Is UX Research Being Left Behind?

The UK UX market used to be steady, even thriving.

Two years ago, freelance researchers and designers barely needed to apply. Recruiters called first. Contracts rolled in. Lead roles paid six figures, and few questioned the value of the work.

That’s changed.

Today, seasoned professionals—some with over a decade of experience—are stuck applying to roles that don’t align with their skills or seniority. And when roles do appear, salaries are well below market rates. Lead roles once listed at £90k now come in at £55k. Some don’t even mention a contract length.

It's hard not to ask: is ours a dying profession?

Too Much Talent, Too Few Roles

There’s no shortage of experienced researchers looking for work. But the volume of roles doesn’t match the demand. Researchers with PhDs, published work, or long-term agency experience are applying for mid-level jobs that never get back to them.

And because of that imbalance, many roles now blend disciplines. Design listings come with “must have research skills.” PM roles expect usability testing. Research roles are divided into Qual vs. Quant, with very little in between. The generalist researcher—the one who’s done a bit of everything—is suddenly too experienced for entry roles, but not specialized enough for narrow job specs.

Even worse, some teams now skip hiring altogether.

One reason? The rise of AI tools that look like they do research.

It’s now common to hear that product teams are “asking ChatGPT” instead of commissioning user research. A quick prompt can return a breakdown of a user journey, a few UX suggestions, or even a mock persona. It’s fast, and—on the surface—good enough.

The problem is that “good enough” gets accepted.

HCI has always dealt with counter-intuitive outcomes. Users don’t always behave logically. Context matters. Product goals shift mid-project. AI doesn't account for any of that. But it’s hard to argue with a tool that gives an instant answer, especially when hiring a researcher takes weeks and budget approval.

The Invisible Value of UX

UX isn’t just wireframes or process diagrams. It’s inquiry. It’s analysis. It’s prioritization. And often, the best outcomes come from insights that emerge over time—not pre-written templates.

But that nuance doesn’t sell well.

Companies under pressure often choose speed over depth. Research becomes seen as a delay. And when research is skipped, poor design choices get rationalized after launch. The loop continues.

Meanwhile, the professionals trained to ask the right questions get left out of the room.

There’s a growing gap between what UX roles say they need and what they actually require.

Roles ask for design, research, strategy, writing, facilitation, and AI knowledge—but offer salaries below mid-weight. Freelancers who used to turn down work are now chasing open roles, often without replies.

This doesn’t reflect a lack of talent. It reflects a hiring culture that hasn’t adjusted to its own standards. If researchers need to be senior, strategic, multi-skilled, and self-directing, then roles need to reflect that—both in scope and compensation.

Right now, they don’t.

People Are Starting to Pivot

In response, many UX professionals are shifting course.

Some move into startups where they can still influence direction. Others take roles outside of UX entirely—bringing their thinking into ops, strategy, or service delivery. A few are retraining into adjacent fields like behavioral science or AI ethics.

Others are just… waiting. Hoping for the market to recover. Hoping someone replies. Wondering if it’s worth staying in a field that’s been slowly hollowed out by vague titles, low budgets, and increasing pressure to justify its own existence.

This isn’t the first time UX roles have felt unstable. But the combination of economic pressure and tool-driven thinking has made it harder to defend the long-term value of the work.

The signal-to-noise ratio is off.
Experienced researchers are overlooked.
Hiring is opaque.
And AI is used to shortcut work that depends on human nuance.

If there’s a path forward, it will need more than just resilience from practitioners. It will need teams and orgs to re-learn what UX is actually for—and to make room again for the people who do it properly.

Until then, the field isn’t dead.
But it’s definitely not healthy.