Inquiry - Research

L3 Inquiry - Context

Back

L3 Inquiry - Analysis

Ko ia kāhore nei i rapu, tē kitea

He who does not seek will not find

Research

Key question: “What reliable sources can I use, and what keywords/search terms will help me find strong evidence?”

Now you’ve got a focus and a Big Question, it’s time to gather evidence. At this stage you are not deciding the final solution — you are finding out what’s true, what’s already been tried, and what matters most for real people and real contexts.

At Level 3, your research needs to help you:

answer your Big Question using evidence
compare different perspectives (Merit)
check the quality of your sources (Excellence)
identify implications, risks, and what needs to be considered in your proposed outcome

What good research looks like

Your research should include:

a range of sources (not just one website)
notes in your own words (no copy/paste)
links/citations so you can reference sources later
evidence that helps you make justified decisions (not just interesting facts)
information gathered across Parts A, B, and C (user, technical, wider implications)

Research set-up: search smarter

Before you start, build a short list of keywords. Try:

topic keywords (e.g., sleep, anxiety, equestrian safety, cyberbullying, recycling, training plan)
audience keywords (e.g., teen, beginner, older adults, whānau, club members)
context keywords (e.g., school, Aotearoa, Christchurch, community, sport, online)
outcome keywords (e.g., website, app, video, animation, poster series, game, interactive)
problem keywords (e.g., barriers, accessibility, usability, motivation, misinformation)
perspective keywords (e.g., teacher, coach, parent, health professional, organisation, policy, privacy, accessibility)

Tip: Use Google Scholar for higher-quality studies and reports.

Using AI to help you find sources (allowed)

You may use AI to help you search smarter and locate good sources (keywords, where to look, organisations to search).

You can use AI for:

generating better keywords/search terms
suggesting reputable organisations to search
suggesting Google Scholar search terms
suggesting a mix of source types (reports, data, case studies, guidance)

The rest of the inquiry must be your work, based on what you read.

Copy/paste prompts (source-finding only):

“Give me 10 strong search terms for: [my Big Question]. Include synonyms and NZ terms.”
“List reputable organisations that publish research about: [topic].”
“Suggest Google Scholar search terms for: [topic + audience].”

AI to help you search smarter and locate good sources

Use a mix of research types

You will usually use a combination of secondary research (desk research) and primary research (information from people).

Quantitative research (numbers + patterns)

Use this when you want measurable trends.

surveys / polls
desk research (facts, stats, reports)
data sets / number crunching

Qualitative research (stories + reasons)

Use this when you want deeper insight.

interviews (in-person or video)
observations (watch people use something similar)
feedback sessions / user testing
short “in-the-moment” interviews

Choose reliable sources

Not all sources are equal. Before you use something, do a quick check:

Quick quality check

Who created it (person/organisation)? Are they credible?
When was it made/updated? Is it still relevant?
Why does it exist (inform, sell, persuade)?
What evidence is used (data, references, examples)?
Can you confirm it with another source?

Aim to use a mix of:

reputable websites and organisations
books and articles
reports and data
case studies or examples of existing outcomes
interviews/surveys/observations (primary research)

Quick ethics reminder (especially for surveys/interviews)

If you’re collecting information from people:

ask permission and be respectful
keep personal information private (use anonymous responses where possible)
store your data safely and only use it for this project

Task 1 - Research for Part A: User & Human Perspective

Purpose: Understand the people who will use, be affected by, or interact with the proposed outcome.

A1: Evidence & Perspectives (What’s out there?)

Write your Part A questions (aim 3–5):

Try to include at least one question about needs, one about constraints, and one about implications/risks.

Who are the primary end users, and what are their goals?
What problems/needs/opportunities exist from the user’s point of view?
What does success look like for the user (quick, clear, enjoyable, accurate, safe, accessible)?
What frustrations or barriers do users face with existing solutions?
What are the different user types (majority vs extreme users)?
What motivates users to engage with outcomes like this (purpose, fun, convenience, identity, community)?
What assumptions am I making about users, and how can I check these are accurate?
What feedback have I already gathered (informal/quick), and what patterns are showing up?

Record each source like this (copy/paste format):

Source: title, author/organisation, link, date accessed
Perspective/lens: end user / stakeholder / expert / cultural/community / industry / other _______
Key points: 3–5 bullets (your words)
How this connects to my inquiry focus: 1–2 sentences
Source critique (Excellence):
- Accuracy:
- Relevance
- Reliability/authority
- Bias/limitations / what’s missing
- Trust level (low/medium/high) + why

Note: If you want Merit / Excellence you need to have more than one source, just repeat A1 as many times as you need.

Source Critique Help - How to do it well

When you critique a source, you’re judging how much you can trust it and how useful it is for your inquiry. You’re not trying to “trash” the source — you’re showing careful thinking.

Use these five checks:

1) Accuracy

What it means: Is the information correct and supported by evidence?

How to check:

Does it use data, examples, or references — or is it just opinion?
Are claims specific and testable, or vague?
Can you verify key claims with another credible source?

Sentence starters:

“This seems accurate because it uses…”
“This may be inaccurate because it doesn’t show…”
“I confirmed this by checking…”

2) Relevance

What it means: Does this source actually help answer your Big Question, or guide your proposal?

How to check:

Is it about your audience/context (e.g., teens, NZ, school setting)?
Does it connect to Part A (users), Part B (technical), or Part C (wider implications)?
Is it too broad or about a different situation?

Sentence starters:

“This is relevant because it directly relates to…”
“This is only partly relevant because…”
“This is less relevant for my project because…”

3) Reliability / Authority

What it means: Is this a trustworthy source? Who wrote it and why should we believe them?

How to check:

Who is the author/organisation? What expertise do they have?
Is it published by a reputable group (government, university, recognised organisation)?
Is it peer-reviewed / edited / fact-checked, or self-published?
Is it current enough to be useful?

Sentence starters:

- “This is reliable because it comes from…”
- “This may be less reliable because the author is…”
- “This is out of date for my topic because…”

4) Bias / Limitations / What’s missing

What it means: What might influence this source’s viewpoint, and what gaps does it have?

How to check:

What is the purpose: inform, persuade, sell, promote?
Is it representing only one perspective?
Does it ignore certain groups (e.g., extreme users, cultural perspectives)?
Is the sample small or not representative (e.g., only adults, only one country)?
Are there conflicts of interest (sponsored content, marketing)?

Sentence starters:

“This source may be biased because…”
“A limitation is…”
“What’s missing is…”
“This source doesn’t include perspectives from…”

5) Trust level (Low / Medium / High) + why

What it means: Your overall judgement of how much weight you will give this source.

How to decide quickly:

High trust: reputable author/org + evidence/references + relevant + current
Medium trust: useful but limited (small sample, older, partial relevance, or some bias)
Low trust: opinion-heavy, unclear author, persuasive/marketing, no evidence, hard to verify

Sentence starters:

“Trust level: High, because…”
“Trust level: Medium, because it’s useful for…, but limited by…”
“Trust level: Low, because…”

A2: Compare & Contrast perspectives (Merit)

What do the perspectives agree on?
What do they disagree on (and why)?
What trade-offs or tensions appear?
Whose voice is missing or under-represented?

A3: UX Methodologies (Design link — investigate now, apply in design )

What are UX methodologies?

UX methodologies are ways of finding out what works for real users so you can make better design decisions. They help you gather evidence (not just opinions) about needs, usability, and accessibility.

In this project you will:

As part of INQUIRY, investigate at least two UX methodologies (what they are and why they fit), then
As part of DESIGN, apply them in your design phase to model and test at least three design ideas.

Look at the list in the drop down below for what the UX methodologies are.

Help choosing: what fits your project?

Use this quick guide:

Animation / video: interviews or surveys + usability testing (storyboard/animatic) + accessibility checks
Game: observation + usability testing (tutorial/onboarding) + heuristic evaluation (UI/feedback)
Website/app: information architecture + usability testing + accessibility checks + content strategy

What you must write for each chosen UX method (investigate)

For each of your two methods, explain:

Why it suits my users/context:
What evidence it will produce:
What I will do later in design: (what will I test, with who?)
Risks/bias to watch for: (leading questions, wrong users, tiny sample, only friends)

UX Methodologies List

Choose at least TWO methods you will use later in design.

Pick methods that match your outcome type and what you need to learn.

User research (find out needs)

Interviews

What it is: a structured conversation with target users
Use it when: you need deeper reasons (why people struggle/what they value)
Evidence you get: quotes + themes + needs

Surveys/polls

What it is: questions to lots of people quickly
Use it when: you need patterns (“how many / how often”)
Evidence you get: numbers + trends + quick comments

Observation

What it is: watch someone use something similar (or attempt a task)
Use it when: what people do matters more than what they say
Evidence you get: real behaviours, confusion points, workarounds

Usability evaluation (check if designs work)

Usability testing

What it is: users attempt tasks using your design/prototype while you observe
Use it when: you want to test clarity, navigation, flow, and understanding
Evidence you get: task success, time, errors, “where they got stuck”

Heuristic evaluation

What it is: check your design against usability rules (consistency, feedback, error prevention)
Use it when: you want quick improvements before user testing
Evidence you get: a list of issues + fixes

Accessibility checks

What it is: check readability and inclusion (captions, contrast, text size, keyboard access, sensory load)
Use it when: your users include different needs (or your outcome is public-facing)
Evidence you get: pass/fail checks + improvements

Structure methods (help organise content/flow)

Information architecture (IA) — e.g., site map / card sorting

What it is: organising content into a structure users understand
Use it when: you’re designing a website/app with multiple pages or sections
Evidence you get: what users expect to find where

User journeys / task flows

What it is: mapping steps users take to reach a goal
Use it when: your outcome includes a process (sign up, find info, complete a task)
Evidence you get: where friction happens and what needs simplifying

Personas

What it is: realistic user profiles based on research (not stereotypes)
Use it when: you have different user types (majority vs extreme users)
Evidence you get: clearer design decisions for different needs

User Interface (UI) design

What it is: designing screens and layouts (buttons, menus, spacing, hierarchy)
Use it when: you need clarity and consistency in what users see
Evidence you get: wireframes/mock-ups + feedback on readability and navigation

Interaction design (IxD)

What it is: designing how users move through tasks (flows, feedback, errors, controls)
Use it when: your outcome has steps or actions (clicking, choosing, playing, submitting)
Evidence you get: task-flow tests (where users get stuck, what they expect to happen)

Visual design

What it is: the style choices (colour, typography, layout, contrast, consistency)
Use it when: appearance affects understanding, trust, mood, or accessibility
Evidence you get: preference + clarity testing (what users notice, what they misunderstand)

Content strategy

What it is: planning what content is needed and how it’s written/structured (tone, clarity, order)
Use it when: your outcome communicates information or a message (website, app, video/animation)
Evidence you get: comprehension checks (what users understood, what they missed, what needs simplifying)

A4: Implications (What does this mean for my proposed outcome?)

Write 3–5 implication questions, then summarise:

What this means I should prioritise
What I should avoid / handle carefully
What decisions I can already justify
What I still need to find out

A5: Part A Summary of Key ideas, points, perspectives, follow ups

Main user/stakeholder insights (not a re-list of sources)
Competing perspectives and what they mean
Follow-up questions you still need to answer

Task 2 - Research for Part B: Technical & Practical Perspective

Purpose: Investigate tools, methods, conventions, and feasibility of creating the proposed outcome.

B1: Evidence & Perspectives (How is this built / what works well? )

Write your Part B questions (aim 3–5):

Try to include at least one question about needs, one about constraints, and one about implications/risks.

What conventions/standards (“rules of the craft”) apply in this area to keep it professional and consistent?
What features/components must my outcome have to function as intended?
What tools/software/materials are commonly used and why?
What are the pros/cons of different technical approaches (time, complexity, quality, performance, reliability)?
What skills will I need to learn/practise?
What constraints do I need to plan for (time, file formats, storage, performance, cost, available equipment)?
What will I need to test, and how will I know it’s working (criteria, measures, technical checks)?
What risks could cause failure (bugs, weak structure, low-quality assets, unsafe operation), and how can I reduce them?

Record each source like this (copy/paste format):

Source: title, author/organisation, link, date accessed
Perspective/lens: tool comparison / workflow / performance / feasibility / safety / sustainability / other:__________
Key points: 3–5 bullets (your words)
How this connects to my inquiry focus: 1–2 sentences
Source critique (Excellence):
- Accuracy
- Relevance
- Reliability/authority
- Bias/limitations / what’s missing
- Trust level (low/medium/high) + why

Note: If you want Merit / Excellence you need to have more than one source, just repeat B1 as many times as you need.

B2: Compare & Contrast (Merit)

Approach A vs Approach B:
- Strengths
- Limitations
- Best fit for my context and why

B3: Conventions (rules of the craft)

What conventions/standards apply in my area (naming, file formats, asset pipeline, testing, accessibility, export settings, usability heuristics, genre conventions)?
Why they matter (what happens if ignored)

B4: Implications (Feasibility, constraints, trade-offs)

Write 3–5 implication questions, then summarise:

what is realistic within time/tools/skill
key constraints that will shape the outcome
technical risks and how to reduce them

B5: Part B Summary of Key Ideas, comparisons, and follow-ups

Key technical conclusions (synthesised)
The most important trade-offs
What I still need to test/confirm

Something interesting....

Why might you look at colours - have you ever seen the logo wheel --->

What do you notice?
What types of companies or businesses are in green? What types of worlds do we associate with green - clean, environment? Why do you think they have done this?
What is one of the main categories you notice is in Yellow/Orange/Red?
Colour Psychology is really interesting if it's relevant to your project

Task 3 - Research for Part C: Wider Implications & Perspectives

Purpose: Understand the bigger picture, responsibilities, and ethical impacts.

C1: Evidence & Perspectives (Bigger Picture)

Write your Part C questions (aim 3–5):

Try to include at least one question about needs, one about constraints, and one about implications/risks.

What ethical issues could come up (representation, stereotypes, consent, manipulation, bias, misinformation)?
What privacy/data considerations apply (collecting, storing, sharing)?
What legal rules apply (copyright/licensing/attribution/terms of use)?
Who else could be affected beyond the end user (whānau, school, community, wider audience)?
What sustainability/future-proofing considerations matter?
How might this include or exclude certain groups, and what could I do to improve accessibility and inclusion?
What cultural considerations should guide decisions (respectful use of imagery/language/stories, avoiding tokenism, consultation)?
What perspectives do experts, organisations, or current debates raise about this topic, and how should that influence my choices?

Record each source like this (copy/paste format):

Source: title, author/organisation, link, date accessed
Perspective/lens: legal / ethical / cultural / IP / sustainability / privacy / other: _______
Key points: 3–5 bullets (your words)
How this connects to my inquiry focus: 1–2 sentences
Source critique (Excellence):
- Accuracy
- Relevance
- Reliability/authority
- Bias/limitations / what’s missing
- Trust level (low/medium/high) + why

Note: If you want Merit / Excellence you need to have more than one source, just repeat A1 as many times as you need.

C2: Compare & Contrast Wider View Points (Merit)

Try to include at least two different viewpoints (e.g., users/community vs policy/experts), and explain why the disagreement matters.

Where viewpoints conflict and why:
What risks or responsibilities this creates:
What this means for how my outcome should behave / be designed:

C3: Implications (What does this mean for my proposed outcome?)

Write 3–5 implication questions, then summarise:

Legal / IP / privacy considerations:
Fairness / bias / accessibility considerations:
Sustainability / future-proofing considerations:

C4: Part C Summary of Key ideas, tensions, and follow-ups

The most significant responsibilities/risks
Key tensions and what they mean
Follow-up research needed

Task 4 - Refine & Sort

At this stage you should have evidence from Parts A, B,C. Now sort what matters most and identify gaps. You may refine your Big Question/focus now that you know more.

Complete the Refined Focus box in your project document:

My refined focus statement (1–2 sentences)
What changed from my original focus and why? (2–3 bullets)
The 2–4 most important findings that caused the change (pull these from your Part A/B/C summaries)

Tip: If nothing changed, that’s okay - explain what evidence confirmed your original focus.

If you still have gaps

Do a small amount of targeted follow-up research (1–2 sources max) to fill the most important gaps, then update your Refined Focus.

✅ Quick checklist

Before you move on, check your research:

✔️ I have completed research across Part A, Part B, and Part C

✔️ I used a range of sources (not just one website)

✔️ My notes are in my own words (not copy/paste)

✔️ Every source has a link/citation and date accessed

✔️ I labelled each source with the correct lens (A / B / C) and perspective/viewpoint

✔️ I have included different perspectives and compared them where relevant (Merit)

✔️ I have completed a source critique for key sources (accuracy, relevance, reliability, bias/limitations) (Excellence)

✔️ I have identified the most important findings and used them to write a refined focus

✔️ I can clearly explain what the evidence means for my project (implications, constraints, trade-offs)

✔️ If needed, I can identify gaps and what I still need to find out

Page updated

Report abuse