Skip to content

SPUR Team 7

SPUR Team 7

SPUR Team 7

PROBLEM STATEMENT

At the start, we reviewed the problem statement and took it at face value as a starting point for our discussions with potential stakeholders.

How might we help undergraduate students better understand the research ecosystem to provide insights, create interest, and facilitate experiences.

With a team of four, we were concerned about the timeline, as we weren’t sure what would be expected of us.

Evaluate This Project
Discover : Planning

We identified and described a host of stakeholders – students and faculty with different specializations, interests, and lived experiences, as well as campus resources that would be involved in the process and their role in our initial problem statement. 

At this point in our process, we were looking at what we thought they might want to do in the sphere of research employment and their potential opportunities and challenges. These varied greatly depending on the personas we were describing. 

DISCOVER
Empathy : Observation

The primary findings of our observation activities were that learning about research opportunities and learning more about the process did not happen in person at the Undergraduate Research Hub. In addition, there were no clear indicators of engagement with passive information in person or in discussions where students gathered in the Library or Teaching and learning Commons.

Online accessible tools that could be utilized at the point of need/inquiry would seem to be more promising.

Empathy : Engagement

The stakeholders that were interviewed were undergraduate students and one graduate student. There were arrangements to interview faculty and other students, but they were canceled due to midterms, Thanksgiving break, and the need to complete the work.

Key takeaways from the stakeholder interviews were – the differences between STEM and non-STEM students in the types of experiences they wanted, how they learned about research experiences, and developing connections with faculty. STEM students need a platform to connect with professors that is manageable but rather inviting and open. Non-STEM students need to network with professors not just to join their research potentially but to help connect with other individuals whose research aligns more with their interests. At the same time, only students researching on campus knew about the REAL portal, as provided by the URH. However, they did not learn about and get these opportunities from the portal but by networking with professors via emails and in person (office hours, in class, etc.).

Empathy : Secondary Research

Primary takeaways from secondary research:

    • The lack of research focused on non-STEM disciplines
    • Limited research that explicitly surveyed students from underrepresented communities.
    • Primary drivers for research engagement depended on subject discipline, number of years on campus, and the role of faculty in encouraging research engagement. 

This indicated areas where further research would be warranted and helped us focus on potential prototypes based on what we had learned in the interviews.

DEFINE
Define : Synthesis Matrix

We focused on key stakeholders who were undergraduate STEM and non-STEM students, including transfer students, graduate students, and faculty. To summarize student needs, the key is connections – for STEM students, it’s developing connections with faculty who have opportunities, with non-STEM, it’s making connections to opportunities that align with their research and post-graduation goals, for transfer students, it is making connections in a new environment in a compressed timeline. For faculty they have needs for students with specific skills, knowledge, or aptitudes, but they do not necessarily have the time to find them with research on strict timelines. In addition, the campus process for student hiring is cumbersome and time-consuming.

Define : Update Problem Statement

Based on our findings, our problem statement evolved to recognize that students needed support in understanding that there were a variety of opportunities that would be considered research available and that the critical need for all stakeholders was reliable information and stable communication with faculty, facilitating a reliable connection.

Updated problem statement:

How might we help undergraduate students better understand research opportunities on and off campus, providing a concrete, reliable mechanism for information about faculty research interests and communication with faculty about research opportunities.

Summary : Key Takeaways

Based on our findings, and our collaborative work:

  • STEM and non-STEM (particularly social sciences) students have different needs. 
  • Transfer students work in a compressed timeline and need dedicated, early interventions.
  • Students will not go to a physical space – create a reliable, easy-to-use virtual space. 
  • Support/facilitate connection and communication.
PROBLEM STATEMENT

At the start, we reviewed the problem statement and took it at face value as a starting point for our discussions with potential stakeholders.

How might we help undergraduate students better understand the research ecosystem to provide insights, create interest, and facilitate experiences.

With a team of four, we were concerned about the timeline, as we weren’t sure what would be expected of us.

Evaluate This Project
Discover : Planning

We identified and described a host of stakeholders – students and faculty with different specializations, interests, and lived experiences, as well as campus resources that would be involved in the process and their role in our initial problem statement. 

At this point in our process, we were looking at what we thought they might want to do in the sphere of research employment and their potential opportunities and challenges. These varied greatly depending on the personas we were describing. 

DISCOVER
Empathy : Observation

The primary findings of our observation activities were that learning about research opportunities and learning more about the process did not happen in person at the Undergraduate Research Hub. In addition, there were no clear indicators of engagement with passive information in person or in discussions where students gathered in the Library or Teaching and learning Commons.

Online accessible tools that could be utilized at the point of need/inquiry would seem to be more promising.

Empathy : Engagement

The stakeholders that were interviewed were undergraduate students and one graduate student. There were arrangements to interview faculty and other students, but they were canceled due to midterms, Thanksgiving break, and the need to complete the work.

Key takeaways from the stakeholder interviews were – the differences between STEM and non-STEM students in the types of experiences they wanted, how they learned about research experiences, and developing connections with faculty. STEM students need a platform to connect with professors that is manageable but rather inviting and open. Non-STEM students need to network with professors not just to join their research potentially but to help connect with other individuals whose research aligns more with their interests. At the same time, only students researching on campus knew about the REAL portal, as provided by the URH. However, they did not learn about and get these opportunities from the portal but by networking with professors via emails and in person (office hours, in class, etc.).

Empathy : Secondary Research

Primary takeaways from secondary research:

    • The lack of research focused on non-STEM disciplines
    • Limited research that explicitly surveyed students from underrepresented communities.
    • Primary drivers for research engagement depended on subject discipline, number of years on campus, and the role of faculty in encouraging research engagement. 

This indicated areas where further research would be warranted and helped us focus on potential prototypes based on what we had learned in the interviews.

DEFINE
Define : Synthesis Matrix

We focused on key stakeholders who were undergraduate STEM and non-STEM students, including transfer students, graduate students, and faculty. To summarize student needs, the key is connections – for STEM students, it’s developing connections with faculty who have opportunities, with non-STEM, it’s making connections to opportunities that align with their research and post-graduation goals, for transfer students, it is making connections in a new environment in a compressed timeline. For faculty they have needs for students with specific skills, knowledge, or aptitudes, but they do not necessarily have the time to find them with research on strict timelines. In addition, the campus process for student hiring is cumbersome and time-consuming.

Define : Update Problem Statement

Based on our findings, our problem statement evolved to recognize that students needed support in understanding that there were a variety of opportunities that would be considered research available and that the critical need for all stakeholders was reliable information and stable communication with faculty, facilitating a reliable connection.

Updated problem statement:

How might we help undergraduate students better understand research opportunities on and off campus, providing a concrete, reliable mechanism for information about faculty research interests and communication with faculty about research opportunities.

Summary : Key Takeaways

Based on our findings, and our collaborative work:

  • STEM and non-STEM (particularly social sciences) students have different needs. 
  • Transfer students work in a compressed timeline and need dedicated, early interventions.
  • Students will not go to a physical space – create a reliable, easy-to-use virtual space. 
  • Support/facilitate connection and communication.
PROBLEM STATEMENT

At the start, we reviewed the problem statement and took it at face value as a starting point for our discussions with potential stakeholders.

How might we help undergraduate students better understand the research ecosystem to provide insights, create interest, and facilitate experiences.

With a team of four, we were concerned about the timeline, as we weren’t sure what would be expected of us.

Evaluate This Project
Discover : Planning

We identified and described a host of stakeholders – students and faculty with different specializations, interests, and lived experiences, as well as campus resources that would be involved in the process and their role in our initial problem statement. 

At this point in our process, we were looking at what we thought they might want to do in the sphere of research employment and their potential opportunities and challenges. These varied greatly depending on the personas we were describing. 

DISCOVER
Empathy : Observation

The primary findings of our observation activities were that learning about research opportunities and learning more about the process did not happen in person at the Undergraduate Research Hub. In addition, there were no clear indicators of engagement with passive information in person or in discussions where students gathered in the Library or Teaching and learning Commons.

Online accessible tools that could be utilized at the point of need/inquiry would seem to be more promising.

Empathy : Engagement

The stakeholders that were interviewed were undergraduate students and one graduate student. There were arrangements to interview faculty and other students, but they were canceled due to midterms, Thanksgiving break, and the need to complete the work.

Key takeaways from the stakeholder interviews were – the differences between STEM and non-STEM students in the types of experiences they wanted, how they learned about research experiences, and developing connections with faculty. STEM students need a platform to connect with professors that is manageable but rather inviting and open. Non-STEM students need to network with professors not just to join their research potentially but to help connect with other individuals whose research aligns more with their interests. At the same time, only students researching on campus knew about the REAL portal, as provided by the URH. However, they did not learn about and get these opportunities from the portal but by networking with professors via emails and in person (office hours, in class, etc.).

Empathy : Secondary Research

Primary takeaways from secondary research:

    • The lack of research focused on non-STEM disciplines
    • Limited research that explicitly surveyed students from underrepresented communities.
    • Primary drivers for research engagement depended on subject discipline, number of years on campus, and the role of faculty in encouraging research engagement. 

This indicated areas where further research would be warranted and helped us focus on potential prototypes based on what we had learned in the interviews.

DEFINE
Define : Synthesis Matrix

We focused on key stakeholders who were undergraduate STEM and non-STEM students, including transfer students, graduate students, and faculty. To summarize student needs, the key is connections – for STEM students, it’s developing connections with faculty who have opportunities, with non-STEM, it’s making connections to opportunities that align with their research and post-graduation goals, for transfer students, it is making connections in a new environment in a compressed timeline. For faculty they have needs for students with specific skills, knowledge, or aptitudes, but they do not necessarily have the time to find them with research on strict timelines. In addition, the campus process for student hiring is cumbersome and time-consuming.

Define : Update Problem Statement

Based on our findings, our problem statement evolved to recognize that students needed support in understanding that there were a variety of opportunities that would be considered research available and that the critical need for all stakeholders was reliable information and stable communication with faculty, facilitating a reliable connection.

Updated problem statement:

How might we help undergraduate students better understand research opportunities on and off campus, providing a concrete, reliable mechanism for information about faculty research interests and communication with faculty about research opportunities.

Summary : Key Takeaways

Based on our findings, and our collaborative work:

  • STEM and non-STEM (particularly social sciences) students have different needs. 
  • Transfer students work in a compressed timeline and need dedicated, early interventions.
  • Students will not go to a physical space – create a reliable, easy-to-use virtual space. 
  • Support/facilitate connection and communication.

Read Next

Diabetes Design

Diabetes Design Initiative Presents Community Challenge Designs To Over 50 Stakeholders

Photo Courtesy of Matt Chesin

This Wednesday, September 2nd, the Diabetes Design Initiative presented the culmination of an entire summer of work to over 50 stakeholders in the healthcare industry. The team shared a prototype that will redefine the way how diabetes is explained without numbers and a new design to simplify data sharing.

Led by Eliah Aronoff-Spencer, director of the Center for Health Design, Design Lab fellow Lars Müller, and Ben West, a nightscout developer, DDI is re-thinking how healthcare technology is designed.
Eating Disorders

Health Tracking Apps Provide a Worrying Pipeline to Eating Disorders. Better Tech Design Can Fix That.

Image Credit: Getty

In an email to The Swaddle, Design Lab member Elizabeth Eikey discuss her research into the behaviors of women with eating disorders who also used weight loss apps.

“Users go through stages of use and report both positive and negative effects of the app at these various stages,” Eikey writes. “As users reflect back on their journey, they talk a great deal about the negative effects of the app during the early stages of use. However, when they first began using the app, they often did not realize their behaviors were indicative of an eating disorder and even found the app helpful.”

Even though Eikey’s research states that some users could self-motivate themselves to recover with the help of the app, the fact that the app pushed them towards or exacerbated an eating disorder is damning enough.

Eikey explains that disordered eating and unhealthy weight loss practices are common, and therefore cannot be ignored as a fringe problem that doesn’t affect the majority of an app’s user base. “Even if a person doesn’t meet the ‘threshold’ for a clinical eating disorder, that doesn’t mean that they never experience negative emotions related to their body and food. Everyone has mental health, and it fluctuates,” she says.
Design Lab Amy Fox Gordon Research Grant

Design Lab’s Amy Fox Awarded Gordon Research Conference Visionary Grant

Emerging developments in data visualization, the practice of visually communicating data to convey patterns and…

Tricia Ngoon

Tricia Ngoon, UCSD & Design Lab PhD Graduate, Discusses “Adaptive Conceptual Guidance”

Currently, in the spotlight of Tricia Ngoon’s research and involvement with The Design Lab is her recently accepted paper, Shöwn: Adaptive Conceptual Guidance Aids Example Use in Creative Tasks, which will appear in the Designing Interactive Systems virtual conference this summer, 2021. Her research hypothesizes that providing “adaptive conceptual guidance” will improve a person’s implementation of examples within creative work, as opposed to providing a static example. Using the domain of web comics, “[researchers in the study] present concepts to people alongside examples as they work.” Ngoon adds that “It’s essentially a step towards coaching. For example, if [a person is] working on a comic you might present a concept to consider the framing or kind of the composition of the panel and then [show] examples of different types of framing and composition.” Ultimately, her research concluded that “these adaptive suggestions as a person is working in context really help with making a clear and more unique story. It kind of changes the way they look at their ideas because they are more likely to explore different [ones].” 
Design Lab UCSD Maya Azarova

Design Lab Anthropology Graduate Student Wins Prestigious CRES Award

Peering into our culture can reveal new insights about how multidisciplinary teams solve socio-technical problems.…

Benjamin Bergen

Design Lab member Benjamin Bergen featured as an expert in “History of Swear Words”

Picture Credit: Netflix

Design Lab member and UC San Diego Cognitive Science professor Benjamin Bergen was featured as an expert in "History of Swear Words," a new Netflix comedy series exploring the usage of and science behind cursing. Bergen is the author of "What the F: What Swearing Reveals About Our Language, Our Brains, and Ourselves" and "Louder Than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning"

Watch the full series now on Netflix!
Back To Top