User Research & Synthesis

Proof required

Submit your research plan (problem statement, methods, recruitment criteria, discussion guide or survey instrument) and raw data documentation (transcripts or session notes) as a PDF.

What gets checked

• Problem statement is specific and testable — not 'I want to understand users'
• Minimum six participants with documented recruitment criteria matching the target user
• Raw data is complete — full transcripts or session notes, not retrospective summaries

Common mistakes

• Problem statement is too broad to constrain the research design
• Fewer than six participants — insufficient for pattern identification
• Raw data was summarised at collection — the synthesis stage requires unmediated raw material

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Verify research plan specifies a testable problem — ask student what a successful or failed research outcome would look like
• Check six or more participants with documented recruitment criteria
• Verify raw data is complete transcripts or notes — not retrospective summaries
• Ask student: what surprised you in the research? Inability to name a surprise may indicate the research confirmed pre-existing assumptions

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your synthesis artefact (affinity diagram photograph or export, thematic analysis document, or JTBD canvas) and five or more insight statements with supporting evidence.

What gets checked

• Synthesis artefact documents process, not just conclusions — groupings and themes are visible
• Insight statements are grounded in raw data — each has a specific supporting quote or observation
• Insights are non-obvious — not restatements of the research questions or prior assumptions

Common mistakes

• Synthesis artefact shows final categories without intermediate groupings — the process is absent
• Insight statements are opinions rather than data-derived conclusions
• Insights confirm existing assumptions — the synthesis found nothing the researcher didn't already believe

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check synthesis artefact shows process — ask student to walk through how they moved from raw data to insights
• Verify insight statements have specific supporting evidence from raw data
• Ask student: which insight was most surprising and why? This reveals whether synthesis was genuinely exploratory

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) review session record (date, reviewer, specific methodology challenges — minimum half page), (2) research limitations statement (minimum 300 words).

What gets checked

• Review record documents specific methodology challenges — not general presentation feedback
• Limitations statement is honest about what the research cannot conclude
• Limitations statement is shaped by the review — not written before it unchanged

Common mistakes

• Review focuses on presentation quality rather than methodology
• Limitations statement is defensive rather than honest
• Limitations statement was written before the review and never revised

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm review challenged methodology — ask student to name one specific limitation raised
• Verify limitations statement is honest and specific about what the research cannot conclude
• Ask student: if you ran this research again with more time and budget, what would you change and why?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.