Eight years after the ResearchOps Community gave us The Eight Pillars of User Research, those pillars still stand tall—the view from the top just looks a lot different.
Part II of Great Question’s webinar series with the ResearchOps Community — The 8 Pillars, 8 Years Later — zeroed in on two of the most debated and misunderstood pillars: Scope and Organizational Context.
The panel brought together some brilliant minds:
Together, they dug into how these two pillars are evolving and what AI means for the future of ResearchOps.
Originally, scope was about boundaries. What counts as research work, and what doesn’t? How do you create standards so everyone is working in the same direction?
At the time, pulling together a library of templates and guidelines felt like a big step forward.
Eight years later, those boundaries are blurrier than ever. Research isn’t just being done by researchers anymore. It’s being spread across product managers, designers, marketers, even executives dabbling with tools on the side.
Otto put it plainly: Scope is now less about “this is ours” and more about “who’s responsible for what.”
And then there’s AI.
Jensen pointed out that AI is already doing things like running participant recruitment, auto-summarizing interviews, and drafting decks. That raises the uncomfortable question: if a bot can do the admin, what does that mean for ResearchOps? Or is the scope shifting upward: toward oversight, data governance, and making sure those AI outputs are accurate and ethical?
Cole reminded us that scope isn’t one-size-fits-all. A scrappy startup with a team of three will define scope very differently than a multinational bank. What matters more is that the conversation is ongoing.
While Scope is about what research does, Organizational Context is about where research sits.
In 2017, this pillar was about getting research a seat at the table by showing value and convincing leadership that research was more than a “nice-to-have.”
Today, many research teams have gotten a seat at the table—but the table has also gotten more crowded. Otto spoke about what that looks like inside Fidelity: Research is everywhere and across multiple departments, but yet not all teams are at the same maturity level. Some are advanced, some are still learning the basics. ResearchOps’ job is to create harmony in that uneven landscape.
Jensen highlighted how AI is shaking up this context, too. Customer insights aren’t just coming from research anymore. Product, design, and marketing teams all have their own AI tools to generate “insights.” That means research no longer has the monopoly on understanding users. The trick now is proving why research (when done rigorously and ethically) is still different and still indispensable.
Cole pushed on the cultural side of context. It’s not just about reporting lines or org charts as much as it’s about the trust and credibility research earns in its company. A culture that values experimentation and learning will make space for research to thrive. A culture that prioritizes speed and efficiency might sideline it. Ops leaders need to be adept at reading those cultural signals and positioning research in a way that resonates.
While AI dominated the discussion, panelists always returned to one simple truth: people still matter more.
Scope doesn’t work without people agreeing on roles and responsibilities. Context doesn’t matter if you haven’t built trust with your peers and executives.
Otto stressed that credibility comes from delivering insights that connect to business outcomes, not just running good studies. Cole emphasized the power of relationships: knowing who to talk to, who to influence, and who needs reassurance that research adds value.
Jensen likewise pointed out that ResearchOps professionals are often the ones best placed to manage this balance. They can help integrate AI responsibly while reminding organizations what only human researchers can deliver: empathy, ethics, and nuance.
AI is an accelerant, not a replacement. It makes some tasks faster and challenges teams to decide what still requires a human touch. For Scope, it’s a forcing function for clarity into which parts of research must remain human-led and which can be safely automated. For Organizational Context, it reshuffles power dynamics, giving other teams access to lightweight insights that used to be Research’s territory.
Rather than resisting, the panel encouraged leaning into the shift. Define Scope around the value humans add that machines can’t replicate. Position research in the Organizational Context as the team that ensures insights—AI-assisted or not—are valid, ethical, and actionable.
The Eight Pillars gave the research community language and structure at a time when the field needed it most. Eight years later, those pillars still stand, but they look different under the weight of AI and other factors. Scope is evolving from boundaries to shared responsibilities; Organizational Context, from “do we have a seat at the table?” to “how do we lead in a room full of new voices?”
The conversation made one thing clear: ResearchOps isn’t just about efficiency. It’s about helping teams adapt, navigate change, and show up with confidence in a landscape that looks little like it did in 2017.
Stay tuned for Part III of our ongoing series with the ResearchOps Community coming soon.
Jack is the Content Marketing Lead at Great Question, the all-in-one UX research platform built for the enterprise. Previously, he led content marketing and strategy as the first hire at two insurtech startups, Breeze and LeverageRx. He lives in Omaha, Nebraska.
