[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":247},["ShallowReactive",2],{"home-copy":3,"home-case-studies":31,"services":168,"site-settings":192,"home-posts":202,"about-page":224},{"id":4,"hero_eyebrow":5,"hero_h1_line1":6,"hero_h1_line2":7,"hero_lead":8,"services_eyebrow":9,"services_heading":10,"services_lead":11,"writing_eyebrow":12,"writing_heading":13,"writing_lead":14,"work_eyebrow":15,"work_heading":16,"work_more_label":17,"about_eyebrow":18,"about_heading":19,"about_lead":20,"cta_eyebrow":21,"cta_heading":22,"cta_lead":23,"cta_note":24,"hero_sectors":25},1,"User researcher · evidence over opinions","Know your users!","Build with confidence.","I’m Jameella — an experienced user researcher for product teams across energy, home interiors, health and learning. I plan and run usability testing, interviews, surveys and audits, then turn what people actually do into decisions you can build on.","What I do","Three ways I can help you find out","","Writing","Notes from doing research for real","Short, practical posts about the day job — recruiting, running sessions, synthesis, and the awkward truths that don’t fit in a case study.","Selected work","Six projects, from clean energy to startups","See the full case studies","About","Trained in how people think. Practised in what they do.","Research is only useful when it survives contact with a product team. Mine is written in plain English and pointed at your decisions.","Availability & opportunities","Not currently available. Not hard to reach.","I’m at Boots UK as an Experimentation & Discovery User Researcher, so I’m not taking on new projects right now. This page is my standing pitch for the two kinds of work I want next — you don’t have to wait for the “available” sign to start the conversation.","Recruiters, agencies and founders all welcome — or download the resumé.",[26,27,28,29,30],"Clean energy","Interior design retail","Health & care","Learning platforms","Early-stage startups",[32,54,74,95,112,132,148],{"id":33,"title":34,"client":35,"role":36,"period":37,"summary":38,"order":4,"slug":39,"meta":40,"situation":41,"task":42,"action":43,"result":44,"reflection":45,"status":46,"image":47,"methods":48},2,"Chameleon Technology","Chameleon Technology Ltd (via Gengame Ltd)","Lead User Researcher","Jul 2023 – May 2024","Consumer behaviour research on how households will want to buy energy in 2030+, feeding Chameleon's stage-two submission to the DESNZ AEM programme.","gengame","UX research · surveys — alternative energy market","\u003Cp>Chameleon Technology builds smart energy products and the ivie home energy app. When I joined (via Gengame Ltd), the company had little established UX research practice — the culture was engineering-led (\"build it and they will see\"), so research had to prove its value to stakeholders who were used to shipping on instinct. The business had two open questions with real money behind them:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Col>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Solar & storage:\u003C\u002Fstrong> How do UK households actually research, buy and install solar panel + battery systems — and where are the pain points and market gaps Chameleon could productise?\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Future energy markets:\u003C\u002Fstrong> What consumer appetite exists for buying and paying for household energy in new ways (bundled \"energy packages\", heat pumps, solar, batteries, EV chargers) — enough to justify entering a government innovation programme run by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)?\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Fol>\n\u003Cp>The second question mattered commercially: DESNZ funding for the Alternative Energy Markets (AEM) programme depended on credible consumer evidence, not engineering enthusiasm.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cp>I was the lead researcher on both workstreams. The brief was broad and — in the solar case — deliberately open: explore the end-to-end experience of buying and installing solar and battery systems, identify user needs, pain points and market gaps, and feed that understanding into product decisions. For the AEM workstream, the task was sharper: generate robust evidence on consumer appetite for future energy bundles and payment models, including households in fuel poverty, and support the funding application to DESNZ.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>There was no playbook to follow — I had to design the research programme, recruit participants, run the studies, analyse and present findings, and earn stakeholder confidence as I went.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Workstream 1 — Solar & storage research (exploratory, methods built up in stages):\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Desk and market research:\u003C\u002Fstrong> analysed ONS data on low-carbon technology adoption and ran \"mystery shopper\" research with solar installation companies to map the real buying landscape, package structures and sales practices — including where behaviour crossed into the unethical.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Large-scale survey with ivie app users:\u003C\u002Fstrong> designed a survey from the market findings to probe behaviour patterns of prospective solar customers. It was the most successful survey run on the ivie app to that point — \u003Cstrong>1,500 relevant responses within 48 hours\u003C\u002Fstrong> (typical ivie surveys ran a week to ten days for under 1,000). This was the result of careful question design plus close work with the marketing and customer-care teams on targeting.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Prototype testing of the \"Path to Net Zero\" tool:\u003C\u002Fstrong> recruited prospective solar customers from the survey pool and ran 1:1 remote sessions (Rilla) walking users through two prototype options in Figma\u002FMiro. I used quantitative measures (SEQ, success rates, SUS) alongside observation, because stakeholders wanted numbers they could hold on to.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Synthesis & reporting:\u003C\u002Fstrong> analysed the mixed data, and presented findings to stakeholders and the wider team — a PowerPoint plus Confluence report — feeding product, engineering and marketing.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Workstream 2 — AEM \u002F future energy markets research:\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>Designed and ran a survey of \u003Cstrong>1,000+ ivie app users\u003C\u002Fstrong> on appetite for alternative energy products and payment models, working with energy market experts (Cornwall Insight and Energy Catapult) to price realistic future energy bundles.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Translated the quantitative findings into an accessible visual presentation and submitted it to DESNZ alongside expert energy price projections.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Ran usability testing sessions to validate how consumers understood the bundle concepts, checking for jargon and comprehension.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Working practice:\u003C\u002Fstrong> I managed the full research lifecycle end-to-end — methodology design, recruitment, data collection, analysis, presentation — and collaborated daily with the ivie product owner, designers, developers, engineers, marketing and customer care. I deliberately positioned myself as a bridge between the engineering mindset and user-centred design.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Product impact:\u003C\u002Fstrong> the solar research shaped the next steps for both the ivie app and the engineering team — including a \"Path to Net Zero\" journey tool that went \u003Cstrong>live in the ivie app\u003C\u002Fstrong>, plus follow-on product work and collaborations with solar installation companies.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Business impact:\u003C\u002Fstrong> the AEM research contributed to Chameleon being \u003Cstrong>accepted into round two of the DESNZ AEM programme\u003C\u002Fstrong> — a funded, real-world follow-on study (installing green technology in homes at a discounted rate to test energy bundles in live settings) that would not have gone ahead without the initial evidence.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Capability impact:\u003C\u002Fstrong> demonstrated to a sceptical, engineering-led organisation what good user research produces. Stakeholders who had never used research began requesting it; quantitative measures were adopted as a norm for future studies.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>","\u003Cp>The solar project's open brief was both a gift and a trap — undefined objectives create room to explore, but it's easy to spend time on areas that don't align with company priorities. With hindsight I'd run it on a tighter timeline and check in against business goals more often. I'd also have liked deeper qualitative follow-up (interviews after the survey, more open questions) to explain the \"why\" behind the numbers — with more time I would have added that layer. The core lesson: in an organisation new to research, the fastest way to build credibility is connecting findings to decisions the business actually has to make.\u003C\u002Fp>","published","b41528c8-fecc-4849-be05-0cc1d0a7add1",[49,50,51,52,53],"Survey design","Remote interviews","Prototype testing","SEQ \u002F SUS","Market research",{"id":55,"title":56,"client":57,"role":36,"period":58,"summary":59,"order":33,"slug":60,"meta":61,"situation":62,"task":63,"action":64,"result":65,"reflection":66,"status":46,"image":67,"methods":68},7,"Sanderson Design","Sanderson Design Group","Dates on request","End-to-end UX audit of the Archive e-commerce website — usability, heuristic review, content, information architecture and analytics — delivered as a prioritised roadmap.","sanderson-design","UX audit · analytics — archive e-commerce","\u003Cp>Sanderson Design Group sells archive fabric and wallpaper collections through the Archive e-commerce website — a catalogue-heavy store where browsing and discovery quality directly affect whether design-led shoppers find, fall for, and buy a product. The site had grown over time, layering collections, pattern data and purchasing flows on top of each other. The Digital Manager wanted an independent, evidence-based view of the user experience: where it was losing customers, why, and what to fix first.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cp>Conduct a comprehensive UX audit of the Archive website with three goals:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>Assess the current user experience across the whole journey — from first arrival to purchase and beyond.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Identify usability issues and areas for improvement with evidence, not opinion.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Recommend a prioritised roadmap to improve usability, customer satisfaction and conversion rates.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>I was the lead researcher: I designed the audit approach, ran the methods, analysed the outputs and owned the recommendations.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cp>I ran the audit as a systematic, multi-method evaluation rather than a single heuristic pass, so that every recommendation was triangulated from at least two sources:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Qualitative user research\u003C\u002Fstrong> — interviews, surveys and usability testing with shoppers to understand needs, expectations and where they struggled.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Heuristic evaluation\u003C\u002Fstrong> — assessed the site against established usability heuristics and best practice: navigation, information architecture, consistency, error prevention, and the classic interaction principles.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Content analysis\u003C\u002Fstrong> — evaluated product and collection content for clarity, relevance, consistency and readability against user expectations.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Interaction design evaluation\u003C\u002Fstrong> — analysed user flows and task completion, looking at visual affordances, feedback mechanisms and error handling across key journeys (browse → product → basket → checkout).\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Information architecture analysis\u003C\u002Fstrong> — mapped the site structure to surface navigational dead-ends and recommend a more intuitive organisation.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Analytics analysis\u003C\u002Fstrong> — mined behavioural and conversion data to see where users dropped off, complementing the qualitative picture and helping prioritise what mattered most.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Synthesis\u003C\u002Fstrong> — consolidated everything into a prioritised findings report and a step-by-step implementation roadmap the internal team could execute.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>","\u003Cp>The audit delivered an evidence-backed roadmap aligned to user expectations and industry best practice — giving the design and digital teams a clear order of operations instead of a list of symptoms. The work directly supported the site's UX alignment programme; per the client:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cblockquote>\"Working with the team on our UX alignment was a pleasure. We came together as a team and developed solutions that were both practical and detailed while reflecting the brief perfectly. As a result, we were able to improve conversion rates, from when the user first arrives to when they purchase, and beyond, enhancing customer loyalty.\" — Ryan Marsh, Digital Manager, Sanderson Design Group\u003C\u002Fblockquote>","\u003Cp>This project reinforced the value of a holistic audit: each method alone would have produced partial answers, but combining qualitative insight with heuristic, content and analytics review meant recommendations were grounded in observed behaviour, not assumptions. I also learned how much impact clear prioritisation has — a roadmap the team can execute in order is far more useful than a raw findings list, and that's what made the difference to this client relationship.\u003C\u002Fp>","ffad74f7-a141-4df4-9cf9-8bddbc75d5f8",[69,70,71,72,73],"Heuristic evaluation","Content analysis","IA analysis","Usability testing","Analytics review",{"id":75,"title":76,"client":77,"role":78,"period":79,"summary":80,"order":81,"slug":82,"meta":83,"situation":84,"task":85,"action":86,"result":87,"reflection":88,"status":46,"image":89,"methods":90},6,"NHS \u002F Care","NHS — two volunteer-facing web applications","UX Researcher","2020 (COVID-19)","Discovery, personas and remote usability testing for two NHS volunteer apps during COVID-19, with interfaces accessibility-audited to WCAG 2.1.",3,"nhs","Discovery · accessibility — volunteer web applications","\u003Cp>In 2020 the NHS needed to mobilise volunteers quickly to support the COVID-19 response, and the applications supporting that effort had to be right first time — there was no room for a slow, perfectionist research cycle. I was working on two volunteer-facing web applications for the NHS during this period.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The constraints were unusual: in-person research was impossible (lockdown), the user base was broad and diverse (including older adults, people with limited digital access, and users on older devices), and timelines were measured in weeks. At the same time, accessibility was non-negotiable — a public health service can't exclude the people who need it most.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cp>Research both applications to:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>Understand who the volunteers were, what motivated them, and how they'd actually use the applications.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Identify usability issues early — on wireframes and low-fidelity prototypes — so the design team could iterate before build.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Ensure the final interfaces met NHS brand and accessibility standards (WCAG 2.1) for a user base with widely varying digital access and ability.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>I owned the research: discovery, personas, testing design and moderation, and accessibility review.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Discovery with stakeholders:\u003C\u002Fstrong> worked with product stakeholders to define each application's objectives, target users and key features, backed by desk research into volunteer behaviour and needs.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>User persona development:\u003C\u002Fstrong> ran interviews and surveys with potential volunteers to build personas that directly guided design decisions and user journeys — keeping the design anchored in who these users really were (from students to retirees) rather than a generic \"volunteer\" stereotype.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Remote usability testing under lockdown:\u003C\u002Fstrong> tested wireframes and low-fidelity prototypes using remote methods to hit project timelines — moderated sessions over Microsoft Teams alongside unmoderated testing via Lookback, adapting to the fact that some participants couldn't install software (I acknowledged the limits of unmoderated testing when app installation was a barrier).\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Iterative design support:\u003C\u002Fstrong> worked with the design team to refine interfaces against NHS brand guidelines, feeding each round of findings back in and retesting as designs converged.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Accessibility compliance:\u003C\u002Fstrong> ran thorough accessibility audits against WCAG 2.1 — colour contrast, keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility, and inclusive considerations for users with additional needs — and worked the fixes into the iterations.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>","\u003Cp>The research fed directly into two volunteer applications that shipped during the pandemic. The outcomes included streamlined user flows, positive user feedback from volunteers, and increased volunteer engagement — contributing to more efficient NHS support when it mattered most. Just as importantly, the accessibility work meant the services worked for users with limited digital access and additional needs, not only for the confident majority.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cp>This project tested how I work when time and access are scarce, and it taught me the value of honest adaptation: we couldn't do everything we'd normally do, so we prioritised what would change the outcome, used remote methods creatively, and were explicit about the limits of the research — recruitment skewed toward digitally confident volunteers, and I'd want a more diverse participant base given more time. It also strengthened my conviction that accessibility isn't a final checklist — it has to be built in from the first wireframe.\u003C\u002Fp>","2b1a3ffc-f48f-4987-ae71-d3f4e42f3afd",[91,92,93,94],"Stakeholder discovery","Persona development","Remote usability testing","Accessibility audit (WCAG 2.1)",{"id":96,"title":97,"client":97,"role":78,"period":58,"summary":98,"order":96,"slug":99,"meta":100,"situation":101,"task":102,"action":103,"result":104,"reflection":105,"status":46,"image":106,"methods":107},4,"Hive Learning","Research across a peer-to-peer learning platform — micro-interactions, voice and tone, comment and share systems, user profiles and admin dashboards — to lift engagement and collaboration.","hive-learning","UX research · engagement — peer-to-peer learning","\u003Cp>Hive Learning is a peer-to-peer learning platform used by organisations to help employees learn from each other (through groups, comments and shared content) rather than from top-down courses. The product's value depends on participation: if learners don't comment, share, or feel the platform speaks to them, the peer-learning model collapses into a passive content dump.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The challenge was that \"engagement\" is easy to ask for and hard to design — it lives in hundreds of small moments: whether a notification feels worth acting on, whether the tone of the platform sounds like a colleague or a corporation, whether sharing a post feels safe and natural.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cp>As the researcher embedded with the product team, I was asked to investigate where the platform was falling short of that goal and feed user evidence into improvements across the experience:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>Micro-interactions — animations, notifications and transitions that shape how the platform feels.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Voice and tone — whether the platform's language resonated with its audience.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Overall ease of use — where users got stuck.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>The comment system — the heart of peer learning.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>The share system — how content spreads through organisations.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>User profiles and admin dashboards — for learners and the people running programmes.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>","\u003Cp>Rather than one big study, I ran a series of focused investigations matched to each area, so findings could feed the team as they worked:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Micro-interactions:\u003C\u002Fstrong> researched user preferences and expectations around notifications, animations and transitions, so engagement mechanics were based on what felt rewarding to users, not on what the platform could technically do.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Voice and tone:\u003C\u002Fstrong> ran surveys and interviews to develop a style guide that made the platform sound approachable and human, aligned with how the audience actually talks and learns.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Ease of use:\u003C\u002Fstrong> usability tests and journey mapping to identify pain points, then worked with designers to implement user-centred solutions.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Comment system:\u003C\u002Fstrong> interviews, observation and feedback analysis to understand how learners commented, responded and discussed — optimising for genuine collaboration rather than performative activity.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Share system:\u003C\u002Fstrong> researched the motivations and expectations behind sharing — what made learners want to share content and invite colleagues — informing intuitive sharing flows for collaboration and content creation.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Profiles & admin dashboards:\u003C\u002Fstrong> interviews, surveys and analysis to optimise interfaces for learners and for the administrators who ran programmes, so both sides of the platform worked smoothly.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>","\u003Cp>The programme of work improved the user experience across the platform and supported increased engagement and collaboration among learners — a more seamless learning experience, with the comment and share flows (the core of peer learning) working the way users actually behave. The voice-and-tone style guide also gave the team a durable asset that kept content consistent long after the project.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cp>Working on a social\u002Fpeer-learning product taught me that engagement research is really behaviour research: people need to understand the value of participating, feel safe doing it, and be nudged at the right moments. The most useful work came from pairing observation (what users actually did) with self-report (what they said they wanted) — they often disagreed, and the truth was in between.\u003C\u002Fp>","b2342a91-c0c0-436b-b59e-d93ff19f5a51",[72,108,109,110,111],"Interviews","Surveys","Journey mapping","Feedback analysis",{"id":113,"title":114,"client":115,"role":116,"period":117,"summary":118,"order":113,"slug":119,"meta":120,"situation":121,"task":122,"action":123,"result":124,"reflection":125,"status":46,"image":126,"methods":127},5,"Loyal Beagle","Loyal Beagle Ltd (in-house)","UX & Market Researcher (freelance)","Jun 2024 – Jan 2025","Business and consumer UX research for a UK loyalty-and-rewards platform — understanding both the owners running it and the customers collecting with it.","loyal-beagle","Business & consumer research — loyalty for small business","\u003Cp>Loyal Beagle is a digital loyalty platform that helps independent businesses keep their customers — digital loyalty cards, rewards, cashback and customer insights that live in a customer's phone (including Apple and Google Wallet). The company had powerful technology (a white-label partnership with a proven loyalty infrastructure) but was still early: the offer was essentially \"loyalty software for small businesses\", which describes a category, not a customer.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Two questions stood between the product and a market:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Col>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Which businesses, exactly?\u003C\u002Fstrong> Independent traders and small businesses are not one market — a café, a hair salon and a tradesperson run loyalty very differently.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>What do their customers actually value?\u003C\u002Fstrong> Consumer loyalty behaviour is noisy — points, discounts, exclusivity and simplicity pull in different directions depending on the customer and the business.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Fol>\n\u003Cp>The team needed research to answer both before doubling down on brand, marketing and product direction.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cp>As the freelance UX & market researcher, my brief was to lay the research foundations for the business:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>Define the target market and build user personas for the platform — both the \u003Cstrong>business owners\u003C\u002Fstrong> who would run loyalty programmes and the \u003Cstrong>consumers\u003C\u002Fstrong> who would hold the cards.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Establish the online brand identity on the basis of that understanding.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Work closely with the design, marketing and development teams so research directly shaped the brand, marketing site and product decisions.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>","\u003Cp>I ran a mixed-method research programme across both sides of the platform:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Business-owner research (the \"business\" side):\u003C\u002Fstrong> interviews and surveys with independent business owners about how they currently handle repeat custom — from paper loyalty cards to nothing at all — to understand their motivations, effort thresholds and what would make them try a digital loyalty programme.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Consumer research (the \"consumer\" side):\u003C\u002Fstrong> surveys and interviews with everyday shoppers about loyalty behaviour — which programmes they actually use, why they abandon cards, and what rewards feel worth it — to ground the consumer experience in real behaviour.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Market and competitor analysis:\u003C\u002Fstrong> mapped how the platform compared with alternatives (BoomerangMe, PassEntry, Loyalzoo, Yollty, Perxo and others), identifying genuine differentiation — simplicity, speed of setup, and UK-focused support for independent businesses — rather than inventing differences.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Live user testing:\u003C\u002Fstrong> ran testing on early web experiences and flows, watching real users attempt real tasks, to catch friction before launch.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Synthesis into product\u002Fbrand inputs:\u003C\u002Fstrong> translated findings into personas, a defined target market, positioning and messaging principles that the design, marketing and development teams used to build the brand identity and website.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>I worked embedded with the design, marketing and development teams throughout, so insight flowed into decisions week by week rather than landing as a one-off report.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>A clearly defined target market and \u003Cstrong>research-backed personas\u003C\u002Fstrong> for both business owners and consumers, replacing guesswork with an evidence-based view of who the platform serves.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>A \u003Cstrong>brand identity and online presence\u003C\u002Fstrong> built on that understanding — positioning that speaks to the actual pains of independent businesses (keeping the customers they've already won) rather than generic loyalty features.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Product and marketing foundations\u003C\u002Fstrong> — the personas, differentiation and messaging fed the marketing site, homepage direction and product prioritisation, giving the team a coherent story to tell customers and investors.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>","\u003Cp>Early-stage research is about deciding what \u003Cem>not\u003C\u002Fem> to be as much as what to be. The most valuable moment was the market\u002Fcompetitor work: it stopped the team defaulting to feature comparisons and refocused us on the businesses who were underserved — those who wanted simple, fast, supported loyalty without an enterprise implementation project. Working embedded rather than at arm's length was the right call; by the end, research questions were coming to me from marketing and product before they were even fully formed.\u003C\u002Fp>","26b28537-0372-43d0-9c99-7a05f0fd0543",[128,129,130,131],"Business-owner interviews","Consumer surveys","Market & competitor analysis","Live user testing",{"id":81,"title":133,"client":134,"role":135,"period":58,"summary":136,"order":75,"slug":137,"meta":138,"situation":139,"task":140,"action":141,"result":142,"reflection":143,"status":46,"image":144,"methods":145},"HeyReview","HeyReview (in-house)","UX & Market Researcher","Business and consumer UX research for an early-stage review-management product — shaping the proposition and experience before the next round of build.","hey-review","Business & consumer research — early-stage review product","\u003Cp>HeyReview is a white-label review-management platform that helps small businesses manage and grow their online reputation — collecting reviews across Google, Facebook, Yelp and other platforms into one dashboard, generating fresh reviews via SMS, email and QR codes, and responding to feedback from a single place.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The market context is compelling but crowded: online reviews demonstrably influence buying decisions (a widely cited figure is ~93% of consumers say reviews affect what they buy), and small business owners juggle multiple review platforms with no time to do it well. The problem HeyReview faced was early-stage focus: \"review management for small businesses\" is still a category, not a customer — and it was competing with established tools.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Two unknowns stood between the product and its audience:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Col>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Which businesses hurt most from review fragmentation\u003C\u002Fstrong> — and which would actually adopt a tool (versus merely agreeing it's a good idea)?\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>What consumers genuinely do with reviews\u003C\u002Fstrong> — read them, weigh them, respond to them — so the product could serve real review behaviour, and the marketing could speak to it accurately.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Fol>","\u003Cp>As the researcher, my brief was to understand both sides of the market and turn that understanding into the foundations the product and marketing teams could act on:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>Define the target audience for HeyReview among small businesses, local shops and professionals.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Understand business-side pain points around review management — the workflows, time pressures and emotional stakes.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Understand consumer-side review behaviour, so messaging and product decisions were grounded in reality (e.g. how quickly a negative review matters, what makes a review trustworthy).\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Shape the value proposition, messaging and marketing direction from the evidence.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>","\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Business-owner research:\u003C\u002Fstrong> interviews and surveys with small business owners, local shopkeepers and professionals about how they currently handle online reviews — where reviews come from, how they ask for them (if they do), how they respond to negative feedback, and what they fear most about their online reputation.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Consumer research:\u003C\u002Fstrong> explored how people actually choose which reviews to trust, how much weight one negative review carries, and what prompts them to leave a review at all — feeding both product design and honest marketing claims.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Market and competitor analysis:\u003C\u002Fstrong> reviewed how review-management tools (including NiceJob and similar platforms) position themselves, to find genuine gaps rather than copy existing messaging — e.g. simplicity for non-technical owners and a white-label offer.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Messaging and homepage research:\u003C\u002Fstrong> tested value-proposition language with the target audience (\"manage all your reviews from one place — and get more 5-star ratings\") to check it resonated and was believable, feeding the homepage content strategy: clear headline, centralised-review dashboard, review generation via SMS\u002Femail\u002FQR codes, response on the go, and social-proof copy that small-business owners recognised as true.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Synthesis and delivery:\u003C\u002Fstrong> translated findings into audience definitions, pain-point statements and messaging principles that the design and marketing teams used to build the homepage and onboarding story.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>","\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>A defined target audience for the platform (small and medium businesses, local shops and professionals who live on online reputation) with evidence of \u003Cem>why\u003C\u002Fem> they'd adopt it.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Research-backed \u003Cstrong>value proposition and messaging\u003C\u002Fstrong> — the platform's story (\"centralise, generate, respond, showcase\") was grounded in observed business pain points, not invented features.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Homepage content direction\u003C\u002Fstrong> built from what the research showed would convert: instant-trial CTA, trust framing, and pain-point-led copy that business owners recognise.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Product decisions informed by consumer-side reality — what makes a review trustworthy and how quickly reputation risk appears — keeping the roadmap honest.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>","\u003Cp>Review management is emotionally loaded for small business owners — a single negative review can feel like an attack on years of work. The research that mattered most was listening to that, because the product's job is as much psychological (giving owners control and calm) as it is administrative (collecting and responding). That insight shaped both the messaging and how I'd frame the product's value: not \"automate your reviews\" but \"never be caught off guard again\".\u003C\u002Fp>","d4e275f8-8d7f-4fb0-bd21-b55330c93827",[128,146,130,147],"Consumer research","Messaging testing",{"id":4,"title":149,"client":150,"role":151,"period":152,"summary":153,"order":55,"slug":154,"meta":155,"situation":156,"task":157,"action":158,"result":159,"reflection":160,"status":46,"image":161,"methods":162},"DayDeskr","DayDeskr Ltd (in-house)","Lead UX & Market Researcher (dual-sided)","2025–2026","Dual-sided research for a marketplace turning underused spaces into bookable desks and meeting rooms by the hour — for the bookers who need a place to work and the hosts whose space makes supply work.","daydeskr","Business & consumer research — hourly workspace marketplace","\u003Cp>DayDeskr connects two very different users who don't think about each other much:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Bookers (desk seekers):\u003C\u002Fstrong> hybrid workers, freelancers, contractors and remote employees who don't fit a traditional serviced-office model. They want a professional place to work \u003Cem>by the hour\u003C\u002Fem> — a quiet deep-work desk today, a meeting room for an afternoon, a call booth before a client call — without a membership they'll never use enough.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Hosts (workspace providers):\u003C\u002Fstrong> cafés, restaurants, hotels and underused commercial spaces sitting empty between breakfast and dinner, or mid-week, while still paying heating, lighting and staff. A desk sold in the quiet hours is pure margin — but only if hosting doesn't add labour, risk or complexity to a business already running on thin margins.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>The platform only works if \u003Cstrong>both\u003C\u002Fstrong> sides transact. That made this a two-sided research problem from day one: demand research alone (would people book?) would have produced a marketplace with no supply; supply research alone would have produced venues with no one in them. The research design had to balance the needs, economics and fears of both sides — and find the point where a booking is genuinely good for the booker \u003Cem>and\u003C\u002Fem> the host.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The broader context made the timing sharp: hybrid work had normalised, employees were pushing back on rigid office mandates, and flexible workspace demand was growing fast — but most supply still sat in expensive, membership-heavy serviced offices, leaving a gap for hyper-flexible, pay-as-you-go workspace in the places people actually live and travel through.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cp>Design and lead a dual-sided research programme that would ground the DayDeskr business model in evidence before more was built. Specifically:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>For the booker side:\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>Validate that a real, underserved need exists for hourly, hyper-flexible workspace — and find the \"jobs\" people hire a workspace to do (escape a distracting home, take a professional call, collaborate face-to-face, beat a commute).\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Understand what drives people out of home and office on any given day, what they can't live without (WiFi, power, ergonomic seating, quiet), and how they decide where to go.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>For the host side:\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>Understand the micro-economics of underused space: which venue types have genuinely sellable dead time, what occupancy or spend threshold makes hosting worth it, and what operational burden venues can absorb.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Define what a host needs to say yes: low-friction setup, automated check-in, no extra staffing, clear revenue.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>For the marketplace:\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>Build personas for both sides, benchmark early booking and hosting flows for usability, and set the KPIs that would tell the team whether the marketplace was healthy — for bookers, hosts and the platform itself.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>","\u003Cp>The research ran on two parallel tracks that were deliberately designed to be read together.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Booker-side research:\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Jobs-to-be-Done interviews (n≈20):\u003C\u002Fstrong> hybrid workers, freelancers and remote managers across the UK, recruited to span the range from casual \"third place\" users to corporate employees under hybrid mandates. Each interview mapped the trigger, the functional job (focus, meeting, calls) and the emotional job (feeling professional, escaping isolation) behind seeking a workspace.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Contextual shadowing:\u003C\u002Fstrong> observed a sample of participants through a real \"workday on the go\" to see where they actually chose to sit, what made a space usable (or not), and what they paid attention to — power, noise, tables, WiFi.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Quantitative follow-up survey:\u003C\u002Fstrong> sized the needs and willingness-to-pay across segments (solo desks, meeting rooms, day passes), and tested which amenities were non-negotiable.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Host-side research:\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Venue operational audits:\u003C\u002Fstrong> worked with café, restaurant and hotel operators to map their dead-time windows, staffing costs per hour, and the minimum occupancy or food-and-beverage spend that would make a hosted desk profitable during off-peak periods.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Host interviews (n≈20):\u003C\u002Fstrong> owners and managers on their margins, their fears (extra labour, brand damage, rowdy \"coworkers\", liability) and the conditions under which they'd list space — automated check-in, self-serve coffee, clear house rules, and no new staff.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Feasibility modelling:\u003C\u002Fstrong> translated the interviews into a simple threshold model for each venue type — the desk price, hours and utilisation that turn \"dead time\" into revenue without cannibalising the core business.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Marketplace synthesis:\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Persona Atlas:\u003C\u002Fstrong> produced from the combined data — three booker personas (the freelancer escaping home isolation, the corporate satellite worker avoiding a long commute, the high-earning professional trading up to premium space) and the host persona (the hospitality owner diversifying revenue from an existing asset), each with behavioural triggers and non-negotiables.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Competitive and market analysis:\u003C\u002Fstrong> mapped large flexible-space networks, curated workspace platforms and hospitality aggregators to find genuine differentiation — hourly flexibility, neighbourhood coverage and a price point well below membership models.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Usability benchmarking of the booking and hosting flows:\u003C\u002Fstrong> tested early prototypes with both sides. Bookers were set tasks like find a quiet desk near a station, understand the true price, and book in two clicks; hosts were timed setting up a listing (photos, rules, desk counts, availability) and handling a booking. Measured task completion, time-on-task and errors against industry-style targets — then prioritised the issues into a build queue.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Trust architecture work:\u003C\u002Fstrong> because two strangers transacting around a physical space is riskier than a normal booking, I researched what reassurance each side needed — verified profiles, clear photos and descriptions, secure WiFi expectations, cancellation and no-show rules — and fed it into the product's trust features.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>KPI framework:\u003C\u002Fstrong> defined the metrics that would tell us the marketplace was healthy after launch — activation, booking completion, host utilisation of listed hours, churn on both sides, and NPS — rather than vanity signup counts.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Working practice:\u003C\u002Fstrong> I worked embedded with the product, design, marketing and engineering teams, running the full lifecycle — study design, recruitment, moderation, analysis, synthesis and stakeholder presentation — and pairing every booker insight with its host-side counterpart before it reached the roadmap.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Evidence-based problem–solution fit:\u003C\u002Fstrong> the research validated the core hypothesis — real demand for hourly, hyper-flexible workspace \u003Cem>and\u003C\u002Fem> real, monetisable dead time on the supply side — and, just as importantly, showed where the two sides' needs collide (e.g. price expectations vs. host viability), so product decisions were made with both sides visible.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>A usable blueprint:\u003C\u002Fstrong> the Persona Atlas, venue feasibility thresholds, prioritised usability issue log, and KPI framework gave product, design and engineering a shared reference for what to build first, and marketing a research-backed story for each audience.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Product decisions grounded in dual evidence:\u003C\u002Fstrong> booking flows, host onboarding, pricing transparency and trust features were shaped by what both sides actually needed — the check-in loop, no-show handling and host setup speed all trace back to specific findings.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Foundation for launch:\u003C\u002Fstrong> the research converted the concept from a \"build it and they will come\" assumption into a defensible, data-backed model ready for real-world validation — and gave the team the metrics to read the launch honestly.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>","\u003Cp>Two-sided research changed how I think about \"the user\". On a normal project the user is one person; on a marketplace there are two, and they pull in opposite directions — bookers want cheap, plentiful, flexible space; hosts need enough revenue per hour to make hosting worth it. The most valuable skill turned out to be holding both perspectives in tension and designing every study so its output could be read on both sides of the marketplace. I'd also flag the classic marketplace trap my research kept steering us away from: optimising the demand side first, because demand is easy to measure, while the supply side — the hosts — is where two-sided marketplaces actually live or die.\u003C\u002Fp>","869d21d4-1bbc-481f-9d24-4e8e9238c507",[163,164,165,166,167],"Jobs-to-be-Done interviews","Contextual shadowing","Venue operational audits","Prototype benchmarking","KPI framework",[169,176,184],{"id":4,"sort":4,"num":170,"title":171,"description":172,"status":46,"tags":173},"01","Discover & define","Find out who your users are, what they need and where the real opportunity sits — before you commit to a build. Interviews, surveys and desk research are designed around your stakeholders’ open questions.",[174,109,175,110],"User interviews","Personas",{"id":33,"sort":33,"num":177,"title":178,"description":179,"status":46,"tags":180},"02","Test & refine","Validate wireframes, prototypes and shipped flows with real users — moderated and remote — so friction surfaces while it is still cheap to fix. Findings come back prioritised, quoted and ready to act on.",[72,181,182,183],"Heuristic review","Remote sessions","Iteration support",{"id":81,"sort":81,"num":185,"title":186,"description":187,"status":46,"tags":188},"03","Audit & convert","Audit what is already live — usability, accessibility and analytics together — to raise satisfaction, reach and conversion. Recommendations are grounded in WCAG checks, competitor review and user evidence.",[189,190,73,191],"UX & accessibility audits","WCAG 2.1","Competitor analysis",{"id":4,"site_name":193,"role_title":78,"nav_role_label":194,"availability_status":195,"availability_detail":196,"contact_email":197,"linkedin_url":198,"resume_url":199,"footer_tagline":200,"footer_copyright":201},"Jameella","User research","Currently unavailable","for new projects — at Boots UK as an Experimentation & Discovery User Researcher.","jameellaleadbitter@gmail.com","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.linkedin.com\u002Fin\u002Fjameella-l-184019138\u002F","https:\u002F\u002Fstorage.googleapis.com\u002Fplayground-bucket-v2.teleporthq.io\u002F13741081-65b9-41a7-a581-2e710693e7f4\u002F81d52a29-08eb-4eed-b2f0-f194a9c8a96b","User researcher — turning behaviour into better products for energy, interiors, health and learning teams.","© 2026 Jameella. All rights reserved.",[203,210,217],{"id":4,"title":204,"slug":205,"date":206,"description":207,"theme":208,"body":209,"status":46},"The participant who taught me to re-write my screener","rewrite-your-screener","2026-08-18","A recruiting story about the difference between a screener that ticks boxes and one that actually finds the right people.","Recruiting","\u003Cp>A few years ago I was recruiting for a study on how people manage their home energy. The screener looked good on paper: the right age bands, the right housing types, the right boiler questions. And then I met Peter, who sailed through every filter and turned out to be the most useful participant of the whole study.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The catch? Peter would never have been recruited by the screener I'd written a month earlier. He didn't think of himself as someone who \"manages energy\" — he thought of himself as someone who was cold in January and angry about his bills. My screener asked about behaviour in the abstract. Peter answered in terms of what he actually did on a Tuesday.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>The lesson\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Screening questions should recruit people, not validate your assumptions. That means:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>Ask about \u003Cem>last time\u003C\u002Fem>, not \u003Cem>usually\u003C\u002Fem>. \"The last time you looked at your energy bill…\" gets a real memory. \"How often do you check your bills?\" gets a guess about social acceptability.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Recruit for the situation, not the label. You don't need \"solar-curious homeowners\". You need people who have thought about their roof, their bills, or their comfort in the last month.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Leave one open question. A single \"tell me about why you're interested\" at the end of a screener surfaces the Peter you didn't design for.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Ch2>The awkward truth\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Recruiting is where research quietly goes wrong. A tight, sensible screener produces a tight, sensible sample — and sometimes that sample is exactly the people who already agree with you. The fix is boring and unglamorous: test the screener on real humans before you test the product on them, and budget for the participants who don't fit the mould you expected.\u003C\u002Fp>",{"id":81,"title":211,"slug":212,"date":213,"description":214,"theme":215,"body":216,"status":46},"The session that fell apart (and why I'm glad it did)","the-session-that-fell-apart","2026-08-04","What a broken usability test taught me about moderating: the script is a suggestion, the participant is the point.","Running sessions","\u003Cp>The plan was immaculate. Seven tasks, forty-five minutes, a prototype I'd walked through twice, and a participant who'd confirmed twice that yes, they were ready and yes, the link worked.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Three minutes in, the prototype crashed. Not gracefully — a hard white screen, the kind that makes a participant apologise for something that isn't their fault.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>I had two choices. I could rescue the session, apologise, and fight the tech while the clock ran down. Or I could do what I ended up doing: tell the truth, stop pretending we were testing anything, and have a conversation instead.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>What happened next\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>We never finished the tasks. We did something more useful. Freed from the script, the participant talked about the last time they'd tried to do this real task on a real website — what they clicked, where they got stuck, what made them give up and call the company instead.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>That conversation produced three findings that the tidy task list never would have surfaced. All three were about trust and error recovery, which turned out to be the actual design problem.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>What I changed after that\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>I tell participants upfront that technology breaks and it's never their fault — before anything breaks.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>I keep a short list of \"off-script\" questions for exactly this moment: \u003Cem>What would you do next in real life? When did you last try this for real?\u003C\u002Fem>\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>I stopped treating a derailed session as a failed one. Sometimes the participant is telling you something more important than the task list.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Ch2>The awkward truth\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The sessions that look smoothest on a recording are often the least informative. A session that falls apart — if you handle it honestly — is a session where the participant stops performing and starts telling the truth. The polish isn't the point. The participant is.\u003C\u002Fp>",{"id":33,"title":218,"slug":219,"date":220,"description":221,"theme":222,"body":223,"status":46},"Synthesis isn't a meeting. It's a method.","synthesis-is-a-method","2026-07-21","Why the best insights come from a deliberate, messy, sometimes boring process — not from a shared document with everyone's highlights in yellow.","Synthesis","\u003Cp>Synthesis is the part of research everyone agrees is important and almost nobody schedules properly. We book the interviews. We book the testing. And then we assume the insights will arrive, fully formed, in the debrief.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>They don't. They arrive in the hour you didn't book, when you're tired and the data is still in three different places.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>What \"doing synthesis properly\" means to me now\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>It's not a meeting where everyone reads their favourite quotes out loud. It's a working method with the same rigour as the fieldwork:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Individual first, group second.\u003C\u002Fstrong> Everyone who was in the sessions writes their own observations down before anyone shares. Otherwise the loudest researcher sets the frame and the quietest findings never surface.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Affinity in the open.\u003C\u002Fstrong> Stickies on a wall — physical or digital — where every quote has to earn its place under a theme. If a quote doesn't fit, the theme is wrong, not the quote.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Disagree out loud.\u003C\u002Fstrong> When two sessions point in opposite directions, that's not noise to average out. It's a finding about segmentation, or about context, and it deserves its own discussion.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Stop at insight, not summary.\u003C\u002Fstrong> A theme called \"trust\" is a summary. \"Users distrust the company because error messages read like legal disclaimers, so they call instead of retrying\" is an insight. The second one changes designs.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Ch2>The awkward truth\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Synthesis is where the mess shows up — the recruitment problem, the session that went sideways, the theme that only clicked at the end of the process. Keeping the mess visible is the point. When synthesis feels tidy too early, it's usually because someone has decided the answer and is arranging evidence around it.\u003C\u002Fp>",{"id":4,"hero_eyebrow":18,"hero_heading":19,"hero_lead":20,"profile_heading":225,"approach_eyebrow":226,"approach_heading":227,"credentials_eyebrow":228,"credentials_heading":229,"engagements_eyebrow":230,"engagements_heading":231,"profile_paragraphs":232,"education":236,"methods":243},"The short version — no jargon","How I work","From the decision to the evidence","Credentials","Education & the toolkit","Recent work","Recent engagements",[233,234,235],"I hold a \u003Cstrong>BA Hons in Psychosocial Studies\u003C\u002Fstrong> and am certified in \u003Cstrong>User Experience Design and Research\u003C\u002Fstrong> — a combination that keeps my work grounded in how people actually think, feel and behave, not just in clicks and heatmaps.","I have planned and run \u003Cstrong>usability testing, accessibility research and competitor analysis\u003C\u002Fstrong> for businesses ranging from an energy technology company bidding for DESNZ funding to NHS volunteer services, and have supported improved service reach and clearer advertising strategy through targeted campaigns and qualitative research.","On every project I work the same way: understand the decision, choose the method that answers it, run it rigorously, then present evidence your team can argue with — and act on.",[237,240],{"k":238,"v":239},"BA Hons, Psychosocial Studies","University",{"k":241,"v":242},"UX Design & Research","Certified",[108,244,72,182,69,245,191,110,73,246],"Surveys & questionnaires","Accessibility audits","CRO",1788907169393]