Conversation with two international research leaders

On July 28, I hosted an Executive Roundtable with two powerhouse leaders in international research: Frances James (Director UX Research at Indeed) and Pushpinder Pelia Lubana, PhD (UX Research Senior Manager at Walmart International).

I’ve been fortunate to personally know both Frances and Pushpinder, and I deeply admire the roles they’ve taken on: Leading international research inside massive organizations. Naturally, our conversation was an honest, inside look at the real complexities of running UX research across global markets.

This article summarizes key insights from our roundtable conversation. The topics we discussed fall into three major themes:

• How are international research orgs structured? What are the trade-offs?

• How can global teams stay aligned while respecting local nuance?

• And finally, what is the role of AI in global research, and where is the human touch still essential?

How Are Global Research Orgs Structured?

Pushpinder and Frances shared how their international research teams are structured and the kinds of trade-offs they’ve encountered.

Pushpinder described a decentralized model, where market-based researchers report day-to-day to local design and product teams, with market-specific priorities, organizational structures, and  P&Ls. This structure allows for greater agility and local ownership. Researchers can act quickly, address market-specific questions, and build stronger relationships with local stakeholders. However, it also makes it harder to maintain consistency, collaboration, and oversight across all research across all markets. To bridge this, her team invests in a “community of practice” that shares standards, aligns priorities, and exchanges lessons across markets.

Frances, on the other hand, described a centralized model, where all international researchers report to a single global director. This approach supports greater consistency, shared tools, and more scalable insights. But it can create friction when local teams are moving quickly or sit in different reporting structures than their global research counterparts, which requires a flexible and adaptive leadership mindset.

There is no perfect model. Both leaders emphasized the importance of intentional trade-offs and strong communication channels, regardless of the structure.

Bridging the Gap Between Global Rollouts and Local Needs

One of the biggest friction points both leaders discussed was the disconnect between global feature rollouts and local realities.

Too often, global features are launched with good intentions but without a grounded understanding of market-specific behaviors. When global UX teams fail to account for cultural context, user expectations, or even basic infrastructure differences, the result can be misalignment, tension, or even failed adoption.

Pushpinder introduced the idea of UX Listening Tours, where design and research teams spend time with the central and market-specific product teams to hear firsthand needs and priorities for product development. These aren’t just nice-to-have empathy-building exercises. They are critical opportunities to challenge assumptions about what will truly scale across markets.

Frances emphasized how local frustration grows when global teams assume alignment without truly validating it. To avoid this, local teams must work over time to be seen as strategic partners, not just as executors of a global vision.  Often, UX research insights are the key to unlocking why customization is necessary for a specific market, helping global teams understand the underlying reasons behind local differences and needs.

Generative Research and the Role of AI

One of the most energizing parts of the conversation was our discussion around where AI helps, and where it doesn’t.

Frances shared that her team recently ran 100 AI-moderated interviews in Japan and India in just one week. This kind of speed and scale was unthinkable a few years ago. AI is already transforming tactical research. It helps teams synthesize faster, streamline logistics, and reach more users efficiently.

But when it comes to generative research, both Pushpinder and Frances drew a firm boundary.

Generative studies, the kind that surface deep needs, challenge assumptions, and uncover early signals, require human sensitivity, cultural fluency, and contextual interpretation. Especially in places where silence, posture, or hierarchy shape how people communicate, human presence matters.

Frances noted that while AI is a powerful assistant, it cannot replace what skilled researchers bring to exploratory conversations. In short, AI may help with what is, but it still struggles to see what could be.

Final Thoughts

Global UX research is never just about translation. It’s about translating context, priorities, and cultural signals into meaningful insight and strategy.

This roundtable reminded me that no matter how advanced our tools become, the most critical part of research is still deeply human, curious, & empathetic, and possesses the ability to see connections that others miss.

If you're leading or supporting international research in your organization, I’d love to hear from you. How are you navigating the same tensions we discussed?

Let’s keep the conversation going!

(Originally published on LinkedIn)