DSR for Professional Audio Tools

We, finally, reached the last post of the “Master’s Diary” Series!

As I continue to navigate the intricate process of my Master’s Dissertation, I’ve reached a crucial moment. As we know, my project, “Beyond the Curve: Rethinking UX/UI Patterns in Audio Tools (EQ Controllers),” sits at a complex crossroads between high-end engineering and human-centred design. But how am I going to approach this? Which method am I going to use?

Therefore, I want to share the “behind-the-scenes” of my methodological choices, as selecting a research design isn’t just a formal box to tick; it’s about finding the engine that will best drive our whole project towards a solution that makes sense.

Which research design did I find most interesting?

After deep diving into various methodologies, the design that resonated most with me, and the one I’m officially adopting, is Design Science Research (DSR), operationalising it through the Double Diamond framework.

DSR is fascinating because it doesn’t just ask “why” something happens; it focuses on building and evaluating artifacts to solve real-world problems. In my case, that artifact is a modular, user-centred framework for EQ controllers within the Dynacord ecosystem.

But why DSR?

To be honest, I didn’t start here. Initially, I looked quite closely at Design-Based Research (DBR). And… On the surface, it fit perfectly. Both methodologies seem like twins: both are iterative, both involve practitioners, and both aim for practical impact.

However, as I dug into the literature, the nuances became clear:

• Design-Based Research (DBR): Originally emerged from the educational sector. It’s brilliant for classroom interventions and learning environments, but it felt a bit “off-key” for a professional industrial project.
• Design Science Research (DSR): This tradition is rooted in Information Systems (IS) and Engineering. It is specifically designed for creating innovative artifacts (models, methods, or software) that address technical and organizational challenges.

DSR offers a robust “Three-Cycle View”: the Relevance Cycle (connecting to the real-world environment), the Rigor Cycle (grounding it in scientific foundations), and the Design Cycle (the iterative heart of building and testing). This structured approach feels much more aligned with the technical demands of professional audio engineering.

Does it make sense to adapt this design to my study?

I believe so… In fact, I think that it is the only design that truly fits my project, as my goal isn’t just to write a descriptive paper about why EQ interfaces are hard to use; it’s to create a better one.

DSR allows me to:

1. Solve a Practice-Driven Problem: Bridging the gap between technical excellence and intuitive usability at Dynacord.
2. Iterate with Experts: I’ll be working directly with audio engineers and development teams to refine my prototypes.
3. Contribute to Knowledge: While I’m building a tool for a specific company, DSR ensures I also produce transferable design principles that the wider audio industry can use.

Operationalizing with the Double Diamond

However, while DSR provides the macro-level academic rigour, I needed a way to manage the actual creative process. This is where the Double Diamond framework comes in — the creative process I normally use in all of my projects. The Double Diamond is a process model widely accepted in the UX industry that maps the design journey into four distinct phases across two cycles of divergence and convergence:

1. Discover (Divergence): Gathering context through literature reviews and benchmarking to understand the problem space.
2. Define (Convergence): Synthesizing those insights into specific design requirements and use cases.
3. Develop (Divergence): Ideating and prototyping multiple solutions to explore interaction possibilities.
4. Deliver (Convergence): Rigorously testing and refining the final artifact.

By mapping the Design Science Research Process (DSRP) entry points to the Double Diamond phases, I’ve created a hybrid workflow. This ensures every creative “spark” during development contributes directly back to the scientific validity of my research.

By following the Design Science Research Process (DSRP) and operationalising it through the Double Diamond framework, I can move from broad discovery to a validated, code-ready design system in Storybook.

In conclusion, by choosing DSR methodology I feel like I found the right “frequency” as it clarifies the path forward and ensures that my final artifact will be both scientifically rigorous and practically useful.

And with that being said, I close the LAST diary entry in the “books”!

Defining the Focus of my Research

Welcome to another entry of my Master’s Diary!

As I move forward into this dissertation research plan, this brings me to a fundamental question regarding my research design: is my focus on the product, the process, the use, or the participants?

This is a nuanced question, as the design of this investigation is a holistic convergence of the final product, the iterative processes of conceptualisation, and the human experiences that validate it. Rather than being siloed into a single dimension, the research aims to balance technical robustness with intuitive, user-centred utility. But, before we explore how these elements intertwine, let’s dissect each potential direction…

What is the focus of the investigation?

A recurring exercise in our academic training is to identify the main direction of a research design:

• Is it mainly about the artifact we create?
• Is it about the process of conceptualising and developing that artifact?
• Is it about the evaluation of its use?
• Or is it primarily about the people who experience it?

While there’s a lot of possible ways to approach this investigation, with all kinds of literatures to corroborate the different choices… when looking at my research as a whole, the investigation revolves around rethinking UX/UI patterns in EQ controllers so that they reconcile technical precision with more intuitive, modular interaction models for a diverse user base. Instead of asking a narrow question about a specific feature, the investigation deliberately weaves everything together into a single, iterative loop where each dimension depends on and reinforces the others, framing a a broad innovation goal: to create a reusable framework and design system for EQ interfaces that can be integrated into Dynacord’s ecosystem and potentially extended to related products.

1. The Artifact (the “Product”)
At its heart, my research is undeniably product‑oriented. DSR assumes that knowledge is generated through the design and evaluation of innovative artefacts that respond to concrete problems in real contexts. In my case, these artefacts are:

• A modular EQ controller integration model that can accommodate different usage scenarios and user profiles.
• A set of high‑fidelity prototypes and a Storybook‑based design system, intended to be code‑ready and reusable by Dynacord’s development teams.

The investigation is anchored in a specific innovation and development problem: current EQ interfaces in professional audio are technically robust but often unintuitive, fragmented and visually overloaded. The artefact is therefore not a decorative output; it is the main vehicle through which the research promises to reduce cognitive load, improve workflow and lay groundwork for future UX/UI consistency across products.

2. The Process (conceptualisation and development)
Nevertheless, a “good” product in academic terms is not only what it does, but also how it is conceived, justified and iterated. This is why the research plan invests so much in the process dimension.

• The DSR cycles (relevance, design, rigor) ensure that each design decision is grounded in both theory and practice while the Double Diamond model structures the overall journey (discover, define, develop, deliver).
• The plan specifies successive phases: benchmarking of existing EQ tools, discovery interviews, requirement synthesis, exploratory prototypes, refined artefacts and final validation, each mapped to clear objectives and outputs.

By documenting these stages, the investigation does not simply “produce” an artefact; it exposes the reasoning, failures, adjustments and trade‑offs that lead to its final form. In a way, the process becomes an object of reflection in itself, potentially reusable as a methodological template for similar UX/UI projects in niche technical domains.

3. The Evaluation and the role of Participants
None of this would make sense if the artefact worked only on paper. The plan therefore places strong emphasis on evaluation of use and on the participants who co‑construct the knowledge generated.

• Usability testing sessions are planned with different participant profiles — expert audio engineers, members of the Dynacord development team and, where possible, less specialised users who still need to interact with the tools.
• Techniques such as observation grids, task‑based testing, Likert‑scale questionnaires and instruments like AttrakDiff are planned to be used in order to assess effectiveness, efficiency, learnability and perceived hedonic qualities of the interfaces.

Participants are not treated as anonymous “subjects” but as carriers of domain expertise and lived practice, especially the professionals who already operate complex audio systems daily. Their feedback influences requirement prioritisation, model refinement and the final UX/UI guidelines that emerge from the project. Ultimately, it is their experience — whether the controller actually helps them think and act faster in real scenarios — that validates the success of the artefact.

So… where does my investigation point?

If forced to choose, the centre of gravity of my research lies in the artefact: the modular EQ controller model and design system that aim to make professional audio tools less exhausting and more intelligible. Yet this centre only exists because it is continuously shaped by a rigorous design process and challenged by the real experiences of participants using the interfaces in context.

In other words, my Master’s project does not sit neatly in only one of the categories. It operates as a symbiotic loop:

• the product crystallises the insights;
• the process structures and justifies them;
• the use exposes their strengths and weaknesses;
• and the participants ground everything in the messy, noisy reality of professional audio work.

In short, this is, perhaps, the most accurate way of describing the focus of my investigation at this stage of the Master’s Diary — an iterative, symbiotic loop!

And with that, one more diary entry is in the “books”!

Applying Exploratory Sequential Design to Professional Audio

As I continue to navigate the intricate process of my Master’s Dissertation, I’ve found myself reflecting deeply on the “how” behind my dissertation. While the “what”, rethinking EQ controllers for Dynacord, has always been clear, pinning down a research design that balances academic rigour with the fast-paced nature of industrial R&D felt like a daunting task.

In our latest classes, we explored how the nature of an investigation object often dictates the methodological path. For someone in a tech-heavy program, the challenge is making research feel like a creative design decision rather than just a dry academic requirement. But how do we do it?

Which research design did I find most interesting?

Among the various mixed-method frameworks we’ve discussed in class, the Exploratory Sequential Design is undoubtedly the most compelling for my specific project (at least for now).

According to the Creswell & Creswell (2018) typology, this is a three-phase design. It begins with the collection and analysis of qualitative data, which then informs the development of a feature or artifact. This artifact is finally subjected to quantitative testing to see if the proposed solution actually improves results.

Why Exploratory Sequential Design?

The appeal of this design lies in its core assumption: that the integration of qualitative and quantitative data yields additional insight beyond what either could provide alone.

In the professional audio industry, tools are often designed around engineering-first mental models rather than user needs. By starting with a qualitative strand, I can explore the actual context and environment of audio engineers, identify their specific “pain points” in digital workflows, and understand their barriers before any development begins. It provides a logical bridge from subjective human experience to objective, measurable performance.

Does it make sense to adapt this design to my study?

It makes perfect sense. In fact, it is pretty similar to the way I have structured my research phases to address the gap between technical excellence and user experience. However, although my plan follows this sequential logic through several interconnected steps, I have adapted its logic to structure the five key phases of my research plan:

• Phase 1 & 2 (Qualitative Exploration): I begin with Benchmarking and Discovery Interviews. The goal here is to map the mental models of professional audio engineers and identify functional and experimental requirements.
• Phase 3 (Prototype Iteration): This is where the qualitative insights are “connected” to development. I will work with the Dynacord team to create functional prototypes, followed by a Preliminary Evaluation involving focus groups and initial usability tests.
• Phase 4 (Artifact Iteration): As the prototypes evolve into a final Artifact, the research shifts toward quantitative testing. By using instruments like Likert scale questionnaires and Attrakdiff, I can statistically measure improvements in user performance and satisfaction across different user profiles.
• Phase 5 (Documentation): Throughout this sequence, I am systematically recording design decisions and findings to ensure the research is transparent and rigorous

In conclusion, by using this Exploratory Sequential approach, I can ensure that my final design system isn’t just “aesthetic,” but is grounded in empirical evidence and professional reality.

And with that being said, I close one more diary entry is in the “books”!

A theoretical exploration of how we can interact with, visualize, and perceive the research theme.

And… We are officially halfway through my Master’s Diary!
Now it comes the time to start narrowing the focus and highlighting the theories, methods, models and authors that I believe are most relevant to my investigation. For that, I needed to carry out an extensive literature review of articles, books and other published work, in order to identify which perspectives genuinely help me understand, and redesign, UX/UI patterns in professional EQ tools.

After careful research, I have identified the three primary pillars I’m focusing on: Design Science Research (Hevner/Peffers), UX/IxD/UCD (Norman, Cooper, ISO 9241‑210), and systemic/modular design frameworks (Frost and Design Systems).

1. Design Science Research

Primary References: Hevner (2004), Peffers et al. (2007)

Design Science Research is a methodology where the primary outcome is not just theoretical explanation but a set of artifacts — in this case, an EQ controllers integration model, interface prototypes and a documented design system (artifacts).

Hevner’s cycles, together with Peffers’ process model provide the methodological backbone that links Dynacord’s industrial context, the theoretical framework and the iterative prototyping and testing phases. But what are those?

Hevner’s Three Cycles
To better explain how this functions, we look at Hevner’s framework as a triad of continuous loops:

• The Relevance Cycle: This connects the research to the “Environment.” For you, this means the professional audio world — engineers in high-pressure live environments who need to make split-second EQ adjustments.
• The Rigor Cycle: This draws from the “Knowledge Base” of existing scientific foundations and grounded expertise. You are not “guessing” a design; you are building it upon established UX laws and DSP constraints.
• The Design Cycle: This is the internal loop of prototyping and evaluation. It is where you build the EQ controllers and test them, refining the artifact until it meets the requirements identified in the Relevance cycle.

Peffers’ Process Model (DSRM)
Peffers provides the Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM), which offers a structured six-step mental model:

1. Problem Identification: Defining why current EQ interfaces fail (e.g., high cognitive load).
2. Objectives of a Solution: What should a “better” EQ interface achieve?
3. Design & Development: Creating the modular framework.
4. Demonstration: Using the framework in a specific Dynacord context (e.g., SONICUE).
5. Evaluation: Measuring its success against the objectives.
6. Communication: Documenting the findings for both the academic community and Dynacord’s developers.

This reference is essential because it legitimises the work as prescriptive knowledge production — guidelines and reusable components - rather than merely a descriptive UX study, placing the dissertation within the Design Science tradition in Information Systems and engineering where Dynacord’s products sit.

2. UX, Interaction Design and User‑Centred Design

Primary References: Norman (2013), Cooper (2014), ISO 9241–210

The core problem identified in the project I’m planning to develop is the gap between technical excellence and user experience in professional EQ tools, expressed through dense interfaces, high cognitive load and limited attention to accessibility and diverse user profiles. Therefore, in order to tackle this issues in a UX/UI perspective, I needed to understand some concepts and evaluate what frameworks/methodologies make the most sense to follow. I decided to adopt the following:

• UX Frameworks: Definitions from Nielsen & Norman and the ISO 9241–210 standard help frame EQ controllers as part of a holistic experience that must be useful, usable, and accessible.
• Interaction Principles: Don Norman’s principles — visibility, feedback, mapping, constraints, consistency, and affordances — provide the criteria for analyzing existing shortcomings in EQ interfaces.
• Methodology: The UCD cycle (understanding context → specifying requirements → designing solutions → evaluating against requirements) shapes the discovery phase, including benchmarking, focus groups, and usability testing.

This body of work is central because it ensures that the modular framework remains genuinely user‑centred, responding to the needs and limitations of installers, system engineers and occasional operators rather
than focusing solely on DSP mathematics.

3. Systemic and modular design frameworks

Primary References: Brad Frost (Atomic Design), Design Systems authors

The proposed solution is a modular framework for EQ controllers designed for cross-platform reuse (SONICUE, VZX, MARC, etc.). The goal is to reduce pattern fragmentation and ensure a coherent evolution across the ecosystem.

Brad Frost’s Atomic Design methodology, which decomposes interfaces into atoms, molecules, organisms, templates and pages, aligns directly with the goal of turning EQ bands, controls, visualisations and presets into recombinable components (e.g., an “atom” is a single gain knob; an “organism” is a full parametric EQ band).

This approach is critical because it translates the “EQ controllers integration model” into concrete implementation practices: component inventories, tokenisation, pattern libraries, governance and the use of Storybook to document and ship code‑ready components to development teams and other Dynacord products.

Why these three?

Taken together, these three blocks cover the three layers the mian investigation must connect: method (Design Science Research), experience and interaction (UX/IxD/UCD) and scalable materialisation in product (design systems and Atomic Design).

Design Science Research guarantees that the project produces artifacts that are useful and evaluated in real contexts; UX/IxD/UCD ensures that these artifacts address concrete usability and experience issues in EQ controllers; systemic and modular frameworks make it possible to package the result into components and guidelines that can live beyond the dissertation within the Dynacord ecosystem.

By choosing these three pillars, the dissertation makes explicit that the focus is not on discussing equalisation in the abstract, but on building a replicable path from an industrial problem, through interaction theory, to practical implementation in design systems.

A less positive point… the gap in EQ‑focused UX research

One important limitation of the field, and one of the reason on why I didn’t mention authors related to Audio Systems, is that most existing literature on equalisers and audio tools is highly technical, centred on DSP, filter architectures, system performance and mixing practice, with very little systematic attention to UX or UI patterns. While these texts cover frequency response and phase coherence in depth, they rarely address:

• How these parameters are represented visually to reduce cognitive load.
• How interaction patterns support “safe” auditory decision-making in high-pressure live environments.
• How different user personas (from expert system engineers to occasional operators) interpret complex data visualizations.

This lack of dialogue between technical depth and user experience is both an opportunity and a challenge: it forces many design decisions to be extrapolated from generic UX and IxD theories rather than from a mature body of EQ‑specific UX research, increasing the effort needed to translate between domains and making rigorous user validation of each design iteration even more crucial.

And with that, one more diary entry is in the “books”!

Conceptual mapping of the research theme and its core pillars.

Welcome back to the third entry of my Master’s Diary. Following my exploration of the epistemological landscape and the reasoning behind my dissertation theme, the next step is to characterize my research problem (or, in my case, my main innovation and development goal). To do this, I have developed a concept map that visualizes the complex tensions between technical engineering and user-centered design within the world of professional audio tools.

Below is a breakdown of the conceptual map and a descriptive narrative explaining how these elements interconnect to define the core of my dissertation: “Beyond the Curve: Rethinking UX/UI Patterns in Audio Tools (EQ Controllers)”

The concept map is my way of unpacking the Main Goal into a structured research landscape that doubles as a roadmap for the project. At the centre, I place the ambition to develop a modular UX/UI framework for professional EQ controllers, and from there I expand into five pillars that answer the key questions of why, where, what, how, and who.

1. The Problem (“Why”): This pillar identifies the “pain points” the research must solve, such as high cognitive load and the tension between technical robustness and ease of use.

1. The Domain (“Where”): This branch contextualises the research within the real-world environments where Dynacord products live, specifically the distinction between Live Sound (high pressure) and Installed Sound. Live Sound is characterised by high‑pressure, real‑time adjustment in noisy, time‑critical conditions, whereas Installed Sound focuses on complex, long‑term configuration, often carried out remotely and with more time for planning. This branch also implicitly acknowledges interaction constraints such as hardware‑centric control surfaces versus touch‑based or mouse‑based software, reminding that any framework must work across very different physical and situational contexts.

1. The Specificity (“What”): This section focus one the technical DNA of an equaliser, detailing the parameters (Gain, Q-factor, Frequency) and user tasks (Feedback suppression, Tone shaping) that the interface must facilitate. By doing this, I define exactly what the interface must allow users to see, understand, and manipulate, and I highlight the inherently multi‑dimensional nature of EQ work: engineers often need to view and adjust several parameters simultaneously while maintaining a clear mental model of the overall response.

1. The Framework (“How”): This represents your proposed solution methodology. I plan to design/develop a scalable, modular Design System, by adopting Atomic Design principles (Atoms, Molecules, Organisms) and combine them with UI/UX patterns such as progressive disclosure, visual hierarchy, and feedback loops. The goal is to build a modular, scalable system in which an “EQ molecule” can be instantiated consistently across different product families, screen sizes, and interaction modalities (rotary encoders, touch, mouse), without losing clarity, usability, or technical robustness. This pillar translates the abstract research goal into a concrete strategy for structuring and prototyping interface concepts.

1. The Participants (“Who”): This final branch identifies the ecosystem of people surrounding these tools, from the Dynacord development team (hardware and software engineers, designers, product owners) to a spectrum of end‑users: expert audio engineers, system technicians, installers, and venue staff. By mapping these roles, I acknowledge that the problem is socio‑technical: I am not just designing controls for isolated individuals, but mediating between organisational constraints, engineering realities, and diverse user needs and skill levels in the field.

Taken together, the five pillars allow me to characterise the research problem as three interconnected challenges. First, there is a cognitive challenge: managing information overload by designing visual hierarchies and feedback mechanisms that let engineers access essential EQ parameters and state cues without being swamped, particularly in live contexts. Second, there is an architectural challenge: balancing scalability and consistency across Dynacord’s product range by defining a modular framework and design system that provide a shared interaction language while adapting to different devices and inputs. Third, there is an ergonomic challenge, reconciling the tactile certainty and muscle memory of hardware controls with the visual richness and flexibility of modern touch‑ and screen‑based interfaces.

In short, the concept map is not just a diagram of topics; it is a structured articulation of how my main goal unfolds into a set of design‑research questions that span cognition, architecture, ergonomics, and stakeholder needs. It gives me a clear, holistic view of the problem space and a roadmap for how modular EQ controller concepts can become the material expression of a broader, user‑centred UX/UI framework for Dynacord’s professional audio tools.

And with that, one more diary entry is in the “books”!

Aligning professional experience with a chosen path of inquiry.

Following my initial dive into the epistemological foundations of my research, I now can move from the ‘how’ of knowing to the ‘what’ of doing. This entry is a reflection on the “why” behind my chosen path and a first look at the identities this project might take..

Why this theme?

Choosing a research topic for a dissertation is often a headache because we are expected to find a subject that is academically relevant, original, and feasible, while also sustaining our motivation over a long period of time.

I’m a working student, and already have some years of experience in the Digital Product Design, so I knew from the beginning that I wanted to conduct my dissertation as an applied project within a corporate context. More specifically, within my work at Dynacord, professional audio solutions manufacturer. This choice was deeply intentional for several reasons:

• My research would be directly related to the field I already work in, Sound Systems.
• By aligning my academic project with the products I handle daily, I significantly reduce the mental fatigue of constantly switching between disparate themes.
• Being embedded in the industry grants me immediate contact with key-users, developers, and stakeholders who provide high-density, relevant feedback.

The search for a theme began when I started questioning my Colleagues and Leads at work about the ideas and challenges they wanted to see addressed in our products. The feedback was really interesting and even seemed fun and exciting — assuming, of course, that I could manage to actually pull it off. No pressure, right?

My investigation is rooted in a persistent dissonance observed daily in the professional audio industry: the gap between technical excellence and user experience. Many current tools are born from an engineering-first culture, prioritising precision and technical capability while underutilising established UX/UI principles.

Historically, audio tools have been designed around complex engineering mental models, leading to several recurring challenges… Feature bloat produces cluttered interfaces and dense layouts that overwhelm users and obscure core functionality. Skeuomorphic design approaches replicate legacy hardware, frequently wasting valuable screen space without meaningful benefit in modern digital contexts. Additionally, steep learning curves persist, as many tools assume expert knowledge and provide minimal onboarding or guidance for less experienced users.

This fragmentation is also evident at Dynacord, where the absence of a standardized design system means each product introduces its own interaction patterns and visual conventions, resulting in an inconsistent user experience across the product ecosystem.

Recognising this misalignment between advanced technical capability and the intuitive needs of users made the choice of theme remarkably swift. Furthermore, to keep the scope focused and manageable, we explored the idea of starting “small” by concentrating on a specific audio tool: the EQ Controller.

For those who don’t know what that is… let me be of assistance!

The Equalizer Controller

An EQ (Equalizer) controller is a tool used in audio production to shape the tonal balance of sound. It allows users to boost or reduce specific frequency ranges, such as bass, mids, or highs, to improve clarity, remove unwanted resonances, or creatively color the sound.

In practice, an EQ controller is the interface layer that lets users interact with complex signal-processing algorithms. This interaction can take many forms: draggable points on a frequency graph, knobs and sliders for gain and bandwidth, numerical inputs, or visual feedback like spectrum analyzers. While the underlying math is highly technical, the controller’s job is to make those adjustments intuitive, fast, and reliable in real-world workflows.

For audio professionals, EQ controllers are among the most frequently used tools, often touched hundreds of times per session, making their usability, consistency, and clarity especially critical.

Seems complex — and it is!

My goal is to prove that technical robustness and visual clarity can coexist. By creating a structured design system with modular, consistent components that can be used across different products (without losing engineering precision or functional depth), I hope to strengthen workflows for both seasoned professionals and users who may not have extensive knowledge in the field.

This work involves redesigning the EQs interface by applying advanced UX/UI principles to improve efficiency and accessibility while preserving technical accuracy. Additionally, developing a cohesive set of guidelines for Dynacord and its sister-brand, Electro-Voice, to ensure consistency and collaboration across products and teams.

What are the Title Hypotheses?

A title is more than a label, it’s the first contact with the reader so it needs to be clear about what the research intends to deliver. At this stage, I am considering three main hypotheses:

1. “Beyond the Curve: Rethinking UX/UI Patterns in Audio Tools (EQ Controllers)”
   Current working title, focusing on the need to move past traditional, cluttered layouts. Balanced and readable; clearly names the domain and object of study.
2. “Beyond the Curve: Bridging Technical Precision and User Experience in Professional Audio EQ Controllers”
   Strongly communicates the core problem and contribution.
3. “Beyond the Curve: Redefining the Interface of Professional Audio Tools through Structured Design Systems for EQ Controllers”
   Academic and precise; well-suited if your dissertation emphasises methodology and systems

And with that, one more diary entry is in the books!

Bridging the gap between industry experience and the theoretical foundations of research.

There’s something humbling about going back to school after working in the industry. You go from being the one with the answers to the person asking the questions. I’ve found that the bridge between ‘doing’ design and ‘theorizing’ about it is much wider than I anticipated.

Currently, I’m navigating a Master’s program, starting my dissertation and as part of my coursework we have a subject that dives deep into the theory about methodologies and processes. To encourage us to document our evolving perspectives, the professor, every other class, set us a topic to write about in a blog post, related to the theory studied during that class.

In order to address the challenge, I decided to turn my posts into series called Masters Diary. It’s a way for me to process complex research and design concepts and to show the “behind the scenes” of a designer’s brain during their dissertation process.

What is epistemology?

We started by a breakdown of the different epistemological positions.

In research, epistemology is basically the study of knowledge,: What do we know, and how do we know it? For a designer, this translates to: How do we know what the user really needs?

Research perspectives exist on a spectrum between two poles:

• Objectivism/Positivism: Reality is external, measurable, and independent of the observer.
• Constructivism/Interpretivism: Reality is not a separate entity; it is constructed through human experience and social context.

To find where we stand as researchers, it helps to look at the four primary lenses used to view the world.

• Positivism (The Scientist): The belief in a single, objective reality. It relies on quantitative data, logic, and controlled experiments to find universal truths.
• Interpretivism (The Ethnographer): The belief that reality is socially constructed. It prioritizes the “human story” through interviews, feelings, and the specific context of a person’s life.
• Pragmatism (The Problem-Solver): A focus on practical outcomes. Pragmatists don’t get hung up on the “nature of truth”; they use whatever tools — qualitative or quantitative — are necessary to solve a specific problem.
• Critical Theory (The Reformer): The belief that knowledge is power. This perspective looks at how social, political, and economic structures influence the user experience, often aiming to empower marginalized groups.

Understanding our “default” position help us recognize our biases. If we’re a strict Positivist, we might ignore the emotional context of a user’s struggle. If you are a strict Interpretivist, we might struggle to scale your findings to a larger population. And that’s why most modern designers occupy the Pragmatist space. Nevertheless, the most effective ones move fluidly across the spectrum depending on the phase of the project.

The Epistemological Test

As part of this module, with the objective of questioning our approach, we were to take a test to identify our own research position. My result? Positivist… really?

I’ll be honest: when I saw “Science Seeker,” I was skeptical, as I always considered myself a Pragmatist. I’ve never been a “rigid” scientist in my life (just ask my team hahahah), I’m merely a designer who wants to ship products that work, so how can I be a Positivist?

Perhaps because, as I’m working on my dissertation, I’m currently focusing on rigor? Or maybe because of how I approach validation in general? As a designer, I don’t just “guess.” I trust in observation. In UX, when we look at an A/B test or user tests, we are essentially looking for an objective truth, a “winning” version, to shape our next move. So, while I feel I’m solution-oriented, the way I reach those solutions, through testing, data, and evidence, is partially “scientific”. I want the most accurate data possible to ensure I’m not building something useless. Makes sense, right?

However, for me, design isn’t about finding a “universal truth.” It’s about finding a “functional truth” for a specific user at a specific time.

Do over…

That being said, I decided to redo the test again, reading each question with more focus, to see if I get the Pragmatistic approach (mind you, I answered truthfully still). However, this time around? Critical Realist… what is this?

According to the theory, Critical Realist is a middle ground. This means I believe that while a real world exists independently of my thoughts, I can never observe it with 100% perfection. Our knowledge and understanding will always limited and “filtered” through our own biases, language, and culture (or, in this case, be colored by the tools I use and my own perspective as a designer).

Honestly, I’m still not sure the test is entirely correct, although more aligned with what I believe in, therefore more acceptable (in my humble opinion hahah). But like I said, I always considered myself a Pragmatist and the truth is that, at work, “truth” is usually whatever helps us ship a better product. But then again, maybe I’m looking at things wrong or still not quite understanding the differences of such positions.

After some thorough research, in the world of epistemology, these concepts (Critical Realism and Pragmatism) actually mean something slightly different than our everyday use. Perhaps, Critical Realism can explain why I think of myself as a pragmatist?

In UX, we often deal with “realist” data, but as a designer, I know that data is “critical”, it’s filtered through the UI built, the user’s mood, and even our own bias in how we set up the test. There is a “best” solution for a user (realism), but we have to keep questioning our findings because our perspective is limited (criticality). Therefore, knowing this, I believe I can say I am a Pragmatist who uses Critical Realism, because I know that “truth” in design is elusive, so I focus on what produces the best results. I look for the truth of the user experience, but I’m “critical” enough to know that my data and my prototypes are only part of a much larger, more complex picture. And if that is the case, then I’m happy with my results and can accept being a Critical Realist wholeheartedly.

Opportunities and Challenges in my Research

Moving forward, and opting to embrace Critical Realism as a researcher, provides a very balanced framework for my dissertations’ goal.

Unlike a strict Positivist, being a Critical Realist means I won’t just look at a number and assume it’s the whole truth. It allows me to look for the “underlying structures” (why is the user behaving this way?) rather than just the surface-level metrics. It reminds me that my research isn’t infallible and gives me the freedom to use a mix of methods. I can value a usability test (the “Realism”) while acknowledging that the environment and my presence might have influenced the result (the “Critical” part). It encourages a culture of constant iteration because I accept that my rounds of research might have missed the “deeper reality” of the user’s needs.

Unfortunately, not everything is is sunshine and rainbows and I could also face some challenges. Critical Realism is messy; it admits that we might only ever see a partial view of the truth. This can make it harder to reach a definitive “final” design because I’m are trying to balance data with subjective experience. What happens in this case? The research process can become much more time-consuming than just looking at a spreadsheet. Plus, Stakeholders love certainty and being a Critical Realist means admitting that “the data shows X, but there are other factors at play,” which can be a harder sell in a fast-paced environment.

And… That’s it!

This is my first “Master’s Diary” entry. This first has already changed how I view my process, by allowing me to see that research isn’t just about picking a method; it’s about understanding the philosophy that guide our choices. I might still feel like a Pragmatist at heart, but I’m learning that a little bit of “Critical Realism” might be what I need.

Plus, the goal remains the same: to create designs that aren’t just based on assumptions, but on a deep, critical understanding of reality!