Relying on the same user research method like only running 1-on-1 interviews leads to blind spots. Interviews are great for depth, but they don’t reveal group dynamics, cross-team dependencies, or patterns that emerge at scale.
To design experiences that scale, you need insights that are qualitative and quantitative, attitudinal and behavioural, and drawn from both individuals and teams.
Attitudinal research captures what users say — their opinions, preferences, and perceptions. E.g. User surveys saying a feature is confusing.
Behavioral research focuses on what users actually do during real interactions. E.g. Usability testing shows users skip the feature entirely.
Qualitative research helps you understand why something is happening by exploring deeper motivations and thought processes. E.g. Open-ended interviews reveal frustration with a checkout step.
Quantitative research measures how often something occurs through numbers and patterns. E.g. Analytics show a 60% drop-off rate on the same step.
The way users are studied can vary by how closely it reflects real-world use. E.g. A team conducts in-person usability testing with real customers performing typical tasks in a production app (natural + scripted context).
According to Nielsen Norman Group, no single method uncovers all UX insights. A mix of approaches leads to better understanding and fewer blind spots.
✅ Mixing research methods helps you:
Read the full article: When to Use Which User-Experience Research Methods.
| Method | Use it to |
| 1-on-1 interviews | Explore personal workflows and uncover pain points |
| Group workshops / focus groups | Reveal shared behaviors and team-level challenges |
| Observation / shadowing | Catch things users don’t say (but still do) |
| Surveys | Quantify trends or confirm emerging patterns across users |
You don’t need to use every method on every project, but most projects benefit from using at least two.
A UX designer begins by interviewing three Admins to understand how they use the system. Based on those findings, she runs a 60-minute group workshop with Admins and Technicians to map shared issues and uncover workflow gaps between teams.
✅ Figure: Good example – Combines depth from interviews with breadth from group insight
Only interviewing one user and assuming their experience applies to everyone. Skipping group validation and relying on stakeholder assumptions.
❌ Figure: Bad example – Designs based on limited or biased input
Group sessions are a great way to bring in users from different teams, departments, or levels of experience. Doing so can help you uncover:
These types of issues rarely come up in 1-on-1 interviews alone.