Why our best design work begins only after weve questioned what we think weknow.Jacques Derrida | Image: https://s-usih.org/2015/12/jacques-derrida-what-a-differance-an-a-makes/Deconstruction, introduced by French-Algerian philosopher Jacques Derrida (19302004), can be understood as the practice of critically examining how meaning is constructed by dismantling the hidden assumptions, hierarchies, and contradictions in the structures we use to make sense of theworld.A key move in Derridas work is analyzing binary oppositions in language and writingsimple/complex, usable/unusable, good/badwhere one side is treated as superior. These pairs define each othersimple only makes sense in contrast to complex, and intuitive exists only because we can imagine the non-intuitive. Reversing them reveals how the favored term depends on the one itrejects.In UX, research insights hold a weight similar to the binary constructs central to deconstruction. Theyre the currency of designwinning stakeholder approval, shaping roadmaps, and often becoming the truth teams rally around. But no matter how rigorous the process, insights arent purethey are shaped by the questions we ask, the patterns we notice, the logic we apply, and the biases weoverlookThis is where Derridas approach can be systematically applied to UX. Just as he dismantled the stability of meaning in the frameworks we use to understand the world, we can dismantle the illusion of objectivity in research.The simplicity mirageConsider the findingUsers prefer a cleaner, simpler dashboard with fewer widgets. In a traditional analysis, the assumption might mean less clutter equals better UXso the obvious step is to removewidgets.However, in a deconstructive analysis, you first recognize the binary at playsimple versus complexand then question a hidden assumption driving itthat complexity increases cognitive load.You might ask whether some complexity could actually reduce effort, the way a weather app showing both temperature and humidity at a glance saves the user from diggingdeeper.You might also consider cultural biasthat the clean aesthetic mirrors dominant tech brands like Apple and Googleand whether users are responding to genuine usability or the comfort of familiarity.Instead of ripping out widgets, one could explore ways to make them more useful or accessibleeven if that means breaking from the familiar cleanlook.The intuitive trapJust as simple and complex can hide bias assumptions, so can other common UX judgments. One of the most misleading is intuitive.Take a finding like, Users found the swipe gesture more intuitive than the button. The traditional move might be to replace the button with the swipe. A deconstructive approach asks whether intuitive actually means anything beyond Ive seen this before. It recognizes that so-called intuition often comes from muscle memory, not innate understanding, and that this memory is culturally and temporally bound.Derrida would point out that intuitive only exists in contrast to non-intuitive, and that these definitions shift over time. In practice, this could mean recognizing that while a swipe may feel natural to some, it could alienate others unfamiliar with thepattern.A better solution might be to offer both, or to design onboarding that transforms the learned into the intuitive.The persona archetypePersonas are meant to focus design yet they can quietly embed hierarchies. A common example might be Our primary user is a 34-year-old professional woman who shops online twice a week. The category of primary only exists because there are secondary or non-users to define itagainst.Deconstruction asks what happens when you flip that pair. If the so-called secondary usersthose at the marginsbecome the baseline, it exposes how primary is often just a reflection of business priorities or cultural defaults. That shift can force a complete rethinking of the products design language, features, and underlying assumptions.Turning insight into interrogationDeconstruction reframes an insight as a starting point, not an endpointevery research output carries binaries, privileges, and assumptions, whether we acknowledge them ornot.However, as fascinating as this idea is, you may be wondering how to actually use it. Heres the method and an example in practice.The MethodIdentify the binary: Start with paired concepts where one side is privileged over the othersuch as simple/complex, primary/secondary, intuitive/non-intuitive, or one feature/channel vs.another.Interrogate the hierarchy: Flip the priority and ask what changes if the lesser side becomes the favoredone.Expose the scaffolding: Uncover the assumptions, beliefs, and contextual factors that support the favored sidecultural familiarity, business priorities, personal preferences.Hold both in play: Resist replacing one side with the other. Instead, design so both can be valid depending on context, recognizing that meaning emerges in relation and cannot befixed.Example inPracticeLets apply these steps to a real finding: Users prefer live chat over email support.Identify the binary: Live chat vs. email supportlive chat is framed as fast and responsive, privileged over email, which is seen as slower and moreformal.Interrogate the hierarchy: Flip the priority. What if email were the preferred option? Who benefits in that world, and what needs would it servebetter?Expose the scaffolding: The assumption behind the original finding is that real-time communication is inherently better. But maybe older users find chat overwhelming, or certain cultures value the formality, permanence, and asynchronous nature ofemail.Hold both in play: Keep live chat for speed, but also enhance email with templates, clear response times, and integration into the same support flowtreating both as valid depending oncontext.By following these steps, you surface hidden dynamics and expand your design options, rather than narrowing them to the favored side of thebinary.Why thismattersResearch culture loves certainty. Insights are presented in slide decks as if theyve been carved into stone, free from the messiness that produced them. But that messiness is where the pivotal design opportunities live.By applying deconstruction, we resist the urge to turn research into gospel. We stop treating the discovery phase as a vending machineinsert method, retrieve truthand start treating it as an ongoing dialogue between our users, our products, and the contradictory worlds theyinhabit.Image: https://www.outlookindia.com/books/derrida-and-the-deconstruction-of-binariesA philosophical closingDerrida wasnt trying to make things easier to understandhe was working to expand what meaning could be. That ambiguity is a gift to UX because it pushes us to question the hierarchies and assumptions built into our design language and research interpretations.When we stop treating an insight as the final word, we create space for design decisions that are more thoughtful, more adaptable, and ultimately morehuman.Dont miss out! Join my email list and receive the latestcontent.Enhance UX research with deconstruction was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.