It’s the time of year for the Zebras to make way for reindeer (or the Six White Boomers).

We’re still working, like little elves behind the scenes, so if you need to contact us, please do. The blog, however, is taking a break until early in the New Year.

And on that note, wishing you all a very happy and healthy 2009!

I think I’ve found my blog-soul mate.

Nice to find someone who shares my passion for user friendly research.

*Just in case* you missed my rather excited tweets or Facebook update, here’s my opinion piece in this issue of Anthill magazine.

: P

The seedling is here.

The words we use, the way we put them together, and even the words we don’t use play a key role in shaping how we think and what we do. Not just ‘we’ as in you and me, I’m talking bigger picture. My case in point, for which I have a fascinating example, is public heath.

The very clever Dr Julie Smith, from ANU, has (amongst other things), conducted a study to look at the way peer reviewed articles report the health risks of women not breastfeeding.

What she found;

“Just as Voldemort in the popular Harry Potter story was hardly ever named because of fear of attracting attention, researchers fear naming infant formula as a cause of ill health”.

Her analysis found that;

“… even where research shows artificial feeding increases health risks, the researchers systematically do not mention the association of artificial feeding with increased illness and morbidity”

And that;

“…the research mislead readers by associating breastfeeding with the illnesses. Formula is very rarely named as a risk factor for various illnesses.”

The reason I’m blogging about it is that not only is it fascinating research, I also think it’s brilliant research. A well considered, well informed framework for inquiry (Julie knows her stuff). Sharp questions and, in effect, actionable results.

P.S On topic, also interesting, is this piece by Diane Wiessinger. A great example of the incredibly powerful effect language can have on our attitudes and behaviours.

There’s an interesting debate brewing over the definition and use of the term “Usability Testing” over at Patrick Kennedy’s (excellent) blog.

My (very possibly misguided) take out is that “Usability Testing”, in its proper form, is a specialised practice that often sits under the broad umbrella misnomer (drum roll) of “Usability Testing”. And when people use this term to describe other elements of usability testing (without the quotation marks), they actually mean usability evaluation.

Get it? Don’t worry if you don’t. It’s just some context, but not the point of this post.

The point of this post is a question; is the skill set of a User Experience (UX) professional different to that of a qualitative research professional? If yes, how?

Rhetorically yours (until someone sets me straight!)

; )