Objectivity & Biases in Human-Centred De

Objectivity & Biases in Human-Centred Design

Overview

Completed in 2020 as part of my Master’s programme, this research-led project sits at the intersection of design practice, psychology, and reflective inquiry. It was not driven by a commercial brief, but by real-world observations from my early professional practice.

The project aimed to understand how designer bias manifests during research and decision-making and what practical steps designers can take to remain aligned with user needs.

Role:

Researcher · Designer · Facilitator

Duration:

Master’s Thesis Project (2020) | 6 months

Impact:

Increased awareness of cognitive bias among designers
Stronger separation between user needs and designer preferences
More confident, evidence-led decision-making
Healthier team critique and collaboration

Complete objectivity in design is impossible—but structured reflection and bias awareness can significantly strengthen user-centred outcomes.

Why this project

The starting point for this research was a moment of self-reflection during a user interview. I noticed myself asking leading questions, unintentionally steering participants toward answers that matched my expectations.

That experience raised deeper questions:

How often do designers shape insights without realising it?
Where do personal preference and professional judgement intersect?
Who is the “user” when the designer’s own bias is part of the system?

These questions echoed broader industry challenges, where creative authority, stakeholder preference, or intuition can quietly override user evidence. This project became an opportunity to critically examine those dynamics.

Research

This research explored how designers can work toward more objective, user-focused outcomes, while accepting that complete objectivity is unattainable.

The central research question was:

How might designers design the most optimum and objective solutions for users?

This was explored through a multi-layered approach:

Literature & Theory

Secondary research examined Human -Centred Design, cognition, objectivity, and cognitive bias. Design and psychology literature revealed a fundamental contradiction: design aspires to objectivity, yet depends on human judgement at every stage.

First-Person Action Research

Using reflective practice as a research tool, I observed and analysed my own behaviours during research and synthesis. This surfaced patterns of confirmation bias and assumption-making, reinforcing the idea that designers themselves are also “users” within the process.

Primary Research

Interviews and surveys with professionals across design and psychology provided external perspectives on bias, blind spots, and decision-making. These conversations highlighted how easily personal taste and preference can influence outcomes, often unconsciously.

Methodologies

To balance exploration with structure, I paired Design Thinking with the Double Diamond framework.

Design Thinking anchored the process in empathy and human understanding, while the Double Diamond provided clarity through divergence, synthesis, iteration, and convergence.

The flexibility of this combined approach allowed movement between theory, reflection, and application throughout the project.

The Solution: The Objectivity Toolkit

The outcome of this research was the Objectivity Toolkit, a reflective framework designed to help designers surface bias and question assumptions throughout the design process.

Rather than imposing rigid steps, the toolkit serves as a mirror, encouraging designers to separate user needs from personal preferences without disrupting creative flow.

Core Principles

Awareness – Identifying common cognitive biases
Reflection – Creating intentional pauses to question judgement
Separation – Distinguishing evidence from preference
Iteration – Revisiting assumptions as the design evolves

Key Components

Bias Awareness Cards
Decision Checkpoints aligned to Discover, Define, Develop, Deliver
Reflection Prompts inspired by first-person action research
User vs Designer Lens Exercise
Collaboration Circles for peer critique

Toolkit Testing:

The toolkit was tested with peers and practising designers across different contexts.

Key observations:

Designers became more conscious of how bias shaped their decisions
The toolkit felt lightweight and adaptable rather than process-heavy
Team discussions shifted from opinion-led to evidence-led
Different components were adopted based on project needs

The toolkit supported awareness and accountability without enforcing behaviour.

Outcomes & Impact:

The project demonstrated that while complete objectivity in design is impossible, structured awareness can significantly reduce the unconscious influence of bias.

Key outcomes included:

Stronger alignment between design decisions and user needs
Increased confidence in evidence-led decision-making
Healthier critique and collaboration within teams
A shared language for questioning assumptions

Objectivity emerged not as a fixed state, but as an ongoing practice.

What’s Next

While academic in origin, the project revealed strong practical potential.

Future opportunities include:

Expanding the toolkit with real-world case studies
Testing adoption within larger UX and product teams
Creating digital versions such as templates or plugins
Collaborating with psychology practitioners
Adapting the framework for AI-driven and ethical design contexts

Reflection

This project reinforced that design is as much about self-awareness as creativity. Bias is inevitable; ignoring it is optional.

The Objectivity Toolkit is not a final answer, but a compass, encouraging designers to pause, reflect, and recalibrate. It remains one of the most formative projects in my practice and continues to shape how I approach research, facilitation, and decision-making today.