UX research rules worth breaking are not necessarily the fundamentals that make research reliable. Sometimes, they are the familiar habits, methods and deliverables that researchers continue to follow without questioning whether they still serve the problem at hand.
For Jen Blatz, Principal UX Researcher at BECU, challenging convention does not mean abandoning research discipline. As AI reshapes how researchers gather information and work with evidence, knowing what you want to learn remains as important as ever.
Ahead of UX360 Virtual Summit 2027, Jen shares her perspective on research fundamentals, the practical value of AI, the habits UX researchers should reconsider and the importance of learning from peers. Her upcoming session, The UX Research Anti-Handbook: Rules Worth Breaking, promises to challenge some established assumptions about how research should be conducted.
Breaking UX research rules without abandoning the fundamentals
UX research practices have evolved alongside new technologies, changing organisational expectations and increasingly complex product environments. Yet Jen believes the starting point should remain familiar: a clear understanding of the research question.
“Come up with a thorough research plan to understand what you are really trying to learn.”
Her emphasis is on applying research fundamentals with intention. New tools can provide answers and information quickly, but their usefulness depends on whether researchers have defined the questions they need to investigate.
There is an important distinction between questioning established practices and abandoning the principles that give research its value. The challenge is to recognise which rules support better evidence and which may deserve reconsideration.
AI in UX research: useful answers begin with better questions
AI is becoming a more useful part of Jen’s research workflow, particularly for summarisation and secondary desk research.
She describes a recent project involving research into a major financial topic. By requiring AI to provide its sources, she discovered relevant industry information she says she would not otherwise have found on her own.
The experience illustrated how AI can accelerate the discovery of useful information when researchers know what they are looking for and insist on supporting sources.
“Using AI saves me a ton of time,” Jen explains.
But she also cautions that receiving answers is not the same as obtaining valuable research evidence. Without a clearly defined objective, researchers risk collecting information that does not address the question they actually need to answer.
This distinction echoes a wider discussion within UX research about the balance between technological efficiency and human judgement. A related UX360 interview on human-centred research in the age of AI explores why faster analysis still requires careful interpretation.
The UX Research Anti-Handbook: four rules worth breaking
What should UX researchers stop doing simply because it has always been part of the process?
Jen has more than one answer, but she is saving the specifics for her presentation at UX360 Virtual 2027.
Her session, The UX Research Anti-Handbook: Rules Worth Breaking, will introduce four rules she believes are worth reconsidering, alongside practical alternatives for researchers working in today’s fast-moving environments.
Rather than treating traditional approaches as unquestionable requirements, the session encourages participants to examine why they follow certain practices and consider whether different approaches could make their research more effective.
Jen is deliberately keeping the four rules under wraps until the event.
Learning from the global UX research community
For Jen, participating in UX360 is also an opportunity to exchange perspectives with other researchers facing similar challenges.
“I love hearing what’s going on in the community and how other people are solving the same problems.”
She hopes to discover approaches that inspire her and offer something useful to bring back into her own work.
This willingness to learn from peers is particularly relevant as UX research continues to evolve. Researchers are navigating new technologies, established methodological expectations and the practical demands of their organisations.
Exploring how others respond to these challenges can help practitioners reconsider their own assumptions and identify opportunities to improve their research.
Reading & listening: Jen’s recommendation
We also asked Jen to recommend a resource for UX professionals looking for inspiration and practical guidance.
Book: The User Experience Team of One: A Research and Design Survival Guide, by Leah Buley, with the second edition co-authored by Joe Natoli.
It remains Jen’s favourite UX book. She recommends it for its practical ideas, whether someone works within a large UX department, is the only UX practitioner in an organisation or is approaching UX from another professional background.
Explore the UX Research Anti-Handbook at UX360 Virtual 2027
Jen Blatz will take these ideas further in “The UX Research Anti-Handbook: Rules Worth Breaking” at UX360 Virtual Summit 2027.
Her presentation will challenge outdated research conventions, examine practical alternatives and encourage researchers to become more intentional about the methods and deliverables they use.
Session: The UX Research Anti-Handbook: Rules Worth Breaking
Speaker: Jen Blatz, Principal UX Researcher, BECU
Date: Wednesday, 3 February 2027
Time: 20:10–20:40 CET
Format: Online
Across 3–4 February, UX360 Virtual 2027 will bring together UX research practitioners and leaders to exchange ideas on emerging methodologies, research impact, AI and the evolving role of user understanding in product decisions.
UX360 Virtual Summit 2027 | 3–4 February | Online.
