Assignment

Future Technologies & Media (FTM)

Andy Weeger

Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences

February 21, 2025

Task

You need to analyse an emerging digital technology, its characteristics, use and implications.

You can make proposals on the topic you want to work for (deadline see schedule). However, the final assignment will be made by me.

You need to do present

• the characteristics of the technology (i.e., based on the characteristics discussed in lecture),
• fields of applications,
• the potential of the technology to transform these (benefits and risks),
• as well as social and ethical implications.

You can include grey literature¹, but you need to analyze at least five (5) scientific papers.

Deliverables

You need to prepare and hold a presentation and to ask and answer (tough) questions in a Q&A.

• Upload your presentation slides (.pptx and .pdf) via Moodle until the deadline
• Use following naming scheme: FTM_ST26_Surname-Name
• You will present the slides uploaded to Moodle (no late updates)
• For the deadline and the presentation dates, please see the schedule

Hypothesis Challenger

For each presentation, one student will be assigned as Hypothesis Challenger immediately before the presentation begins.

As Hypothesis Challenger, you must develop a question during the presentation that critically examines or extends the presenter’s connection to the hypotheses discussed in class. Your question should demonstrate your understanding of both the lecture content and the presentation.

Your question should go beyond simply asking about the hypothesis connection (which the presenter should have already established). Instead, aim for one of these approaches:

• Question where the presenter’s argument reaches its limits
• Link the presented hypothesis connection to (another) hypothesis
• Propose scenarios that would challenge the presenter’s thesis
• Ask for clarification using specific terminology from the lecture

Example-Question: You argue that Brain-Computer-Interface enables immersive experiences. However, considering Milgram & Kishino’s virtuality continuum and the role of tactile stimuli discussed in class – where exactly would you place current BCI technology, and what sensory limitations prevent deeper immersion?

Grading

The presentation of your findings (8-10 min., 40%)
+ the discussion (~ 10 min., 40%)
+ your question for another presentation (20%)

The grade will be a combination of

• your presentation of your findings (8–10 minutes, 40% of your grade)
• the *discussion after the presentation (approx. 10 minutes, 40% of your grade)
• your Hypothesis Challenger question for another presentation (20% of your grade)

Evaluation criteria

Your presentation must meet the requirements of good scientific practice (passing criteria).

An excellent presentation has the following characteristics:

Technology

• Clearly defines the chosen emerging technology based on the concepts
• Accurately describes the technology’s key characteristics based on and extending the hypotheses discussed in class

Fields of application

• Identifies and explores a variety of potential fields of application
• Thoroughly analyzes how the technology could benefit/transform these fields based on concepts discussed in class

Social and ethical considerations

• Identifies and explores relevant social and ethical implications of the technology
• Demonstrates critical thinking in considering solutions or mitigations for negative impacts

Scientific references

• Integrates research from at least five (5) scientific papers
• Accurately cites and references all sources (passing criteria)

Presentation

• Presentation is well-organized and easy to follow
• Speaks confidently and professionally

Discussion

And excellent discussion has the following characteristics:

• Demonstrates a clear understanding of the presented technology
• Accurately answers questions related to the presentation and lecture contents
• Correctly uses terminology and concepts from the lecture
• Extends on the information presented by demonstrating deeper understanding of the field

Hypothesis Challenger

And excellent Hypothesis Challenger question has the following characteristics:

• Correct use of terminology and concepts from the lecture
• Has specific reference to the presentation content (not a generic question)
• The question challenges, extends, or differentiates (demonstrating independent thinking)

A note on grades

It is unlikely that every student will receive a very good grade, i.e. deliver an outstanding performance - see the meaning of grades. Instead, it is to be expected that the grades will spread across the spectrum.

Grade	Meaning
1 — very good	A truly outstanding achievement that (not only) shows no deficiencies in the criteria mentioned, but also gives both the supervisor and external assessors an excellent impression.
2 — good	Work that exceeds the average requirements/performance and is easily recognizable and presentable to the outside world as a “good performance”.
Note	2.5 is the average of passed assessments, i.e., an “average performance”
3 — satisfactory	A performance that achieves the desired goal “to a satisfactory extent”; however, deficiencies can be identified here and there.
4 — sufficient	A performance that “still adequately satisfies” the requirements, but deviates from the expectations placed on it in several ways.
5 — not sufficient	A performance that does not meet several of the criteria mentioned.

Scientific literature

In your presentation, you need to consider at least five scientific papers.

• Select only papers that are peer-reviewed.
• Recommendation is to focus the search on high-quality IS journals², such as Senior Scholars’ Basket of Journals and/or A-ranked or B-ranked journals in the VHB-JOURQUAL3 ranking
• Use Web of Science, Google Scholar or the journals’ archives to search for literature
• Use the citation count as primary quality indicator (rule of thumb: the more cited, the more significant is the paper).
• Look for literature reviews that summarize the current state of knowledge.

Q&A

Literature

Fitzgerald, B., Dennis, A. R., An, J., Tsutsui, S., & Muchhala, R. C. (2019). Information systems research: Thinking outside the basket and beyond the journal. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 45(1), 7.

Footnotes

1. Grey literature includes usually not peer-reviewed material such as white papers, books, web-sources, etc.

2. For a more balanced discussion of quality indicators of papers see e.g., Fitzgerald et al. (2019)