Designing postgraduate research applying content through collaborative workshops
I recently facilitated a series of workshops to redesign content that explains the postgraduate research (PGR) applying process. This process is complex, but these workshops gave us space to work through the content in detail and, crucially, draw on the subject matter expertise of our user researcher.
Background
As part of the future degree finder project, we are also redesigning the web content that supports the profile of each degree programme we offer.
This includes content which describes the application process for postgraduate research (PGR) students.
What we know from user research
Our user researcher, Nicola Dobiecka, had previously carried out discovery research around the PGR applying process with prospective and current students. This included both students studying for a Masters by Research (MScR) and those studying for a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). This research showed:
- most had a low knowledge of the process for finding and applying to a PhD
- our content around PGR applying is disorganised and therefore confusing to potential applicants
- the differences in process between universities confuses applicants
- most applicants search for both funded and unfunded research opportunities
- the current degree finder programme page doesn’t support PhD applicants to complete the tasks essential to the process
Read Nicola’s blog about her findings from user research with postgraduate research students
What we found during a content audit
I reviewed our current PGR applying content as part of a content audit of the central study site.
This content racks up some of the highest page views of the entire site, so we know it’s something our applicants are seeking out.
However, based on my review and the insights from Nicola’s research, I concluded that our current content does not meet the needs of our users. In summary:
- the content is a mix of information related to the applying process and content that explains the different types of PGR degree and what they entail
- the content is too broad to account for the many application routes to PGR study
- the content is not useful (and probably confusing) for applicants who have low knowledge of the process to begin with
Why workshops and why now?
There is a huge variety of routes an applicant can take to apply for a PGR degree. This often depends on the subject area, but even within subject areas there can be variations in the process between programmes.
We needed to consider those users from Nicola’s research who come into this process with little-to-no knowledge of what their options are and what they need to do. But we also had to make the content generic enough so it worked for as many users as possible without overwhelming them.
We needed to dedicate a lot of time to improving the content to achieve this, and to also make room for collaboration between the content designers and our user researcher Nicola. Workshops provided this dedicated space for us content designers to work together with Nicola and take advantage of what she’d learned during her research.
It made more sense to work with Nicola than to co-design the content with users. This is because she has greater knowledge of the different applying routes which an individual applicant would not have.
What we did
Getting the information architecture right
The first workshop was focused on the information architecture of the PGR applying section.
As a result of the audit, I had briefly outlined an idea for how we could reorganise this content. Most importantly, I decided we should split out the content that was purely about applying from content that explained the different types of PGR degrees.
I wanted to sense-check my initial idea with the group and give them the opportunity to share their ideas, so I decided we would do a card sorting exercise.
Card sorting is where participants are given cards or labels and are asked to categorise them into pre-defined groups (or groups they create) according to what makes the most sense to them.
You can learn more about card sorting in this article from the Nielsen Norman Group.
Card Sorting: Uncover Users’ Mental Models for Better Information Architecture
Card sorting is usually something we do with users to give us insight into how they categorise information and how they expect it to be organised on our site. However, as these workshops were primarily a content development exercise, we did this card sorting within our team so we could build a better working idea for what the IA should look like.
As part of the card sorting exercise, I also gave each of the workshop participants a list of user stories I’d developed for the PGR applying process based on our existing content. So, as well as sorting the pages into categories, the participants also had to map the user stories to the relevant sections or pages. This way, I could be sure we were keeping user needs in mind during the exercise.
We sorted cards (representing the pages in the section) into groups and assigned the relevant user stories. Workshop participants could also create their own groups if they wanted.
After the card sorting exercise, I put together a list of outputs from the discussion that followed to inform the second half of the workshop, where we would each put together our idea for the IA.
This proved to be a useful exercise, as it showed that my initial idea wasn’t aligned with the rest of the team. In fact. we all had slightly different ideas of how this content could be organised. Nonetheless, by the end of the session we had agreed what the IA for this section should be.
Developing the content
The next five workshop sessions were focused on developing the content on the pages that would live in the section.
I had already identified the pages we needed to look at and had arranged them in priority order, based on the findings of Nicola’s research in this area.
We started each of these sessions by reviewing screenshots of the existing versions of these pages and taking some time individually to leave comments. We would comment on things like:
- the readability of the content
- whether the content met the user needs identified in the user stories
- anything we thought was factually untrue or potentially misleading
I also included the relevant user stories for each page beside the screenshots we were looking at to make sure we were keeping these in mind as we reviewed the pages.
We reviewed the pages by leaving comments and then talking through them together.
Once we had each presented our review of the pages, the three content designers redrafted the content based on points raised in the review. We then did a second review of these redrafted pages and agreed on a final set of actions for the content.
We all reviewed the redrafted content and left more comments. We then agreed on final actions for each page.
We performed this process for each of the chunks of content I had selected for review, which came to 11 pages in total.
Collaborating across disciplines
Performing a content review of these pages also helped us identify areas where we needed to do further research to fully understand the varied experiences of applying for a research degree.
In cases like this, while the content designers were individually drafting content, our user researcher Nicola would spend some time reviewing user research she had already carried out, as well as investigating how other universities present this information, to fill in these gaps in our knowledge.
Nicola’s backlog of questions from one session that we needed her to explore to fill gaps in our knowledge. While Nicola investigated these, the content designers were individually drafting content.
For example, we wanted to gain a better understanding of all the potential steps in the applying process, when they happen and how they might overlap. As content designers, we simply didn’t have this knowledge, so we needed Nicola to dig into this further to improve our understanding.
Nicola’s illustration of steps in the applying process and how they often happen in parallel or in a different order depending on the type of research programme being applied for.
By the end of the final workshop, we had finalised the content on all of the pages we wanted to workshop. More importantly, we had confidence we’d designed content that addressed the needs identified in the user stories, plugging the gaps we’d found and improving the structure.
What I learned
This was my first time running a content design workshop. I’ve taken part in them before, but organising and facilitating these workshops was a totally different experience.
Having a user researcher involved is a huge benefit
Sometimes, the content we design has to explain a process that is very complex and variable. Having a user researcher involved gave us confidence that we were developing the content in the right way. It kept us focused on the needs of users. It made it easier for us as content designers to say ‘I don’t know enough to write about this confidently, we need to find out more first’.
Prioritise content and be flexible with timings
You need to be flexible when planning workshops. Some pieces of content require more attention and time than others. Rather than rushing to work through everything you want to look at in a workshop, it’s more important to understand what’s most important to users, prioritise that content, and give it as much time as it needs.
This brings to mind Louis Rosenfeld’s concept of the ‘short head’ in web design, which recommends focusing on a small number of tasks or content areas that are most frequently used or requested by users, as optimising these can significantly enhance the overall user experience and efficiency of a site. By prioritising the short head, designers can ensure that the majority of users find what they need quickly and easily, leading to higher satisfaction and better performance of the site.
You can read more about the ‘short head, long tail’ concept in this article from Louis.
Stop Redesigning And Start Tuning Your Site Instead – Louis Rosenfeld
Good content is good for business
Overall, I have greater appreciation for why we workshop content in this way.
It was a lot of work for just a few pages of content. However, tackling content at this level of detail is necessary if we want to make sure it meets the needs of our applicants.
Taking the time to make sure our content is as good as it can be is good for business, as it should reduce the number of enquiries we get and ensure higher-quality applications.
Find out more about our PGR research
If you would like to know more about the research carried out by Nicola into the PGR applying process, you can read her blog post.
User research into the prospective postgraduate research application experience
