When it comes to research methods, there’s a large variety to pick from.
Surveys, interviews, card sorts, quantitative and qualitative. Depending on the question you are trying to answer, the more methodological tools a researcher can use, the more likely they will be able to answer the question itself.
Much of the time, user researchers will use the methods they are most comfortable with, often defaulting to interviews and usability testing. Constantly drafting, formatting and implementing feature testing and interviews can make User Researchers feel like machines – which can be counter-productive in a field where the end user is human.
How do we fix this issue?
One way you could do it is through creativity. By thinking outside of the box.
This is something that I introduced to our research on behalf of the Ministry of Justice and something I recently presented to UX Scotland at Dynamic Earth, Edinburgh.
Let’s unbox this project.
Looking beyond a box
I studied psychology and criminology at university, beginning my career working in a substance misuse charity for a decade, where I provided vital support to people struggling with addiction. Having been people-focused for so long, it was only natural that my next career change would be in user research, continuing that focus on the end user. This approach led me to Hippo, joining the herd in 2020.
A key thing you should know about me is that I am very much a cat lover. Having built a cardboard hotel (Hotel Cat-afornia) for the feline members of my family, with a makeshift hot tub, annexe and gelato parlour for my furry friends. It’s fair to say I spend a lot of time working with boxes in this feline real estate empire. My point is this: I am very much pro-creativity, and pro-compassion. This is important in the research study we undertook for the MoJ.
Combatting repeat offending
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) have been working together to combat the high rates of recidivism (returning to prison) among released prisoners. Statistics suggest that a significant portion of prison leavers struggle to find housing, secure employment, and access essential services like healthcare and mental health support – creating a cycle of instability for people who are already in a vulnerable situation.
The MoJ aimed to develop a “resettlement passport” for prison leavers. This passport would serve as a vital resource, providing information and support services to help individuals successfully transition back into society after their sentence.
When I found out we would be working on the project, I knew it made sense. Having a history of working with people within the criminal justice system, the project resonated with me and allowed me to work on something that would deeply impact people at a difficult and stressful time. I was eager to start and excited to make a difference.
As a researcher working on behalf of the HMPPS, I still represent the “system” that many people in prison feel oppressed by – leading to an immediate power imbalance.
However, I was immediately conscious of certain challenges that could impact how the research was conducted, and though I’m not directly employed by the MoJ or HMPPS, as a researcher working on their behalf, I still represent the “system” that many people in prison feel oppressed by – leading to an immediate power imbalance.
In an environment where people are less likely to engage, I need to think of an effective way to capture insights from prisoners and probationers who would be participating. Prisons had limited resources, so it was likely that 1-2-1 interviews would have to be supervised, meaning focus groups would likely have to be a default.
With these limitations in mind, I felt that the Participatory Design Method would best be suited.
At its core, the Participatory design method is an approach that involves the end-user in the design process. It aims to create products and services that better meet the user’s needs by applying their knowledge and experience.
Four key considerations lead to this decision. Some I have already covered, such as limited resources in prisons, as well as the immediate power imbalance. But, many prisoners are likely to suffer from abuse, mental health and trauma, as upwards of 57% of prisoners are likely to have a high level of illiteracy. Being able to allow them to express themselves in a way that wouldn’t make them feel silly or inadequate was key to achieving honest information.
When we consider the need to address this research from this human perspective, the big question was, how can we achieve the research goals and imbue the process with compassion? This is especially challenging when you are restricted on what resources you can use in prison, having to manage without the internet or online resources. Though I knew what I wanted to achieve, I didn’t yet have the vehicle to do so.
It wasn’t until I read Game Storming that I discovered an ideal approach.
Opening the lid
Within Game Storming, there is an agile team workshop called the Product Vision Box. It was never designed with research in mind, more commonly used to define concepts such as a project, or a new technology or piece of software.
But, I remembered some sage advice from Dr Helen Kara, which advises that you can manipulate and develop theories in the constraints of good practice, as long as it helps you answer your research questions.
This idea resonated with me.
Being able to use a creative workshop to identify the tools prisoners themselves felt they needed when reentering society was a game changer. It ensured the participantscould lead the process and allowed them to be open about things that worried them and things they felt they needed more information on.
One box, two box, three box, four…
The Product Vision Box was broken down into three stages:
- The Introduction
- The Box Creation
- The Sharing
The creation of each box would only last around 30 minutes, and it was important to not lead them to any conclusions when explaining the task.
The introduction
When I came to the prison, the team was taken to a meeting room along with 7 prisoners. With each prisoner serving various sentence lengths, the team and I knew it was important to be purposefully vague about the “resettlement passport”, so they took to calling it a “resource”. We didn’t know if people would be against having to make their “passport” on the spot, fearing an improvisational element to it; so it was important to frame the method so they knew what to expect.
“We weren’t sure before we started whether everyone would really get what we were asking for but although there were a few slightly blank faces when we started, they all got the ask really quickly”
Box creation
When the group understood what to do, the individual or group was given their resource pack.
The participants were tasked to create the physical “box” that represented what they felt they needed when they left prison. It was to become a physical expression of their worries and wants – a focusing device that wrapped up all their insights in a neat box.
Throughout the 30 minutes, prompts were given to help them along the way. Carefully selected to ensure it wasn’t leading them to a conclusion, they consisted of:
- What is it called?
- What about a slogan? Logo?
- How do you use it? When do you use it?
- What is most important to have on release from prison?
- What is important to know?
- How long do you think it would be useful for after leaving prison?
Below are an example of some of the boxes that were made:
Ideas such as resettlement and reintroduction can feel abstract. For people within prison, being able to articulate how they feel and expressing their values and pain points may not be something that comes easy.
But, as you can see, when an idea becomes something physical, people begin to express how they feel. Through stimulus, the prisoners were able to make deeper connections and articulate their emotions.
The contents, or “features” of the cards that were inside the box went further and allowed them to communicate what was important to them for resettlement and the support they needed that was important to them.
Sharing
After they had finished creating their boxes, they were given a chance to present their boxes to the group, what it meant to them and why they made the design decisions for their box.
It allowed other participants to join the discussion, offering their questions and comments as well as feedback. Questions that were used in the Box Creation phase are also useful here, allowing the discussion to continue and flow creating an open and continuous dialogue.
Packaged and ready to deliver
After the participants shared their thoughts, recurring themes were pulled together to get a better picture of what exactly prisoners and probationers felt they needed to be reintroduced into society.
From the answers, it was clear that the transition from prison to community and how communication could be improved was vital to a lot of the participants.
Opening the user box
The “Product Box” wasn’t a magic solution, but it offered a valuable perspective from the users themselves. As a starting point for future research it was incredibly effective.
The box designs revealed clear preferences. Users wanted a resource that felt forward-looking, which is why almost none of the boxes had official MoJ logos. The sessions highlighted the practical challenges faced by prison leavers – finding housing, obtaining essential documents, and managing appointments were key concerns.
The research uncovered areas for improvement within the system itself. Inconsistent support, lack of planning, and communication gaps between prison and probation services were identified. This valuable insight contributed to the development of a separate support tool for staff, promoting a more collaborative approach.
Thinking outside the box
In the end, this exercise was only one part of many methods used throughout the research. The team also interviewed 40 HMPPS staff, had multiple prison visits for contextual observation and interviewed 20 people in prison who had experienced being on probation. The Product Box was only one method that was used – but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t necessary.
The consideration and empathy shown towards prisoners and people on probation were crucial to the research being successfully carried out. Doubling it with a creative and open mindset allowed participants and researchers to enjoy the process, and it allowed for transparent communication on ideas and topics that can be hard to pin down and simplify.
I approached this research thinking of the human first and foremost. At the end of the day, the end-user is human and we need to treat prisoners and tose on probation as such. Creativity is an innately human experience and it is hugely gratifying when it can be used in a manner the helps both individuals and society more widely.
