What I Got Wrong About the Six Forces Killing UXR Article (And the Deeper Truth I Found in Your DMs)
Some Companies Were Never Meant to Value
Since publishing Part 1, I've had calls, DMs, and long rants with people across the UXR spectrum—ex-Big Tech researchers, bootcamp grads, startup leads, and laid-off directors. And one thing crystallized: the problem isn't just that research is being devalued. It's that many companies never valued it in the first place.
They were never structured to. Their business model doesn't require understanding users—just looking like they do. In hindsight, everything else I wrote—AI overreach, PM creep, bootcamp inflation—was just downstream of that deeper truth.
This follow-up is about that root cause. The two types of companies. The illusion of maturity. The AI tools built to optimize the performance of care, not the practice of it. And why, if you're a researcher wondering why you keep getting sidelined—it's probably not you. It's the company's DNA.
Let's go deeper.
The Wrong Diagnosis
The UXR job market isn't broken. It's functioning exactly as designed—for companies that never needed research to begin with.
We've been diagnosing symptoms for months now. AI replacing researchers. Layoffs hitting research teams hardest. "Democratization" putting research tools in everyone's hands. But we've been ignoring the foundational cause: intent.
The real split isn't between companies that do research well versus poorly. It's between companies where UXR is necessary infrastructure and those where it's acquisition theater. AI just speeds up the disposability of the latter.
The Two Species of Companies
Not all companies are created equal when it comes to research. There are fundamentally two types, and understanding which one you're in determines everything about your experience as a researcher.
Type 1: UXR-Dependent Companies
These are organizations where user understanding isn't nice-to-have—it's survival. Big Tech companies building infrastructure-scale systems where user misalignment affects billions of people. Meta's feed algorithms, Amazon's recommendation engines, Google's search results. Get the user wrong, and the entire business model crumbles.
The same applies to mission-critical products: dating apps where matching algorithms determine success, healthcare platforms where user confusion can be dangerous, trust and safety systems where user behavior patterns are everything. In these companies, research isn't a luxury—it's load-bearing infrastructure.
Type 2: UXR-Disposable Companies
Then there are the others. Startups built for exit, not longevity. Companies where the product is really the pitch deck, and the customer is actually the acquirer. Here, UXR exists for optics, fundraising presentations, and investor check-boxes.
"The product is the pitch deck. The customer is the acquirer. UXR is just decoration."
These companies hire researchers the same way they hire PR firms—to create the appearance of maturity and user-centricity without the substance.
The Rise of Research Theater
This is where things get insidious. Type 2 companies have gotten sophisticated about performing maturity. They'll bring in ex-Google or ex-Meta researchers specifically for the credibility. They'll tout their "user-centric culture" in blog posts and conference talks.
But look closer at how research actually functions in these organizations. Researchers are brought in late in the process, after key decisions are already made. They spend their time producing beautifully designed decks that confirm what leadership already decided. Their "insights" are cherry-picked for support, not guidance.
This isn't dysfunction—it's the system working as intended. These companies want research-shaped objects, not research outcomes. They want the confidence boost of data without the inconvenience of being wrong.
And this is exactly where AI tools thrive.
How AI Supercharges the UXR-Disposable Model
Here's the thing about Type 2 companies: they were already half-faking research. AI just makes it faster, cheaper, and more confident-sounding.
AI-generated personas that sound authoritative but lack real behavioral insights. Automated synthesis tools that turn messy human feedback into clean, actionable bullet points. Dashboard interfaces that make correlation look like causation. These tools aren't optimized for truth—they're optimized for efficiency optics.
And that value proposition aligns perfectly with companies that want the theater without the craft. Why pay a senior researcher $150K to spend three months uncovering uncomfortable truths about your product when an AI tool can generate research-shaped content in three hours?
"AI didn't replace research. It replaced the need to pretend to care."
For Type 1 companies, AI tools are concerning because they threaten research quality. For Type 2 companies, AI tools are liberating because they eliminate the human element that made research unpredictable and expensive.
What This Means for Researchers
If you're a researcher feeling like you're constantly fighting for relevance, constantly having your work ignored or cherry-picked, constantly being asked to "move faster" or "be more actionable"—there's a good chance you're working for a Type 2 company.
The current bloodbath in UXR isn't universal. It's concentrated in companies that never intended to keep researchers long-term. Good researchers aren't failing—they're fleeing. They're moving to organizations with real user stakes, real research infrastructure, and real commitment to user understanding.
The rise of AI UXR tools isn't an innovation threatening the field. It's a market adaptation to companies that view research as theater. If your organization treats research like decoration, AI will replace you. Not because AI is better at research, but because your organization never wanted research in the first place.
What to Do About It
The solution isn't to get better at research. It's to get better at identifying companies' actual intent.
Ask these questions in interviews: Who owns the product roadmap? When does research typically get involved in the process? What's a recent example of a study that fundamentally changed product direction? How do you measure the success of your research function?
The answers will tell you everything. Type 1 companies have specific stories about research changing strategic direction. Type 2 companies talk about research "informing" decisions or "validating" approaches.
Pick your battleground carefully. Some places deserve your rigor and expertise. Most don't. Don't build your career identity around scaling research for people who fundamentally want to eliminate it.
Burn the Theater
The old narratives we've been telling ourselves—democratization, agility, efficiency—served companies that never deserved research to begin with. We've been trying to make research more palatable to organizations that view it as an obstacle.
It's time to stop playing supporting roles in their stage production. Step out of the theater. Find the places where research is still infrastructure, not props. Leave the rest to their dashboards, A/B tests, and AI-generated insights—and watch what breaks when they run out of actual user understanding.
Because here's the thing about theater: eventually, the audience goes home, the lights come up, and reality sets in. Companies built on research performance rather than research practice will eventually face users who don't behave like their personas, markets that don't match their assumptions, and products that fail in ways their dashboards never predicted.
"They weren't killing research. They were optimizing its illusion."
The companies that survive will be the ones that never stopped caring about the difference.
🎭 Tired of performing research for companies that only want the costume, not the craft?
I write sharp, pissed-off, and brutally tactical essays for researchers who see through the theater. No stakeholder pacification. No AI fairy dust. Just systems thinking, red flags, and hard exits.
👉 Subscribe Subscribe if you’re done faking buy-in and ready to walk out mid-act..