My UX Research "Rolodex"
I'm often asked to recommend a tool or vendor for a research project. Over the course of 20+ years doing applied research, I've come to rely on a set of suppliers and software to consider when needed on any project. Here is that list!
First, a few caveats. No one here knows I'm recommending them, and I'm not incentivized to do so. Still, if you contact them, it's fine to mention my recommendation (or not). Please don't infer anything from the absence of anyone. It might be that I don't recommend them, but more likely I don't know of them, forgot about them, or the list was too long to include them. Finally, this list reflects my own needs and history. It may not align perfectly with anyone else.
In a nutshell, these are folks I call first. If you know what a Rolodex is, this is mine. Working with these folks will help your projects, too!
General Software Tools
Before recommending suppliers, these are the baseline tools I use everyday.
R and RStudio. This is pretty obvious, especially given my R book. I mostly use base R instead of tidyverse for simplicity and long term stability. I have nothing against Python, though. My Quant UX book was actually written inside RStudio, from draft through near-final PDF! BTW, I reported empirical observations of my most-used R packages in this post.
Google Docs. Again, pretty obvious. I will call out Docs' speed, reliability, and seamless abilities to collaborate and co-edit. Yes, there are downsides and I wish Proton was a more full-featured alternative but it isn't. (In case you're wondering, no, I do not use Excel or Word.)
TexShop / LaTeX. The R book and the Python book were both written start-to-finish using TeXShop, all the way to a near camera ready PDF handed off to the publisher. The Quant UX book was also LaTeX but using RStudio instead of TeXShop. The start-up effort of LaTeX is high but the power is unmatched. I love to see things "camera ready" as I write.
GitHub / BitBucket. My coauthors and I collaborate using GitHub (or BitBucket, depending) so we can work on drafts simultaneously, and have backups and versioning. If you code, or write using any local file system tool (e.g., Scrivener), you should learn git.
BTW, my laptops have all been Macs for the past 15 years. In addition to other features, Macs are especially well-suited for R and LaTeX users. I'm writing this with a MacBook Pro M5.
Survey Research Suppliers
Platforms and people I rely on for great survey research authoring and fielding.
Sawtooth Discover. This is my all-purpose survey authoring & hosting platform. Sawtooth has long been the leader for MaxDiff and conjoint analysis surveys, but even when I'm just doing a general survey I use their platform. It's free to use for up to N=50 respondents.
Cloud Research. Their Connect product is my most-used provider to obtain general "self service" panel responses to surveys. It is exceptionally easy to use and transparent on pricing, and they have done a lot of work on respondent quality.
Verasight. They are a new player in the space of quality sampling and research with probability-based survey panels. I have not used them yet, but they do great research on the current sample landscape, and they are now on my short list for DIY sample needs.
Answers Research. For 15+ years, when I've needed someone to manage survey research I can't handle fully — complex fielding, multiple languages, authoring with stakeholders, fielding, qualitative add-ons, and/or analytics — Answers is the first partner I've asked.
Unabashed Research. This is a different kind of recommendation. When I want someone to directly partner with me to scope, lead, run, and report research, my first call is to James Alford at Unabashed. I've worked with him on dozens and dozens of projects for 20 years.
General Research Suppliers
The folks I call when I need someone to lead specific projects, especially in-person research. I have used these groups for many projects, each for 15+ years. Besides the US, I have done a lot of research in Japan; it is an unusually rewarding and insightful locale.
Caelus (US). I've known the folks at Caelus for 25 years and they handle everything from in-person research, to validated recruiting, to online survey and related projects. They are unparalleled at assessing research needs and helping to form honest, transparent plans.
Blink UX (US). Blink UX is a large agency able to handle all aspects of UX product work from research, to concept testing, to design iteration. Several of their leaders are former close colleagues of mine, and I highly recommend them.
R2 Insights (Japan). A boutique, highly personalized research service provider for Japan. For English-speaking product teams, R2 is the ideal partner to help you understand the Japan market. I've done 20+ projects with them over the years.
Sugata Research (Japan). My other favorite Japan research agency is Sugata, with whom I've also done many projects over the years. They are larger than R2 Insights and may be able to support you with a larger team when that is needed (e.g., parallel, multi-city research).
Qualitative Research Facilities
When I run field research myself (as opposed to have one of the above suppliers lead it) — whether it involves in-depth interviews, home visits, or focus groups — I call these folks for recruiting and local facilities. (For Japan, see R2 Insights and Sugata Research above.)
Fieldwork (US). These are top-notch research facilities all around the US. They have layouts suitable for in-depth interviews, focus groups, usability and concept tests, and specialty projects such as cooking tests. Very easy to coordinate efficient, multi-city projects.
Sago (Europe). I've used their network and partners many times in Munich, Paris, Berlin, London, Hamburg, and Rome. In the whole world, my personal all-time favorite research facility is their location in old city Munich!
Acorn Asia (Asia Pacific generally). I've used Acorn Asia for multiple projects; if I recall correctly, in China, South Korea, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Similar to Fieldwork and Sago, it is easy to coordinate multiple locations as part of a single efficient project plan.
P.S. A Plug for International Research
It is shockingly common for US-based companies to skip international customer research, despite the fact that customer needs, perceptions, considerations, and behaviors in other countries may vary substantially from the US.
The usual reasons not to do international research are:
the US market is the largest
we'll launch first in the US
any other single market is too small
it is too expensive to do international research
we don't have the time for international research
My responses to those claims are:
the US market is the largest ==> OK, and the rest of the world is larger when combined
we'll launch first in the US ==> it's better to find international problems before the product is locked-in for any market
any other single market is too small ==> the point is not to test or develop for any single market, but to use one or two locations to "pressure test" the product and needs
it is too expensive to do international research ==> don't do international testing all the time, but allocate some money; the risk of not doing it is higher than cost of doing some
we don't have the time for international research ==> with efficient research partners as above, it will take very little additional time
As a general high-level matter, as a US-based researcher for US-based companies, I tended to allocate around 20% of projects to international locations. That ensured that we understood them at a baseline level, with enough "sample" to be confident we would catch big issues. Yet it was a small enough proportion to ensure that we placated stakeholders about the overall level, and it did not claim excessive time.
A shorter way to explain it: if you're building for the whole world (and you probably are), then you owe it to the world to consider their needs and issues. Ultimately, those customers are paying you — and you should devote some research to them!
