Choose one track. Master’s proposals target Spring 2027. Final scope and programme approval are agreed with the supervisor; bachelor scopes are suggested adaptations.
TRACK 01 · IMPLEMENTATION INCLUDED
Technical track
Develop a working solution and test whether it addresses the problem.
Possible research question
How can source-linked, uncertainty-aware decision support help people interpret information after a tick bite and recognise when professional assessment is needed?
Suggested tasks
Read research on guidance after tick bites and compare existing solutions.
Identify one problem faced by members of the public and healthcare professionals.
Write a research question and define what the solution should do.
Collect and date a small set of Norwegian public-health guidance on tick bites.
Build a question-and-answer guide that links to its sources, records relevant timing and explains uncertainty and when to seek professional advice. Do not automate diagnosis.
Compare it with the original information pages using clinician-reviewed fictional cases. Study understanding and the ability to find relevant information.
Explain what worked, what did not, and how the results compare with earlier research.
Evaluation, degree scope and deliverables
Study and evaluation
Compare the implemented solution with ordinary public-health information pages using the same source material. Combine reproducible technical tests with an appropriate empirical evaluation.
Agreement with clinician-reviewed expected actions in synthetic cases
Missed referral needs, false reassurance and unnecessary escalation
Comprehension, time to find relevant guidance and recognition of uncertainty
Degree scope
Bachelor’s
Build an accessible, rule-based guide for a small set of reviewed synthetic tick-bite scenarios. Show source links and a symptom timeline; evaluate navigation, source traceability and comprehension.
Master’s
Investigate how source traceability and uncertainty presentation affect interpretation and appropriate help-seeking in controlled scenarios. Compare against ordinary guidance pages, holding clinical content constant and separately analysing false reassurance and unnecessary escalation.
Background
Programming and web development
Information modelling or rule systems
Interest in health communication and user research
Possible deliverables
A focused literature review, justified problem and research question
A working prototype with source code and setup instructions
A reproducible comparison and an appropriate study of use
A report explaining design lessons, results and limitations
TRACK 02 · NO IMPLEMENTATION REQUIRED
Non-technical track
Study existing systems, information or work practices. You do not need to develop software.
Possible research question
How do people interpret guidance after a tick bite, and which information gaps affect their decision to seek professional advice?
Suggested tasks
Read earlier studies of guidance after tick bites.
Choose one problem and write a research question the study can answer.
Compare existing Norwegian public-health information pages for clarity, source visibility and uncertainty.
Conduct think-aloud tasks with clinician-reviewed fictional tick-bite scenarios; no new advice system is required.
Interview participants about what they understand, what remains unclear and why they would seek further help.
Analyse the interviews, observations or documents using a clearly described method. Look for disagreements as well as common patterns.
Explain the findings, compare them with earlier research and suggest practical improvements.
Evaluation, degree scope and deliverables
Study and evaluation
Use a bounded empirical study of guidance after tick bites. Justify case selection, recruitment and the analysis method. Distinguish observed behaviour from participants’ perceptions; use triangulation or a comparison where it serves the research question.
Comprehension and help-seeking reasoning against clinician-reviewed cases
False reassurance, uncertainty and gaps in accessible information
Evidence for the findings, conflicting cases and limits of the study
Degree scope
Bachelor’s
Study one case or a small set of existing materials. Agree the interviews, documents or scenario tasks with the supervisor. Describe the method, analyse the findings and give practical recommendations.
Master’s
Use a clear research question and relevant IS theory. Justify the cases, participants and analysis method. Explain what the findings add to earlier research and where they may apply. No software development is required.
Background
Literature review and academic writing
Qualitative or quantitative research methods
Interest in guidance after tick bites; no programming prerequisite
Possible deliverables
A literature review and research question
A study plan and approved research material
An analysis supported by interviews, observations, documents or scenario results
A thesis with findings, recommendations and limitations
Scope and access
Secure a qualified clinical reviewer before evaluating the advice logic. Freeze and date the guidance used in the study. Use synthetic scenarios and avoid collecting real health information in the minimum prototype. Do not diagnose borreliosis or TBE, classify skin photographs, prescribe medication or claim clinical effectiveness from a usability study. These implementation-related limits apply when developing or testing a technical solution. For a non-technical study, agree access to participants or existing materials early, use approved or fictional cases where appropriate, and distinguish perceptions from observed outcomes.
Agree access to data, participants or existing materials and any required ethics or privacy review before committing. A non-technical track needs a systematic study, not a working prototype.
This proposal examines guidance after tick bites in the work and information needs of members of the public and healthcare professionals. The technical track combines a literature review and justified gap with requirements, design, implementation and evaluation of a bounded solution. The non-technical track investigates practices, experiences or organisational conditions through a systematic study of existing systems, documents or scenarios, without requiring implementation. Choose one track and agree the final research question, degree scope and contribution with the supervisor.
Programme fit
Information Systems. These are suggested research approaches, not a statement of confirmed programme policy. Agree the final title, track, degree scope and contribution with the supervisor and programme.
Shared research foundation
Review the literature; identify and justify a gap; formulate research questions; conduct a systematic study; analyse the evidence; explain the contribution relative to prior research and discuss limitations. The technical track additionally includes requirements, design, implementation and evaluation of an artifact.
