u/Decent-Gur-6959

New article on the "Voice of the User" newsletter: https://www.thevoiceofuser.com/pure-qual-is-cooked-the-market-did-not-ask-how-you-feel-about-it/?ref=the-voice-of-user-newsletter

I think most of what this person says is a normal take dressed in some bravado and eye-catching language. UXRs have been saying for a long-time: relying on one methodology is not only not good for career prospects but scientifically lacking. However, there are underlying assumptions and how they frame things that are both disingenuous and dangerous.

What's missing in my opinion:

1. Reducing qualitative to just "interviews and themes" is cognitive slop: IMO, we need even more sound, robust qualitative research in this era of AI slop and confusion and psychopath billionaires dictating who gets to earn a living and who doesn't. This person doesn't really engage with qualitative research in-depth, just applies a reductionist framing to prove his rather weak, "how to be employable" arguments.
2. Framing qualitative research as an obstacle to living (e.g. "not paying rent) doesn't address how AI actually makes research output worse (qual and quant). He just doesn't really care about that. There are deep-underlying assumptions that mixed methods is "safe". Using this to dismiss a whole other range of critiques against AI and research without engaging actual arguments. Again, cognitive slop (maybe intentional?)
3. Where is his data? No hiring or salary data? No JD posting analysis? Also, no questioning how AI is taking over "quant" too. There are many many quant researchers who reject the reductionist framework that AI taking over quant. None of that is mentioned.
4. Huge assumption around how we humans must "adapt" but never questioning if the environment is structurally destructive. What if (what a radical thought!) if the environment is causing destruction? After all, qualitative research has a rich historical tradition that predates anyone on this forum - that built entire universities, methodologies and ways of understanding societies. All of that is in the trash because we have to care about employment because AMERICA trained us this way - and we must treat that as gospel.
5. What does get lost when we go mixed methods for both scientific integrity and product quality. No talk of that here.
6. Treating career re-tooling as a motivation problem is dangerous: that's the age-old capitalist argument around "People are lazy, they don't want to work" while ignoring actual political, economic and social barriers. That's dangerous.
7. The piece is framed "the tech class has decided what our discipline should look like, adapt or leave": Yes, it might be true, but not addressing how those people who write JDs are extracting so much data from these "specialists" to re-thinking "specializations" as inefficiency. And inefficiency for whom? For what? And why does UX have to only exist for corporations? UX can be reinvented for the people and by the people. In fact, that's why we exist. We have commodified our own product to get rich while ignoring that research should always be radical, critical and mind-opening.
8. The moment we reduce research to being appealing for "employment" is the moment we lose our critical thinking abilities. Research is meant to challenge, not acquiesce.

Curious to hear your thoughts!