Reflections on "User Research Smoke & Mirrors" article

This article is a series of blog posts by Christopher Fahey, who works for Behaviour (user experience design firm), on his opinion of scientific user research.

In short, I think Christopher is trying to make these points:

1. User experience design is not a science but an art. 

I agree with this view. You cannot create good user experience by following a set of formulas or methods. Design by nature requires creativity, and that is sometimes not reproducible. 

2. Research and heuristic results are easily misinterpreted and mostly unnecessarily for the design process (other than for organization politics)

I believe research and heuristic methods are quite necessary and non-trivial in the design process. However, the results should definitely be taken with a grain of salt, as they are highly subjective. I disagree with the author's view that a "good" designer will instinctively "know things" without the research. I do agree that it is easier to convince management to make a decision based on research results. I do not think anything is wrong about this, as it keeps everybody honest. I.e. Someone should not get paid to make recommendations based on no research and no evidence.

3. Good design process does not make great products. Good designers make great products.

I do not think this comment is properly backed up by fact (other than the example on IDEO - which in my opinion has a great design process AND a great team of designers). I think great designers do follow some form of design process, although they may not stick to it like it is law. That is what makes designing a mix of science and art. 

Overall, I think this article points out some valid arguments as it relates to user experience design. The whole idea is there is no set method to perform user research and definitely no set way to interpret the data. Thus, design is really based on the designer's experience, education, and/or talent.