describe integration is telling. 

Researchers often focus on procedural and operational aspects. They see integration as a repeatable practice—structured, ongoing, and supported by guardrails that preserve rigor, much like design or QA.

By contrast, stakeholders are more outcome-oriented and decision-driven. For them, integration means having research present in the moment of decision-making. They want insights that are timely, strategically relevant, and capable of shaping choices—while recognizing research is just one input among many.

Notably, researchers rated themselves higher than stakeholders on integration efforts, suggesting they may overestimate their effectiveness. Moving toward an expanded mandate—where research becomes part of the organizational DNA rather than a side project—requires a more flexible, systematic approach. Methodologies need to scale up or down to match the criticality and pace of decisions. As one VP of Product put it: “Shift from perfection to progress. Sometimes a 70% answer quickly is more valuable than a 100% answer too late.”

This desire for researchers to broaden their scope while becoming more integrated presents a chicken-and-egg problem. Few researchers would argue against participating in early stages of decisions and more extensively across the product ecosystem. But access can be an issue. Is trust the prerequisite for integrating upstream, or does integration itself create the trust that secures researchers a seat at the table?

There’s good news for researchers who want their work to have strategic impact. Stakeholders in high-impact organizations consistently value research that is strategically relevant. By contrast, not a single stakeholder in low-impact organizations rated strategic relevance as a must-have. We hypothesized that trustworthiness was the gateway to strategic involvement, and our findings confirm it. 89% of stakeholders rated trust as critical, but defined it in different terms than their research patterns.

They're not just evaluating methodology; they emphasize that insights need to be useful in context, delivered on time, and tied to business outcomes.

They emphasize sample size, mixed methods, validity, and accurate reporting.

This definitional divide matters.

Consistent with other studies we’ve run, stakeholders of research value a combination of qualitative insight backed by quantitative support. As above, methodological rigor is table-stakes for critical decisions. While stories make insights relatable and actionable, numbers build credibility.

However, stakeholder verbatims and in-depth interviews added color to the notion that trustworthiness isn't only earned through methodological accuracy, but rather through insights that are relevant within their specific business context. As one stakeholder explained: "To read and understand the product and the organizations more before trying to work or propose any kind of solutions that would make them more trustworthy and credible."

Context, storytelling, and a tie to outcomes are the keys to delivering research effectively.

Stakeholders value researchers who demonstrate both methodological expertise and a deep understanding of the specific organizational context. This balanced approach builds credibility by showing researchers can apply best practices while respecting business realities. One participant noted that effective UX researchers need to "read and understand the product and the organization more before trying to work or propose any kind of solutions," indicating that context knowledge is a prerequisite for trustworthiness.

Stakeholders discussed living in worlds with constraints: technical, regulatory, time, cost, and business priorities. Research was often presented without acknowledging these constraints and, therefore, missed the mark. A participant valued when UX researchers "discuss those things with the technical team before presenting the business" to ensure proposed solutions were technically feasible. If researchers are experts at seeing through the eyes of users, the challenge is to also see through the eyes of their internal partners.

Researchers and stakeholders agree that “digestible” insights are important. Stakeholder feedback suggests room for improvement in delivering in formats that present a straightforward, compelling narrative with clear business implications. As one participant described, this involves "a storyline that starts with a few intriguing findings and builds to a crescendo" highlighting key opportunities, threats, and next steps.

Stakeholders expressed a desire for research that balances multiple perspectives rather than focusing solely on problems. They acknowledge product strengths that "resonate with the customer," identify areas "falling short" of expectations, and articulate key risks or "watch outs" to consider for future development.

Moreover, stories need to be told at different levels. While executive presentations might focus on high-level insights and business implications, technical teams might receive more detailed implementation considerations.

Research that translates findings into business metrics gains far more traction.  Stakeholders repeatedly encouraged researchers to proactively connect their findings to financial outcomes rather than assuming stakeholders will make these connections themselves. As one participant advised, researchers need to "answer the so what question" by articulating "why a particular finding is relevant" to business decisions.

Our research reveals a telling irony: UX research has earned deep credibility in product organizations—but many researchers risk prioritizing methodological purity over a more critical goal: improving the experience of their users, the stakeholders of research.

The researchers who will drive the profession forward are those who embrace a broader mandate (perhaps even moving beyond the “UX” label). Their focus will shift from running studies in isolation to building systems that position research as a true business capability—delivering insights at the right time, in the right place, and in the right language.

This study was designed to understand how UX research is valued and used inside organizations, with a focus on the differences between researchers and stakeholders.

“Democratization” was coded using responses to:

Frequency of use was measured by: