If we want research to change, we need to build systems that can actually handle the tension.

We’ve all said it: “Research needs to change.” But saying it isn’t enough. Especially when the day-to-day reality doesn’t shift. Budgets stay fixed. Timelines get tighter. The same decks roll out. Maybe we swap a slide. Maybe we use a new tool. But the underlying mechanics? They stay mostly untouched.

This newsletter isn’t about having the answers. It’s about exploring what might help us ask better questions. The kind that lead to actual change. I’m someone who still falls into old patterns. Who still compromises on ideas. Who still sometimes plays it safe. So this isn’t a manifesto from the mountaintop. It’s a field note. One I hope you’ll build on, critique or ignore completely in favour of something better.

Why Change Often Gets Stuck

It’s not that people don’t care. Most teams I work with want to do things differently. But wanting change and enabling it are two very different things.

Here’s what tends to get in the way:

• Change is framed as a creative flourish not an operational shift
  
  
• Teams are expected to innovate inside existing KPIs and timelines
  
  
• Dissent is welcomed in theory but penalised in practice
  
  
• There’s no space (or budget) to try something new and messy
  
  
• The industry rewards neatness over disruption even when disruption is needed
  

This isn’t about blaming individuals. It’s about questioning the structures we work within and asking how we might start to bend them.

Dissent Is a System Not a Mood

Dissent often gets associated with attitude. With being loud, difficult, contrary. But real dissent is design-led. It’s something you build into the process. It shows up in who gets to speak, how decisions are made, what gets measured and what’s seen as “good work.”

So what if we tried building systems that don’t just allow dissent but depend on it?

Punk Protocols: Experiments Worth Exploring

These aren’t best practices. They’re questions in disguise. Ways to test what happens when we invite contradiction into the room. I’ve tried a few. Others are just ideas I’d like to try. You might already be doing some version of them. Or have better ones. Either way, here’s a set of experiments to play with:

• Shadow Teaming: What happens if two teams respond to the same brief in totally different ways? Could seeing multiple routes force us to question the default one?
  
  
• Contrarian-in-Residence: What if every project included someone whose job was to challenge assumptions? Not to be negative but to stretch the thinking. Could that improve the work or just frustrate it?
  
  
• Bottom-Up Post-Mortems: What might surface if those who did the hands-on work led the project review? Would we hear different truths? Would power dynamics shift even slightly?
  
  
• Anti-Brief Sessions: Could we flip a brief on its head? Rewrite it from the audience’s point of view or build the wrong answer first. What might that teach us about our blind spots?
  
  
• Pre-Mortem Workshops: What if we assumed the project had already failed? What would we say went wrong and could we prevent it?
  
  
• The One Question Rule: What if every team member got one wildcard question that had to be explored? Even if it felt strange or off-topic. Would we surface something surprising?
  
  
• Silent Reviews: If we presented findings with no context or explanation what would people take away? Would the story still land?
  
  
• Method Swap Days: What might we learn from using a method we usually avoid? Would it challenge our habits or just create chaos?
  
  
• Client Co-Creation Sprints: If we invited clients to help shape the methodology not just sign it off would it build buy-in or blur the lines too much?
  
  
• Surprise Metrics: What if we tracked something the brief didn’t ask for and it turned out to be the most important insight? How often are we ignoring what matters most?
  

Final Musings

Change isn’t just about ideas. It’s about architecture. If we want research to evolve we have to create space for doubt, disagreement and doing things wrong. Not as exceptions but as part of the design.

I don’t have a blueprint. But I believe in trying things out. In staying curious. In asking what else is possible and who else should be shaping it.

If you’re experimenting with your own punk protocols I’d love to hear about them. And if not yet maybe now’s the time to test one.