Sick & Tired
HCI Today summarized the key points
- •This article addresses the problem of PMs scheduling interview sessions before aligning on the purpose of the study, and how to explain this effectively.
- •Some argue that taking the schedule first doesn’t mean treating the research as a mere formality—it may be an operational decision aimed at reducing recruiting bottlenecks.
- •Others point out that you must decide what sample to use first, and that you shouldn’t proceed with the study if the research questions and target participants don’t match.
- •Other comments acknowledge the PM’s good intentions, but stress that the process should clearly prioritize pre-planning and agreement over the interview calendar.
- •Overall, it suggests that collaboration and empathy matter more than confrontation, but that researchers should also be clear about research principles when needed.
This summary was generated by an AI editor based on HCI expert perspectives.
Why Read This from an HCI Perspective
This article helps you see user interviews not as a simple execution step, but as an HCI task where problem definition and sample design are tightly intertwined. It’s common for a PM to schedule interviews first, but the way you align priorities among the research questions, the target participants, and the timeline ultimately determines UX quality. For practitioners, it’s an opportunity to review collaboration structures; for researchers, it’s a chance to rethink operating principles that make research function as ‘learning’ rather than mere ‘verification.’
CIT's Commentary
From a CIT perspective, this isn’t really a matter of ‘the PM being rude’; it’s about whether research operations and the decision-making structure are separated. Scheduling interviews first in itself may not be inherently bad—however, if it isn’t followed by aligning the research questions and defining the target users, sampling bias and interpretation errors can easily occur. The key isn’t how fast you manage the schedule, but whether there’s agreement on what learning is needed. So, rather than blocking defensively, it’s practical for researchers to restructure the process by introducing a question backlog and at least a minimal research design gate—preserving the PM’s momentum while protecting the validity of the research.
Questions to Consider While Reading
- Q.In a culture where PMs take over interview scheduling, how can we design the minimum gate needed to align on research questions?
- Q.Where should the boundary be drawn between the PM’s role in supporting research operations and the researcher’s role in owning research validity?
- Q.When interview schedules are set first and sample definition is delayed, what negotiation framework is most effective for HCI researchers?
This commentary was generated by an AI editor based on HCI expert perspectives.
Please refer to the original for accurate details.
Subscribe to Newsletter
Get the weekly HCI highlights delivered to your inbox every Friday.