The Dialog on Practical Steps Towards Inclusive Research Continues
During a recent ICN Seekers & Allies meetup session, several people raised great questions and comments in the chat that our guest, Steve Levine, Strat360, wanted to come back to. If you missed the session, you can watch it below. We covered a lot of ground, but we ran out of time!
Lori asked about linguistic accessibility, particularly for people whose first language isn’t English. Linguistic accessibility is about more than translation. Even when research is conducted in English, we can use clear, straightforward language and avoid unnecessary jargon, idioms, and culturally specific expressions.
Begonia added another important consideration: someone can be bilingual without being equally comfortable reading and writing in both languages. When we translate research, we also need to ask whether the meaning of the question translates, not simply the words. Like so many accessibility practices, clearer language benefits everyone.
Michele asked whether there’s another word we should use instead of “disability.” I wouldn’t replace the word disability; it’s an important and appropriate term that many people identify with, which was also reflected in research led by the Insights Association. I think Michele’s question gets at something else: whether disability alone captures everyone who may encounter an accessibility barrier. Someone doesn’t necessarily need to identify as having a permanent disability to have an accessibility need. Needs can be temporary, episodic, or situational. Sometimes the environment or technology itself creates the barrier. This is what led me to develop the STEP™ Framework—not to replace the term disability, but to provide a more realistic way of understanding how accessibility needs show up in everyday life.
Dean asked about including people with learning disabilities in general B2C research. If someone is part of the population that uses a product or service, they should have the opportunity to participate in the research about that product or service. This doesn’t mean completely redesigning the study; clear questions, clear instructions, less complexity, and sufficient time and flexibility can all help. Rather than assuming we know what someone needs, we should ask. The goal is to remove unnecessary barriers to participation, not to design research around a disability.
Susan asked whether emojis are helpful or confusing when used in rating scales. They can be either. I wouldn’t rely on an emoji alone to communicate a response option, as people interpret emojis differently based on culture and context, and they can present challenges for assistive technology. If emojis or visual cues are used, they should be paired with clear text labels so the scale can be understood without relying on the visual.
What I really liked about these questions is that they took the conversation in directions I couldn’t have fully anticipated. We started with accessibility in research and quickly expanded into language, learning disabilities, neurodivergence, culture, technology, and situational needs. None of us will anticipate every barrier or have every answer, but we can ask better questions, listen, and keep learning from each other
Ready for More?
The deck and video for Steve Levine’s session are available in our Insights Career Library!
You must be logged in to post a comment.