Design Research Dissertation
TANG LILIN (0376668)
- MI
- ASSIGNMENT 1 - DRAFT DISSERTATION
- ASSIGNMENT 2 - VISUAL DESIGN E-PUBLICATION
- ASSIGNMENT 1 - FINAL DISSERTATION
- ASSIGNMENT 4 - RESEARCH FOR JOURNAL ARTICLE PUBLICATION
- WEEKLY PROGRESSION SHEET
- REFLECTION
Honestly, this module felt more like a process of being "forced to grow up" than a regular assignment. Initially, I continued my previous Design Research habits: I did whatever the teacher asked. On the surface, it seemed like I was doing things, but often I was just "completing the task" without truly understanding the purpose of each step. For example, the literature matrix—at first, I thought it was for taking notes on the entire paper—but later I realized its real purpose was to help me organize the structure of the literature review, allowing me to immediately see the research objective, methods, conclusions, and relationships between each article.
Observation
Throughout the process, the biggest pitfalls I encountered also became the areas where I learned the most. The first was language and writing structure. Initially, I was used to writing in Chinese and then using a translation tool, resulting in a bunch of strange semicolons and AI-sounding sentences in the English, making my professor worry that I wasn't actually writing it myself. This experience taught me that to write credible academic English, I can't just "translate," but must think and rewrite in English, organizing sentences at my own pace. The second was the mismatch between Methodology and Analysis. I had actually done very complex analyses: NASA TLX, effect sizes, mixed-method triangulation, etc., but my methods section didn't clearly explain what I did, why I did it, or the relationship between these analyses and the research question. Later, through repeated revisions of the Methodology, I truly learned that a good study isn't about "flashy results," but about "every result having a clear source and justification in the methods section." The third was the "focusing ability" in transforming a dissertation into a journal article. My teacher kept reminding me that an article isn't a "short version of a paper," but rather an article with a clear focus; it's enough to choose only a part to explain clearly. This process taught me to be willing to delete content I'd spent a lot of time writing and to accept that "focusing only on RQ2/RO2 is also a mature choice."
At the same time, I had to work on both the dissertation and Assignment 2's e-publication: redesigning the layout, choosing colors, redrawing charts, handling Duo copyright, avoiding widows, and ensuring readability and aesthetics. Add to that the pressure of the Turnitin report, AI detection, and the fact that the final submission could only be submitted once—it would be a lie to say I wasn't exhausted. But looking back now, it was actually forcing me to gradually transform from a "student who can do things" into a "researcher who can clearly explain what they are doing."
Through constant one-on-one feedback, which felt like a "revealing mirror," I also saw several typical patterns in myself. Previously, I often did things correctly, but I didn't clearly explain why I did them that way. My professor didn't distrust me; she even went to another advisor to confirm that I had indeed done the prototype, experimental design, and analyses myself. Her real concern was that if external reviewers only saw a bunch of high-level results but couldn't find explanations in the methodology, then even the strongest paper would appear "opaque." This reminder taught me that simply "doing" isn't enough; you need to write things down in a way that others can understand—that's what complete research is.
Finding
I also realized that my understanding of many tools was previously superficial. I used the literature matrix as a "list of resources" instead of a structural tool for allowing literature to interact; my background and problem statements overlapped, resulting in a "story without gaps"; I treated the conceptual framework as a final addition, only later realizing it should have been a tool to anchor my entire research logic from the outset. All of this taught me one thing: every tool has its "true purpose," and if I simply complete it mechanically, I miss the layer it can help me elevate my thinking.
Another unexpected learning point was the Weekly Progression Sheet, which I initially found tedious. At first, I thought it was just an administrative document, but later, when I diligently wrote my experiences and reflections, and added my professor's remarks, I realized it actually forced me to review each week: Had I truly improved upon what my professor discussed the previous week? Had I actually completed the tasks I said I would do? Had my logic improved compared to the previous week? This sheet ultimately became a mirror for me to check whether I was continuously growing.
If I were to condense these gains into a few sentences, I would say: At the research level, I learned to align research questions, methods, and results, ensuring a clear connection between "advanced analysis" and "general methods" sections; at the writing level, I learned to shift from writing a "complete paper" to writing an "article with a clear focus," knowing when to cut and when to include; in terms of attitude, I went from initially viewing feedback as a "judgment" to now seeing it as a "dialogue" with my professor to elevate my work to a higher level; and in terms of design and writing integration, I've begun to understand that layout isn't just about aesthetics, but about facilitating readers' entry into my research world.
To summarize this experience in the simplest terms: Initially, I just wanted to submit a paper that looked impressive; now, I care more about whether my research can be truly understood, and whether, when questioned, I can clearly explain point by point: why the design was done this way, why the analysis was done this way, and what these results actually demonstrate.
Comments
Post a Comment