For this activity, I read a master’s thesis from a similar master’s program (Media and Human Centered Computing) at TU Wien. The thesis was written by Silke Buchberger, BSc in 2024 and is titled “Investigating Creativity Support Opportunities through Digital Tools in Dance”.
In short, the thesis follows an exploratory research-through-design approach to developing a non-screen digital artifact to help dancers in their creative choreographic process. It follows a traditional structure, introducing first the topic, talking about related work, and then following on to the methodology – research, design, and evaluation – and finally ending with discussions and conclusions. In the end, the artifact Movement Xplorer (a creative support tool for dance) is produced as part of the thesis.
In regards to the academic quality, the following is an evaluation based on different criteria that we previously used to examine a thesis written at FH in class.
1. Quality of design and execution
The layout of the actual text was very basic, but consistent throughout. The textual design resembles that of a scientific journal, in contrast to some of the FH theses that were consulted beforehand. However, the quality of the research-through-design documentation and of the design of the actual final artifact are exceptional, and the scientific perspective given throughout the whole text elevates its perceived value. Overall, from the process to the artifact, the thesis is masterfully executed.
2. Degree of innovation
As it is such a niche topic that doesn’t have as much research in it, this thesis embodies a high degree of innovation. The author uses well-known and well-studied methods and applies it to her own area of interest in a non-conventional research topic.
3. Independence
The work demonstrates a high degree of independence and originality, stemming likely from the fact that the author chose a topic that she was passionate about and knowledgeable in, borrowing from her personal experience. She does not mention any AI usage in the whole thesis, and since her artifact is non-digital, there is a higher probability that this is a reliable statement.
4. Organisation and structure
The thesis is very well structured, considering both a scientific and designerly point of view. The author takes her own experience as a dancer and dance teacher and couples it with an extensive literature review, in order to inform her user research methods. Through these, she develops a prototype which, through iterative design, becomes the final artifact (Movement Xplorer) which she subjects through an evaluation with users.
5. Quality of communication
The thesis is exceptionally well communicated, including diagrams and figures to support the reader’s understanding of the text. The author clearly communicates each step and mental note that she underwent throughout the whole research-through-design process. She very clearly explains the relevance of each research process and data collected towards the initial research questions and final artifact, which strengthens the degree of quality of the work.
6. Scope of the thesis
The thesis encompasses a very wide scope in a very niche field. While the author specifically decides to focus on supporting creative processes in dance, she uses various types of research methods and doesn’t limit herself to any one area of dance. This is a particular strength of this work, as its wide scope in research methods doesn’t diminish the breadth that it could (and did) obtain throughout.
7. Spelling, care, and accuracy
The work presents a high degree of attention, with minimal spelling and accuracy mistakes. The only thing to note was that in some parts of the text, the author speaks in the first person; in others, she uses a more colloquial style of writing. While this should not diminish her impactful work, it does speak to a lower degree of formality that affects how an experienced scientific reader perceives it.
8. Use of literature
The quality of the references used in the thesis exceeds expectations, as they are all from reputable sources. A majority of citations came from peer-reviewed journal articles, with a couple coming from primary online sources (such as Troikatronix and Living Archive by Wayne McGregor, two projects, which are 2 pieces of software not described in scientific literature but relevant to the topic in regard to related work).
The thesis successfully connects the research question, theoretical framework, and practical implementation. One must also highlight the fact that the author not only makes the relationship between research question, theoretical framework, and practical implementation clear in the text, but also, she adds a diagram encompassing the whole project and strengthening the connection between all of these.
The documentation of the practical project created (Movement Xplorer) was clear, comprehensible, and sufficiently detailed. The author includes copious amounts of documentation for each of her user research methods, including reflections and insights that she, as researcher, obtained from each of them. Plus, she includes an extensive appendix where the reader can see her survey questionnaire, the code to her prototype, and the acceleration data plots.
In my opinion, the quality and level of development of the practical project exceeds the requirements of a Master’s thesis. She created a prototype using Adafruit’s Circuit Playground Bluefruit, which can be used in what she refers to as a tangible mode (ie. a separate object, not attached to the user, that he or she can interact with) and a wearable mode. For the wearable mode, the microcontroller is placed inside a piece of fabric which can be worn either on the head, around the shoulder, or on the hip.
Regarding the overall work, its biggest strengths lie in the high standard of quality that the author subjected herself to. The research seems to have been meticulously done, the findings easily captured in appropriate formats, and the insights properly communicated throughout each step. On the other hand, its biggest weakness is in the formality of the writing style. Since it’s a very personalized thesis and a lot of the first-person writing faults are done in parts where the author explains her insights and her autoethnographic reflections I can forgive it, but I would be amiss to not point out this style fault (for a master’s thesis). For these reasons, I would think that the author got a 1 (sehr gut) on the thesis for her efforts, as almost everything exceeds expectations except for the writing style.
I chose this particular thesis to read and critically examine because it is very similar to my own, combining both the human-centered design research approaches for a niche sport-related topic (in her case, supporting dance choreography, and in mine, supporting proprioceptive communication). I would like to implement the same structure of the overall work, the inclusion of autoethnography, and the clarity of each step in the research-through-design process in my own thesis. Plus, I greatly value the quality of her cited works and I’ll definitely have to read the ones that are also relevant to my own work. However, even though I’d like to improve the writing style in my future thesis, it’s a challenge for the personal findings, and thus I’ll have to read more about how I could overcome this.
ACCOMPANYING LINKS
Source:
Buchberger, S. (2024). Investigating Creativity Support Opportunities through Digital Tools in Dance. Retrieved on 12 Oct 2026 from: https://repositum.tuwien.at/bitstream/20.500.12708/197487/1/Buchberger%20Silke%20-%202024%20-%20Investigating%20creativity%20support%20opportunities%20through…pdf
Further reading:
Book on Autoethnography: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0011
Chapter on Laban Movement Analysis: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-25739-6_13
