March 2025 ARVIC

The March 2025 ARVIC conference brought together practitioners to examine what research and design are fundamentally for. Drawing on experience spanning NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cisco, and accessibility advocacy, the conversation returned repeatedly to a single tension: as the field grows more fluent in business metrics and emerging tools, it risks drifting from the human connection that gave it a seat at the table in the first place.

Human Connection as the Core Discipline

The conference made a direct case that research and design derive their value not from methodology or tool proficiency, but from the ability to make genuine connections with people. The field's increasing orientation toward product and business framing was identified as a real risk to that foundation.

• Slowing down and asking simple questions surfaces insight that faster, more structured approaches miss.
• Storytelling and relationship-building matter more than technical credentials when influencing stakeholders or making a hire.
• Career growth follows person-to-person connections and community involvement, not automated pipelines.

AI and Tools: Assistants, Not Replacements

New tools, including AI, were welcomed as useful when they address a genuine human need. The boundary drawn was clear: tools assist, but human judgment, ethics, and empathy are not delegable.

AI and new tools are useful when they solve a genuine human need, but they should be treated as assistants. Human judgment, ethics, and connection remain irreplaceable.

Accessibility: Beyond the Baseline

Accessibility guidelines were reframed as a starting point rather than a destination. The only way to know whether an interface actually works is to test it with people who use assistive technologies in their daily lives. Compliance and usability are not the same thing.

Research and Design Collaboration

Practical guidance on cross-functional partnership emphasized relationship before process. Researchers who approach designers with curiosity about design decisions, and who present findings as input rather than verdicts, build the kind of trust that makes collaboration sustainable.

• Build the relationship before bringing a research agenda into the room.
• Ask curious questions about design decisions rather than leading with critique.
• Frame findings as suggestions, not directives.