What Research Leaders Get Wrong About Research Operations (and Visibility)

One stat from our State of Modern Research 2026 report stopped us cold.‍

94% of leaders say research matters. Only 27% say it consistently shapes major decisions.‍

Our in-house Research Consultant Ben Wiedmaier brought together three research leaders — Mahad Bullo from Included Health, Alexis McNutt Unis from OnePay, and Eniola Abioye from UX Outloud, to have a conversation about what the data doesn’t say on its own.

Four themes shaped the power-packed hour:

1. Research scale vs. research operations
2. The research visibility gap
3. AI adoption and impact
4. Democratizing research access

Watch it on demand →

Prefer to read? Here's what the panel covered.

‍Research scale vs. research operations

The numbers told the story before the panel even got started.

Teams ran nearly four research methods in the past 12 months, across more than six software tools. 

The panel wasn't surprised. Alexis, Customer Research Lead at Onepay, put it plainly, "A researcher today is no longer someone who works solely project to project. They're also thinking about the wider structure. We all have to have those ResearchOps skills."

Mahad, Senior Staff UX Researcher from Included Health, spent an entire 16-week stretch, where he took on no new projects and focused on rebuilding his team's infrastructure after a downsizing. Templates, permissioning, panel management, compliance workflows.

When he came out the other side, his team was doing four times as much research with a fraction of the headcount. 

"If you don't have research ops, you don't have a research practice. Period," he said.

According to our research, only 7% of researchers report into a dedicated research function. Everyone else sits inside product, marketing, CX, or engineering — spread (thin) across functions. It's a structural issue, and it's exactly the kind of thing research operations processes are supposed to fix. 

Read more about building a real research operations practice →

The research visibility gap

73% of directors say research review is a formal step before major decisions. Only 37% of practitioners agree. 

Most research never reaches the room where decisions get made. The panel had a few theories about why and what to do about it.

UX Outloud's Founder & Career Coach Eniola's approach is to bring stakeholders into fieldwork directly. 

"Once people caught wind that they could travel with research, they were asking questions, they were engaged,” she said. “Even if they were putting their best foot forward, at least we were in front of the conversation."

Mahad has moved away from long-form readouts entirely.

"I think the 30-page research deck is a dinosaur. It's where great work goes to be buried," he said. His replacements are short Loom-style videos, Slack snippets, insights dropped directly into team channels. 

Read Mahad's full playbook on building research influence →

Both kept coming back to the same point that researchers should focus on distribution. Most research is built to be pulled, where someone has to go looking for it. The teams closing the gap build systems that push insights out continuously so they land at appropriate moments when decisions are being made.

AI adoption and impact

93% of researchers are using AI. 72% report saving 25% or more of their time on certain tasks. 

What separates the teams seeing real returns is an active insights repository. Organizations with one are three times more likely to report significant AI time savings.

The panel had examples of what that actually looks like in practice.

Alexis has been experimenting with MCPs to connect her research repository directly to the tools where product decisions happen. "I like this idea of showing up where the excitement is. You're creating a product requirements document? Just double-check and connect first," she said.

Mahad was direct about his stance on AI vs researcher: "The tool isn't doing the research. The 'so what' is still ours. What is the relevance of this finding to this decision, right now? No model knows your stakeholder's unspoken concerns. You do."

Democratizing research access

Ben surfaced one of the more surprising findings from our report in the conversation.

Ease of use for non-researchers ranked dead last in how teams evaluate software.

Only 25% prioritized it, after cost, AI accuracy, and security.

Eniola pushed back on the number by pointing out, "We talk about democratization as access. But we don't talk about the responsibility that comes with it. Understanding how to protect data and PII. Understanding HIPAA. Healthy friction exists for a reason."

Most organizations haven't quite figured out how to balance access and responsibility. In the meantime, teams must take control of how they operate.

Three things to do now

Audit your push.

Map every channel where you're currently pushing insights and then add one. A Slack integration, a standing segment in a weekly meeting, an automated summary that goes somewhere new.

‍Define what research impact looks like before leadership does.

Bring three concrete metrics to your next quarterly review.

1. Time or cost saved by avoiding a bad decision
2. Stakeholder satisfaction with research
3. A specific decision that was shaped by an insight

‍Make your last study findable before starting your next one.

Before moving to your next project, ask yourself two questions. 

1. Where and how will someone find my study in six months? 
2. What decision is it most relevant to right now?

Our research shows that 94% already believe in the work. Here’s to closing the gap between belief and action.
‍

Download the State of Modern Research 2026 →
Watch the full webinar →
‍See how Marvin helps research teams close the listening gap →

‍