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 citizens and caseworkers understand requirements and missing information without mistaking uncertain AI output for an authoritative decision?
Suggested tasks
Read research on digital public-service guidance and compare existing solutions.
Identify one problem faced by citizens and caseworkers.
Write a research question and define what the solution should do.
Select and date a small set of public-service guidance documents.
Build an assistant that answers questions using those documents, links to its sources and asks for missing information.
Compare it with ordinary document search. Test whether users find correct answers and recognise when they need human help.
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 document search and a retrieval assistant without explicit rule checks. Combine reproducible technical tests with an appropriate empirical evaluation.
Answer correctness and unsupported claims
Clarification quality
Users’ recognition of limitations and consistency across equivalent cases
Degree scope
Bachelor’s
Build a source-linked guide for one artificial public-service process. Include missing-information prompts and test common citizen journeys.
Master’s
Compare retrieval with and without explicit rule checks using domain-reviewed cases that vary wording, ambiguity and completeness.
Background
Programming
Information retrieval or LLM integration
Interest in accessible public services
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 citizens and caseworkers judge the clarity and authority of AI-assisted public-service guidance?
Suggested tasks
Read earlier studies of digital public-service guidance.
Choose one problem and write a research question the study can answer.
Compare existing guidance pages and source-linked examples for one bounded public-service process.
Use fictional cases to study how participants interpret requirements, missing information and uncertain answers.
Interview users about accessibility, trust, contestability and the need for human contact.
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 digital public-service guidance. 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 recognition of non-authoritative guidance
Information barriers, trust and human-referral expectations
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 digital public-service guidance; 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
Use artificial policies or frozen, reviewed guidance. The system must not determine eligibility. A small study cannot establish broad fairness or legal compliance. 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.
Full academic proposal
Working topic
Traceable AI Assistance for Accessing Public Services
Brief outline
This proposal examines digital public-service guidance in the work and information needs of citizens and caseworkers. 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.
