Task

You will explore a theoretical lens used in IS research, apply it to a concrete problem, and document your group’s research design in a poster presented at the ‘research conference’.

You work in groups of three. Together you select a theoretical lens from the curated list, develop a research design that applies it to a phenomenon of interest, and produce a research poster. Alongside the group work, each of you completes individual components: a theory application reflection, a peer-feedback submission, and a named individual contribution to the poster defended at our ‘research conference’.

Deliverables

You need to deliver the following components via Moodle. All five components are required; the group and individual split is specified below.

Theory presentation: A 10–12 minutes group video (3 students) introducing the chosen theoretical lens to an IS audience. The video explains the theory’s core building blocks, traces its origins and seminal works, and illustrates current IS applications through concrete examples. Audio quality, structured visuals, and clear pacing are the asynchronous-format equivalents of live delivery quality. In our ‘research conference’ questions can be asked to check deep understanding.
Theory application reflection: A one-page individual reflection submitted with the video. You apply the group’s theory to a concrete piece of content from your own study program and make explicit what is better understood through this theoretical lens, not what the theory says in the abstract, but what it reveals in context.
Peer feedback: An individual, pseudonymous written feedback given to one assigned non-own group (assignment via Moodle). Each group of three thus receives three feedbacks. The receiving group grades the three feedbacks on (a) specificity, (b) constructiveness, (c) originality, and (d) theoretical-methodological depth, and produces a forced ranking (1/2/3) in addition to absolute scores.
Research poster: A group research poster presented at our ‘research conference’. The poster documents the group’s research question, theoretical foundation, and research design. The pitch plus Q&A at the conference is the primary assessment vehicle for the group component. Grading covers alignment quality, poster communication, and pitch performance. Each group member is responsible for a named element of the poster (e.g., theory build-out, quantitative design, qualitative design). Author-mapping is visible in the poster footer. our ‘research conference’, in which each student presents and defends their own contribution, is the assessment vehicle for this individual component.

For dates and deadlines, please see the schedule.

Grading

The five components are graded individually or at group level and determine the grade with the following weights:

25% Theory presentation (group & individual)
15% Theory application reflection (individual)
10% Peer feedback (individual)
50% Research poster (group & individual)

Note: Compliance with formal requirements and good scientific practice are critical pass criteria for all parts. Non-compliance results in automatic failure (e.g., plagiarism, even light forms).

Theory presentation

A video that fulfills expectations has the following characteristics:

The theory’s core building blocks, origins, and current IS applications are accurate and concretely illustrated.
The video is well-crafted (audio, visuals, pacing) and supported by deep understanding demonstrated in the Q&A (‘research conference’).

Theory application reflection

A reflection that fulfills expectations has the following characteristics:

A concrete piece of content from your study program is identified, and the theory is applied to it in a specific, non-generic way.
The reflection makes explicit what is better understood through the theoretical lens beyond what the theory says in the abstract.

Peer feedback

A peer feedback that fulfills expectations has the following characteristics:

The feedback is specific and constructive: it references concrete elements and suggests how gaps could be addressed.
The feedback is original and substantive: it contributes a perspective beyond the surface and engages the theory and design.

Research poster

A poster and pitch that fulfills expectations has the following characteristics:

The research problem, theoretical foundation, and research design show clear alignment.
Visual hierarchy and disciplined reduction make the poster self-explanatory; a short pitch and Q&A demonstrate ownership.
Each student’s named contribution is identifiable in the author-mapping and defended under Q&A.

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.