Discover a Problem and Defend Your Thesis
16 weeks · 3 milestones
Investigate a real problem through primary and secondary research, evaluate solution approaches with ethical analysis, and defend your chosen solution direction before a faculty panel. Proof requires: a problem scoping document with primary research from real affected people, a solution comparison with ethical risk analysis, and a defended thesis with a documented panel challenge record and revision note.
Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Identify a real problem in your school, community, or beyond that you want to address. Conduct primary research by interviewing or surveying at least three people who are directly affected by the problem — document these conversations with real names or anonymised descriptions, specific quotes, and dates. Pair this with secondary research: find at least three credible published sources (news articles, research studies, or organisational reports) that confirm the problem is real and describe existing responses. Produce a problem scoping document that names the problem, describes who is affected and how, presents your primary evidence, cites your secondary sources, and explains specifically why existing solutions fall short for your target community.
Proof required
Submit your problem scoping document (minimum 400 words) including: the named problem and the community it affects; notes or transcripts from at least three primary research conversations with real names or anonymised roles, specific responses, and dates; citations for at least three secondary sources with URLs or publication details; and a 100-word analysis of why current solutions are insufficient for your target community.
What gets checked
- Primary research is documented with specifics — interview notes include the name or role of each person spoken to, at least one direct quote per conversation, and the date; not vague summaries like 'people told me they had this problem'
- Secondary sources are named, cited, and specifically about the problem — not generic background reading but publications that document the scope, cause, or current response landscape of the specific problem
- The gap analysis names at least two existing solutions by name and explains for each why it does not fully address the target community's experience — 'people don't use it' is not an explanation