Task

The retake consists of two independently graded components:

Theory presentation (50% of your grade): a prepared presentation identifying and introducing a suitable theoretical lens for a given phenomenon.
Research design discussion (50% of your grade): an oral discussion about research design approaches and alignment with research objectives.

Both components are graded separately.

Theory Presentation

You independently identify a theoretical lens that offers explanatory power for the phenomenon outlined below and prepare a presentation.

The presentation covers:

The core building blocks of the chosen theory (key constructs, relationships, boundary conditions).
The origins and seminal works of the theory.
Your argument for why this lens is suitable for the phenomenon — including what it illuminates that other, more obvious lenses might miss.
Application of the theory to the phenomenon.

After the presentation, the examiners will ask questions to probe your theoretical understanding.

The presentation should take 14-15 minutes, the Q&A will take approx 10 minutes.

Phenomenon

Users often follow AI-generated recommendations even when they conflict with their own initial judgment — sometimes with beneficial, sometimes with detrimental outcomes.

Your task is to find a theoretical lens that helps explain why this happens, when it becomes problematic, and what factors shape the outcome.

Research Design Discussion

After the theory presentation, we will discuss how some phenomena could be investigated empirically. This part is without prior preparation.

The discussion covers:

Selection and justification of appropriate research methods given research objectives.
Key decisions regarding data collection and analysis.
Reflection on validity, reliability, and limitations of the specific research designs.

The examiners will ask follow-up questions and may challenge methodological choices to assess depth of understanding.

The discussion will take 20 to 30 minutes.

Grading

Theory presentation

A presentation that fulfills expectations has the following characteristics:

The presentation meets the requirements of good scientific practice (passing criterion).
The theory with its building blocks is described concisely and accurately.
The origins of the theory, including its seminal works, are outlined.
The fit between theory and phenomenon is argued convincingly — the student explains what the lens reveals and where its boundaries lie.
The choice of lens demonstrates independent thinking. A novel or less obvious theoretical perspective that offers genuine explanatory value is rewarded over the straightforward application of a standard framework (e.g., simply applying TAM to an acceptance question).
The student presents information in a logical, engaging sequence.
The student demonstrates deep knowledge by answering follow-up questions with explanations and elaboration, not just surface-level responses.

Research design discussion

A discussion that fulfills expectations has the following characteristics:

The choice of research method is appropriate for the phenomenon at hand and justified with reference to methodological principles discussed in the course.
The student demonstrates understanding of key aspects of research design.
Methodological decisions are justified convincingly (i.e., the student can articulate why a particular approach is chosen over alternatives).
The student reflects on validity, reliability, and potential limitations without being prompted.
The student can respond to methodological challenges from the examiners and adapt or defend their reasoning in dialogue.
The proposed design, taken as a whole, would allow for a valid and meaningful contribution.

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.

Note: Compliance with good scientific practice is a critical pass criterion. In case of non-compliance, the exam is automatically failed.