Quick Links
Hall of Fame
Week 1: Welcome! (Aug 26)
Slides (password: pratt)
In Class Activity
Reading
Watch Danger of a Single Story by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and be prepared to discuss it in class.
Assignment
Due: Next week
This week is all about Figuring out what you want to explore in your thesis!
You do not need to have a thesis topic, argument, or solution yet. Instead, use this assignment to notice what you are already curious about, where that curiosity comes from, and what questions begin to emerge when you look at it more closely.
- What is a question, topic, or thing you are curious about, drawn to, or unable to stop thinking about right now?
- Where might this interest have come from? What experiences, stories, histories, or references feel connected to it?
- Who do you think about when you think about this topic? What identities, communities, histories, or systems might intersect with it?
- Why does this topic matter to you personally?
- What questions are becoming more complicated as you learn more?
- Has anything already changed the way you think about the topic?
- Who could you talk to, learn from, or observe to understand it differently?
- How might this project connect to the kind of designer, artist, researcher, or practitioner you want to become?
- If this project could open one conversation or shift one way of thinking, what would you want that to be?
The goal is not to arrive at a finished thesis statement. The goal is to discover a direction worth following and begin building a set of questions, references, relationships, and possibilities that can grow through the semester.
We will discuss these next week.
Student responses
Chaelin Kim
Questions this week
What is love? If there is a language of love, is there also a grammar?
Research discoveries
One of the most significant things I have discovered through my research is that love may not be a single, universal, or fixed emotion, but rather a complex state made up of different emotional and relational components. At first, I thought about love languages mainly in terms of how people express and receive love differently. However, my research has led me to a more fundamental question: people may differ not only in how they express love, but also in how they understand and construct the meaning of love itself. I was particularly interested in research on long-term romantic love, which suggests that love does not simply become weaker over time. Elements such as passion and reward can remain, while attachment, intimacy, friendship, and bonding become increasingly important, changing the overall structure of love. Research on unconditional love also showed me that different forms of love may share some underlying neural systems. These findings led me to think of love not as a single form or emotion, but as something composed of different proportions of passion, attachment, desire, friendship, intimacy, compassion, and care. What surprised me most was the possibility that although we all use the same phrase, “I love you,” what we actually mean by love may be very different from person to person. Because of this, my research is shifting beyond the question of “How do people express love?” toward questions such as **“What is each person’s love made of?"and "When two people use the same word ‘love,’ are they actually talking about the same thing?”
Other work
Love may not be a fixed “love language” that each individual already possesses, but rather a unique language and grammar that two people develop together through their relationship. Research on Personal Idioms shows that couples create expressions and signals that carry meanings specific to their relationship, while Relational Culture explains how these shared expressions and experiences accumulate to form a unique system of meaning within each relationship. Similarly, Shared Reality theory suggests that these meanings are not determined by one person alone, but are co-constructed through repeated interaction and mutual recognition. This led me to wonder: If every loving relationship develops its own grammar that is created and mutually recognized by two people, can the relationship remain the same when one person unilaterally changes that shared grammar?
Other questions or notes
If I have more, I'll bring them to class!
References
Hyejin Jeon
Questions this week
This week, I conducted broader research around Design Friction, the topic I want to pursue. In particular, I considered smoothness in digital environments not simply as a visual or functional quality, but as a system connected to time and speed, structures of choice, data collection, habitual behavior, and invisible labor. Based on this research, I asked whom seamless interfaces are designed for, whether users are truly making free choices in digital environments, and what kinds of data and labor remain hidden behind convenient experiences. I also considered whether Design Friction could create an opportunity for users to recognize these underlying structures.
Research discoveries
Through my research, I discovered that seamless interfaces are more deeply connected than I had expected to social and economic systems that influence user behavior, collect data, and turn that data into platform operations and profit. I was particularly interested in how experiences that appear to offer users simple convenience are actually shaped by various technological structures and the economic objectives of digital platforms.
Other work
This week, I revisited my thesis research on Design Friction from last semester and considered how I could expand it through my thesis.
Other questions or notes
I do not have any additional questions or personal notes at this time.
References
- Reading
- Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Microboundaries
- Better Slow than Sorry: Introducing Positive Friction for Reliable Dialogue Systems
- Reference
- https://tacticaltech.org/projects/data-detox-kit/
- https://www.theglassroom.org/about-us/
- Article
- https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3749893.3749969
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18803
Jiayi Jia
Questions this week
This week, I started thinking more about how we compare different kinds of value. When different values conflict, why does one become more important than another? And when we have to make different values measurable or comparable in order to make a choice, what might be lost in that process?
Research discoveries
My original research focused more on gamification and achievement systems, and how they could help people notice small values in everyday life. After reading How Gamification Can Ruin Your Life, I started to realize that measurement is not always neutral. When an experience is turned into numbers, goals, or achievements, the way we value that experience may also change. This made me think beyond gamification and more about value itself. I started wondering how we compare different kinds of value, especially when they are difficult to measure in the same way. What surprised me was that my research started moving away from finding a solution and toward asking more questions. I am now more interested in what happens when different values have to be compared, and what might be lost in that process.
Other work
In Seminar, I continued developing my thesis research through discussion and writing. My professor introduced Minard’s visualization of Napoleon’s Russian campaign. It made me think about how a large human loss can be translated into numbers and visual information, while many individual experiences and stories behind the data may become invisible. This gave me another direction to think about quantification and information visualization. I also reflected on my research process. I realized that I often stay within one area and keep looking for similar examples, instead of asking questions that could lead me somewhere new. I am trying to explore a wider range of ideas and references first, and then gradually narrow them down into questions that I want to understand more deeply.
Other questions or notes
One thing I am still struggling with is how to find a research direction that I can continue exploring deeply. Every time I look at new references, I find something else interesting, and I feel like my topic changes slightly. I know that the topic does not need to be fixed yet, but sometimes it is difficult for me to tell whether I am developing my question more deeply or simply moving to another topic.
References
Jiayi Li
Questions this week
I was thinking about how I can communicate my core research question without relying too heavily on the birthday story: why do people automatically maintain rituals or rules that they once disliked? I also started wondering whether there are other kinds of family knowledge or habits that are passed down in ways similar to rituals. Another question I kept thinking about is how a repeated behavior gradually becomes a rule or ritual, and what makes people continue following it even when they no longer actively think about its meaning.
Research discoveries
This week I read the foreword of The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. The author understands society as a process rather than a static system, and he suggests that rituals can create temporary spaces where fixed classifications and boundaries in everyday life become less stable. What surprised me is that I had been thinking about how rituals might be broken, but I had not considered that ritual itself could also become a space for breaking or questioning existing structures.
Other work
This week I also reflected on why this topic has stayed with me for so long. I first tried to explore a related idea in my undergraduate graduation project, but I could not develop it at the time and eventually changed directions. Looking back, I realized that I had been too focused on finding a final form instead of allowing the research question to develop gradually. I also wrote about other family rituals, such as being expected to give a speech during family dinners, and noticed that the same tension between guidance and expectation appears in more than one situation. This helped me understand why I want to return to this topic now and explore it more patiently.
Other questions or notes
No additional questions for now.
References
Online work
Kate Chon
Questions this week
How much repetition does a system need before it starts shaping a self? The goal is to thrive in the system without disappearing into it. But what does disappearing actually mean? Losing the line between my taste and the system's suggestions, or no longer noticing there was one? Does the algorithm create a beauty standard, or find one and narrow the room around it? Is the pressure coming from people, or from the audience the feed implies? If the standard is tuned to me, is it harder to recognize as a standard at all? Hacking means using a system in ways its makers did not intend. Is that a better position than refusal? It assumes you stay. Spotify recommends from what I did. AI takes context and instruction. Is that more agency, or the feeling of more agency?
Research discoveries
What came out of this week was a definition more than a finding, which is that the loop isn't social connection but repeated engagement with a system, and the self takes shape through that repetition. Having that sentence changed where I look i've been treating beauty as the clearest case, since the standard arrives through a system tuned to me specifically, and I can't tell anymore whether the algorithm produced the standard or just found one that was already there and narrowed the room around it. The p5.js sketch got at the same problem from the designer's side, because I had to write every rule it ran on and the output only looked inevitable to me because I'm the one who typed those numbers in, which is about as close as I've come to seeing my own position in this. Spotify and AI are still unresolved but sharper now, since Spotify recommends off what I already did while AI takes instruction and lets me talk back, and I genuinely can't tell whether that's more agency or just a tighter attachment. The thing that actually surprised me is smaller than any of this. I went looking for people caught in loops and almost nobody describes themselves that way, they like what they get, so if the position is thriving without disappearing then most people already believe they're thriving and the word I'm really on the hook to define is disappearing. I don't have it yet, which is why the next step is the phenomenon and not the application.
Other work
Most of the week went to getting the semester settled. Registration took more back and forth than it should have and I lost time to logistics I wanted to spend reading.
Other questions or notes
I'm still struggling with the topic of my project and where to take it next. I also put pressure on myself to make the thesis a strong portfolio piece, and something that connects to where technology is right now.
References
Rebecca Davidson
Questions this week
I’ve been reevaluating my previous thesis research on anthropomorphic robots and the complex relationship between humans and our digital technology. I have been asking myself why I leaned toward that topic and what actually makes me feel uncomfortable about being dependent on digital technology. Instead of asking “why do we have it?” and “what does it say about us?”, this week I started to ask “why do we feel trapped by technology that was created to be expansive, connective, and imaginative?”, “what has been lost in the process of corporations capitalizing on this technology?”, and “how can we restore or reclaim our digital agency?”
Research discoveries
In my previous research, I was avoiding politics and my own intimate relationship with technology. It may seem obvious, but I discovered how deeply politicized digital technology is and how quickly that happened. There is a lot of discourse on this issue from an economic standpoint and overwhelmingly the perspective seems reflective yet pessimistic. I’m surprised that I haven’t found much discussion about potential for change or optimistic perspectives. Maybe that discourse is out there and I haven’t found it yet!
Other work
When I met with Munus last week, he used the word “agency”, and it flipped a switch in my brain! This week I distilled that my discomfort with technology had been displaced into the concept of robots, which are distant and somewhat apolitical. I realized I don’t hate robots, I hate corporate greed. I hate capitalism. And I hate being controlled! I’m a very political person, so this week I feel a bit of relief that I can include this in my research. I’m excited to keep exploring this topic, so this week I researched where best to join the discussion.
Other questions or notes
No <3
References
- Resisting Reduction by Joichi Ito
- https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/resisting-reduction/release/19
- Platform Capitalism by Nick Srnieck
- https://www.wiley.com/en-us/shop/general-philosophy/platform-capitalism-p-9781509504862
- Flat Design: Its Origins, Its Problems, and Why Flat 2.0 Is Better for Users by Kate Moran
- https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design/
- The Politics of Cyberdecks by Nicole Froio
- https://conversationalist.org/2026/08/20/cyberdecks-politics-diy-computers-technology-tiktok-annike-tan-big-tech-electronics-waste-upcycling/
Sarena Yadav
Questions this week
The same questions as in the doc keep recurring
Research discoveries
What I started with has entirely changed, I am on the opposite end now.
Other work
I was thinking about talking to people from these three categories, 1 - people who use these digital systems almost every minute and are dependent on them for literally everything (us). 2 - people who create these systems, app, websites… 3 - people who do not rely on these systems to a huge extent. I think observing their behaviour and comparing them would help me understand.
Other questions or notes
Not as of now
References
Zhiqing Pan
Questions this week
This week, I have been thinking about why people connect someone’s actions with events that happen later, even when the causal relationship cannot be directly proven. I also began considering how karma, attribution bias, confirmation bias, and emotional rumination may shape these connections. From a design perspective, I am interested in whether sequence, juxtaposition, repetition, and interaction can change how viewers understand cause and consequence. To some extent, it is somewhat similar to the mechanism that has been studied before.
Research discoveries
My research began with confirmation bias but gradually expanded to attribution bias, emotional rumination, and different cultural understandings of karma. I realized that these concepts are not identical. Instead, they participate in different stages of constructing a causal narrative. Attribution bias influences how people identify causes, confirmation bias influences which evidence they notice, emotional rumination repeatedly returns them to the same experience, and karma provides a cultural framework for connecting actions with future consequences. I was surprised to learn that karma is not simply about reward or punishment. It can also describe how actions create habits and tendencies that continue to shape later experiences. I also discovered that the Buddhist Wheel of Existence historically translated relationships among action, mental state, and consequence into a cyclical visual structure.
Other work
I compared the broader development of karma in ancient Indian traditions with the Buddhist interpretation of karmic action. I also clarified the differences among attribution bias, confirmation bias, and emotional rumination. In addition, I collected visual references such as the Wheel of Existence, the Mnemosyne Atlas, and an interactive visual communication project to examine how abstract causal relationships can be represented through cycles, juxtaposition, sequence, and interaction.
Other questions or notes
I am still exploring the connections between these concepts and looking for new elements and directions, so that I do not fall into confirmation bias within my own research process.
References
Week 2: Co-create, Research and Inquiry (Sep 2)
Slides (password: pratt)
Readings
Choose one of the following readings to focus on this week:
Assignment
Due: Next week
This week is all about inquiry!
Continue developing your thesis by looking more closely at the questions, assumptions, and narratives that already surround your topic. Instead of trying to define exactly what your thesis is about, use this week to investigate what you currently believe, where those beliefs come from, and what they might be leaving out.
Pay attention to who is telling the stories around your topic, who benefits from those narratives, who may be excluded or harmed by them, and what counter-arguments, contradictions, or untold stories might complicate what you think you already know.
The goal is not to arrive at a definitive answer. It is to develop a stronger inquiry: one that becomes more specific, more complicated, and more interesting as you research.
Your goal this week is to expand your inquiry in at least three new directions. Find perspectives, examples, histories, arguments, or sources that challenge or complicate your current understanding of the topic.
Be prepared to share your findings and reflections in class next week.
Student responses
Kate Chon
Questions this week
Does the algorithm create a beauty standard, or find one and narrow the room around it?
Research discoveries
What came out of this week was a definition more than a finding, which is that the loop isn't social connection but repeated engagement with a system, and the self takes shape through that repetition. Having that sentence changed where I look. I've been treating beauty as the clearest case, since the standard arrives through a system tuned to me specifically, and I can't tell anymore whether the algorithm produced the standard or just found one already there and narrowed the room around it. Spotify and AI are still unresolved but sharper, since Spotify recommends off what I already did while AI takes instruction and lets me talk back, and I can't tell whether that's more agency or just a tighter attachment. The thing that actually surprised me is smaller than all of this. I went looking for people caught in loops and almost nobody describes themselves that way, they like what they get, so if the position is thriving without disappearing then most people already believe they're thriving and the word I'm on the hook to define is disappearing. I don't have it yet, which is why the next step is the phenomenon and not the application.
Other work
The piece that named the convergence. Tolentino traces how filters, FaceTune, and cosmetic procedures produced one homogenized face, described to her as young, poreless, cat-eyed, and distinctly white but ethnically ambiguous. This is the closest thing I have to a case study of my own question about whether the system creates a standard or amplifies one that already existed. Her answer leans toward creation, since people started bringing filtered images of themselves to plastic surgeons as the target.
Other questions or notes
Having trouble progressing more so stuck
References
Rebecca Davidson
Questions this week
This week I was taking a step back from the direction of my concept, and started asking more simple questions: Who gets left behind in cyberspace? Before I can ask what it looks like to regain agency and sovereignty in cyberspace, I need to understand it as a space like any other that is vulnerable to social underrepresentation and inequity. I decided to ask: Who was left behind at the beginning of the digital age? How does cyberspace mimic physical space in terms of how it is colonized?
Research discoveries
There is so much content related to identity in cyberspace, varying in outlook, intersectionality, angle, etc. Cyberfeminism is a well-studied concept, and I find it interesting how apparent feminism is in conversations about social justice across all platforms. There seems to be a direct correlation between visibility of underrepresented groups in physical space, social hierarchies, and now in cyberspace.
Other work
Paralleling cyberspace to physical space makes it easier to relate to in every sense, however, I’m still trying to wrap my head around what it means to be excluded from one and not the other. I found some more intimate work on identity in cyberspace, and it actually helped me bridge the abstract research to the personal sensation. Our identities may seem insignificant, but of course, they shape the communities we associate with, things we care about, places we reside in, etc. I hadn’t considered that our physical identities are quite fixed, whereas our digital identities are malleable and can be disconnected with our physical ones. I’m trying to investigate how that impacts the roles we adopt in cyberspace.
Other questions or notes
no ◡̈
References
Online work
Zhiqing Pan
Questions this week
How do people construct a belief in causality when the connection between evidence, action, and outcome remains invisible or uncertain?
Research discoveries
I explored this question from three directions. The Piltdown Man hoax showed how apparently scientific evidence can be shaped by prior expectations. Karma and leap of faith showed how belief can continue without a visible causal mechanism. Research on online dating showed that more information can create a rejection mindset rather than greater certainty.
Other work
This week, I expanded my collection of references and tested different cases against the three research directions. Some cases did not fit perfectly, but they helped reveal further questions. For example, West Elm Caleb made me consider how audiences and brands collectively create what they describe as someone’s karma, and how they might understand their own participation if the original judgment later proves mistaken. I also examined cases involving NASA and a Japanese plane crash. Comparing, selecting, and sometimes rejecting these materials helped me organize the research into a clearer structure.
Other questions or notes
I also want to explore how these questions can become a communication design investigation rather than remain only psychological or religious topics. My next step is to identify which cases reveal this structure most clearly and to find counterexamples that challenge my current assumptions.
References
- https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/services/library/collections/piltdown-man.html
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550619866189
- https://www.spaghettimonster.org!
- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRPT-99hrpt1016/pdf/GPO-CRPT-
- https://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/eng-air_report/JA8119.pdf?utm_source
- https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210329-do-maximisers-or-satisficers-make-better-decisions
Week 3: When Does Making Become Research? (Sep 9)
Slides (password: pratt)
Assignment
Due: Next week
This week is all about prototyping!
Choose one question, tension, contradiction, or overlooked perspective that emerged from your research. Over the next five days, make five rapid prototypes that investigate it. A prototype does not need to prove your thesis or resemble a finished project; it can be a question made tangible. These should not be five unrelated ideas. Let each prototype respond to something you learned from the one before it.
Your prototypes may take any form appropriate to the inquiry: an image, object, interface, publication, diagram, performance, conversation, intervention, code sketch, writing experiment, or another testable form. Keep each one small enough that you can make it, examine it, and use what it teaches you.
For each prototype, document:
- the question or assumption you wanted to test;
- what you made and how you tested it;
- what happened, including failures or surprises;
- what the prototype revealed that you did not know before making it;
- what you changed in the next iteration as a result.
Submit documentation of all five prototypes and a short synthesis identifying the most important discovery, the question that now feels most urgent, and the next experiment you want to pursue. Bring the prototypes—or the best possible documentation of them—to class next week.