Research that reflects real business needs

At accessiBe, we believe accessibility decisions shouldn’t be made in a vacuum. That’s why our research program focuses on one core question: How does digital accessibility affect actual business outcomes?

Whether it’s compliance risk, legal exposure, operational costs, or user experience, accessibility has real consequences for organizations. Our research is designed to surface those connections, not to generate headlines, but to give decision-makers data they can act on.

This article documents how we conduct our research, the standards we hold ourselves to, and what our findings can and cannot be claimed to mean. If you’re citing accessiBe research or considering whether it’s right for your team, read on.

1. Our Research Standards: Independence, Review, and Community Input

Every accessiBe research project follows the same quality framework, regardless of the research method:

  • External partnerships. When we conduct surveys, we partner with independent research organizations like Qualtrics to collect data. This separation helps reduce response bias and ensures our researchers aren’t asking leading questions to get predetermined answers. Independence matters, especially when the results might challenge our own assumptions.
  • Rigorous screening. We don’t ask random people random questions. Survey respondents are vetted for relevance to the study topic. For example, our eCommerce research targets decision-makers at organizations that actually sell online. This screening ensures data reflects the people making real business decisions.
  • Community review. Quantitative data can tell you what people think. It can’t always tell you why, or whether survey responses match lived experience. That’s why we supplement findings with input from nonprofit leaders, accessibility professionals, and disability community organizations. This step flags blind spots in the data and helps us communicate what research really shows; trends and patterns, not universal truth.
  • Panel quality controls. For survey-based research, we remove low-quality, duplicate, or invalid responses. Survey respondents sometimes rush through questions or respond randomly. Quality controls catch these issues before they skew results.

2. Three Ways We Research: Desk, External, and Internal

Our research program isn’t limited to surveys. We use three complementary approaches:

  • Desk research. We review and analyze existing data: court filings, regulatory guidance, industry reports, academic research, government statistics, and accessibility assessments. Desk research is efficient and doesn’t require survey respondents, but it depends on the quality and availability of existing sources. We use it to establish context, identify trends, spot patterns in public data, and build the foundation for deeper investigation.
  • External research partnerships. For primary data collection, we work with research firms like Qualtrics. External partners help us conduct surveys independently, reduce bias, and maintain survey integrity. These partnerships result in the quantitative studies you might cite: “78% of decision-makers report X” or “accessibility lawsuits increased Y%.”
  • Internal research and analysis. We also conduct our own research—analyzing our user base, accessibility testing data, customer interactions, platform insights, and operational patterns. This gives us a window into how accessibility challenges actually show up in practice, not just how people report them in surveys.


Each approach has strengths and limitations. A desk research finding might be based on incomplete public data. A survey captures a moment in time, not ongoing reality. Internal data reflects our customers, not the entire market. Good research combines all three, and is transparent about which method produced which finding. Every published report notes which approach was used.

3. How We Validate and Review Findings

Before publication, findings go through multiple validation and review layers:

  • Multi-method validation: We check desk research findings against our internal data. We validate survey findings against public data and community input. If different methods conflict, we investigate why and report the discrepancy.
  • External data checks: Where relevant, we cross-reference findings against court filings, regulatory guidance, previously published research, and industry benchmarks.
  • Inclusive Product Advisory Board review: For findings touching user experience, disability community impact, or product capabilities, we bring in our advisory board. This adds another layer of community perspective.
  • Legal and communications review: Any mention of litigation, regulatory risk, or product capabilities gets reviewed to ensure claims are accurate and properly scoped.


This isn’t bureaucratic slowdown; it’s the cost of getting it right.

4. Sample Sizes, Scope, and What We Don't Claim

  • Transparency includes being honest about what our research does not tell you.

    • Methodology varies by project. Some research is based on surveys of 200+ respondents. Some draws on desk research and public data. Some combine internal platform data with external validation. Every report documents which methods were used so you can evaluate the findings yourself.
    • Findings are trends and patterns, not universal laws. Unless a report explicitly states that the results are statistically representative, read our results as insights and themes. Survey data reflect the views of respondents at the time of collection, not every organization, industry, or member of the disability community. Internal data reflects our customers, not the entire market. Desk research reflects available public sources, not complete information.
    • Disability community input is contextual, not universal. When we gather input from nonprofit leaders or disability advocacy groups, we’re hearing from thoughtful people who know the accessibility landscape. But they represent their own perspectives, not “the disability community” as a monolith. Disability is diverse; no small group speaks for everyone.
    • When we cite third-party or external data, we name the source. You should always know where a stat comes from. If it’s not from accessiBe research, we say so.
    • No accessiBe research report is legal advice. Our research can inform your legal and compliance strategy, but it doesn’t replace consultation with an attorney familiar with your industry and situation.

5. Why This Matters for You

Publishing research is easy. Publishing responsible research – research that doesn’t overstate, acknowledges methodological limitations, and welcomes outside review – is harder. We do it because accessibility decisions are too important to get wrong.

When you read an accessiBe research report, you’re getting:

  • Data collected and validated across multiple methods
  • Findings checked against public records and community input
  • Transparent language about methodology and limitations
  • Honest framing of what the data does and doesn’t claim

Research Disclaimer

accessiBe research reflects data and conditions at the time of publication. Findings are not legal advice, product disparagement, guarantees of future outcomes, or predictions of regulatory change. Every methodology has limitations: survey data, desk research, and internal analysis each capture different perspectives, not complete market truth. If you find an error, contact our team. When citing our research, please include the publication date and methodology so readers can evaluate context.

Frequently asked questions

Can I use accessiBe research in my organization's strategy?

Yes. Our research is designed to inform business decisions about compliance, legal exposure, and user experience. We’d recommend citing the specific report, noting its publication date, and being transparent about the research method used (survey, desk research, internal analysis, or a combination). Research ages; what was true in 2022 may have shifted by 2024.

Every published report documents its methodology. Check the report’s methodology section to see whether the findings come from surveys, desk research, internal data analysis, or a combination of these. This helps you evaluate relevance to your situation.

It depends on the study. Always check the report for sample size and statistical confidence levels. If statistical significance is claimed, the report will state it clearly. If we’re presenting trends and patterns, we’ll say that too.

We verify findings against multiple sources. Court filing data comes from public court records. Regulatory guidance comes from official sources. Academic research is peer-reviewed. When sources conflict, we note the discrepancy in the report.

We work with nonprofit organizations, accessibility professionals, and disability advocacy groups to review findings that touch on lived experience. They help us spot where data might not match real-world accessibility challenges. This is qualitative input, not a vote, but it keeps us grounded.

No. We analyze current trends and business decisions; we don’t forecast policy. If regulatory changes happen, the context for our findings may shift, which is another reason to check the publication date.

If research shows something unexpected, or contradicts accessiBe’s interests, we may publish it anyway. The point of research is truth, not marketing.

Accessibility and compliance landscapes shift. We’d recommend using research from the past 2–3 years for active decision-making. Older research is still valuable for understanding trends, but check if regulations, court decisions, or industry practices have changed since publication.

Ready to Explore Our Research?