qualitative research
Qualitative Research That Captures What Neurodivergent Participants Actually Do
Research teams need evidence that holds up in stakeholder reviews. OpenScouter runs remote qualitative sessions with neurodivergent participants and delivers structured behavioural reports combining interaction signals, think-aloud voice, and facial expression data. Findings your team can act on, not just archive.
The Gap in Your Current Research Programme
Most research teams run studies with recruited panels that skew neurotypical by default. That is not a deliberate choice. It is a recruitment default. The result is a body of qualitative evidence that reflects how a subset of your users navigate, not how all of them do.
Research leads face a specific challenge when raising this with stakeholders: the pushback is almost always about prioritisation. Without structured behavioural data showing where neurodivergent participants diverge from the majority, it is difficult to make the case that these findings belong in the same synthesis document as your core usability work, let alone that they should influence the roadmap.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists, drawing on ADHD UK and NHS estimates, noted in 2023 that approximately one in five UK adults is estimated to be neurodivergent. For a research team, that framing matters: it is not a niche accessibility concern to be handled separately. It is a question of whether your qualitative evidence base is representative of the population your product actually serves.
Our approach
Three Behavioural Streams, One Correlated Report
Each session captures interaction signals, think-aloud voice, and facial expression data processed locally on the participant's device. The AI pipeline correlates the three streams to surface moments where behaviour, language, and expression diverge. That correlation is what makes the findings defensible in a synthesis review, not just a list of quotes.
Structured for Research Team Workflows
Reports are formatted to sit alongside your existing qualitative artefacts: journey maps, affinity diagrams, synthesis notes. Findings are tagged by session, participant profile, and task stage so they can be integrated into Dovetail, Notion, or your preferred repository without a separate translation step.
Human Confirmation Before Delivery
Every report is reviewed by a human researcher before it reaches your team. AI correlation surfaces the patterns. A person checks them. That distinction matters when you are presenting findings to a product director or a design lead who will ask how the insight was validated.
What you receive
- Remote qualitative sessions with neurodivergent participants recruited from OpenScouter's UK panel, covering ADHD, autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, and related profiles
- Session recordings with timestamped interaction signals, think-aloud transcripts, and locally processed facial expression annotations
- AI-correlated behavioural report identifying divergence points across participant profiles and task stages
- Human-confirmed findings document formatted for integration into your existing research repository
- A synthesis-ready summary your team can present to product and design stakeholders without additional processing
Approximately 1 in 5 UK adults is estimated to be neurodivergent, including diagnoses and traits across ADHD, autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia and Tourette syndrome
For research teams, the Royal College of Psychiatrists figure is not primarily an accessibility statistic. It is a sampling question. If roughly one in five UK adults carries neurodivergent diagnoses or traits, a qualitative study that recruits from a neurotypical-skewing panel is not a representative sample of the population the product serves. That has direct implications for the validity of the evidence base a research team presents to stakeholders. Findings drawn from a skewed sample may accurately describe how most participants behave while missing patterns that affect a substantial portion of actual users. The practical consequence is that usability issues specific to neurodivergent journeys, navigation failures, cognitive load spikes, form abandonment, tend not to surface until they appear in support data or churn analysis, at which point the research team is responding rather than informing. OpenScouter is designed to close that gap at the study design stage, before findings are synthesised and before the roadmap is set.
Frequently asked
- How does this fit alongside our existing research tools?
- OpenScouter is a complement to tools your team already uses, including Hotjar for quantitative signals, UserTesting or Maze for broader usability studies, and Dovetail for synthesis. It adds a structured qualitative layer with neurodivergent participants that most existing panels do not provide by default.
- Can we specify the neurodivergent profiles we need for a study?
- Yes. When you brief a study, you can specify the participant profiles relevant to your research questions, for example ADHD and dyslexia for a reading-heavy task flow, or autism and dyspraxia for a navigation or form-completion study. Recruitment is drawn from OpenScouter's UK panel.
- How are findings validated before delivery?
- The AI pipeline correlates the three behavioural streams and flags divergence patterns. A human researcher reviews those patterns before the report is finalised. The report you receive reflects both the automated correlation and the human review. It is evidence, not a raw data export.
- Is this relevant if our product is not in a regulated sector?
- Yes. The case for representative qualitative research does not depend on regulatory obligation. That said, if your organisation is an FCA-regulated firm preparing for Consumer Duty outcomes monitoring, or if your product has EU-facing services preparing ahead of the European Accessibility Act coming into force in June 2025, structured behavioural evidence from neurodivergent participants is directly relevant to those programmes.
- How long does a study take from brief to report?
- A standard engagement runs from study brief to delivered report in days rather than months. The exact timeline depends on session volume and participant profile requirements. We will confirm a schedule at briefing stage.
Keep reading
Research hub
Industry
Use case
Related research
Glossary
Talk to a behavioural researcher
Tell us about the vertical, the journey, and the evidence you need. We will scope a pilot in days, not weeks.