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

Don Norman Interview Design Usability

“I Think We Have to Start Over”: Usability Guru Don Norman on the Next Internet

"I think we have to start over. And we may need very separate networks. The notion that there is one network that is for everything maybe is wrong. We used to have separate networks. They were, in fact, determined by the technology. Hence radio was different than telephones, which was different than television, which was different than printed books. And today we say, “Nah, it’s all information,” and that this isn’t that neat, because on the internet you can do all of that. Well, OK. But the content is really what’s important, not the technology or the way it’s distributed. And I would love to find a different scheme where people are controlling their own data." - Don Norman

Steven Dow And His Team Tackle Innovation In Crowdsourcing

As part of the Design Lab's graduate course work on Crowdsourcing taught by Steven Dow, students…

San Diego/Tijuana is finalist to become a World Design Capital

San Diego Union Tribune

The San Diego/Tijuana region is a finalist to become a World Design Capital that could mean a year-long promotion of the binational region.

Winners are chosen based on how each region effectively incorporates design across their economic, technological, social, cultural, political and environmental sectors . More than just having a fancy title, winning means a year of events to promote the region, including a street festival, a one-day celebration highlighting the winner’s designs and a design conference that should bring people from around the globe.

“This is an incredibly exciting opportunity to not only showcase our bi-national region as a longstanding design and innovation powerhouse,” she wrote, “but to also shape the narrative around what it means to be a 21st century metropolis, [says Michèle Morris, President of the Design Forward Alliance and Associate Director of UCSD Design Lab]."
Uc San Diego Design Lab

Design Lab and MIT Media Lab Join Forces to Organize a Design·a·Hack·a·thon

No hackathon would be complete without cardboard prototypes strewn about the room, laptop screens glowing with code, and the edgy excitement of teams working against the clock. Hackathons concentrate the efforts of talented, highly motivated participants eager to develop new technologies. There is, however, often one key element missing from this picture: the people for whom these technologies might serve. This inspired The Design Lab to ask, “How might we make designing for people the central element of a hackathon?” Answer: we needed to make “design” a central component. Designathons and Design Swarms exist, but they didn’t quite fit our need to combine both designing and doing (hacking) in a very short, highly condensed manner. Eventually we ended up with Design·a·Hack·a·thon.
Don-Norman

What is the Future of Design in 50 Seconds?

From Jnd.org & Don Norman: I'm developing a new talk: "21st Century Design: Addressing Major Societal…

Ucsd Design Lab Don Norman

Don Norman’s Favorite Book, Famous UC writers on their favorite books

Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change by Victor Papanek
“The first sentence in this book is ‘There are professions more harmful than industrial design, but only a very few of them.’ I read this book in the 1980s, and it had a huge impact..."
Back To Top