Tampere University Accessibility and Diversity in Digital Services Master’s Thesis Guide: 30 ECTS, SDL.580 and Trepo

What this guide covers

Tampere University’s Accessibility and Diversity in Digital Services (ADDS) specialisation sits inside the Master’s Programme in Sustainable Societies and Digitalisation and leads to the Master of Social Sciences degree. The current degree is 120 ECTS and the ADDS advanced-studies module, ADDS-S01, is at least 80 ECTS.

Its thesis route is unusually integrated. Current Tampere programme material describes 5 ECTS of project work, a 5 ECTS thesis seminar, and a 30 ECTS master’s thesis. The project is designed to develop across the degree and feed into the thesis. The current thesis seminar is SDL.580 Master’s Thesis Seminar, worth 5 ECTS and graded pass/fail. The thesis itself follows Tampere’s non-technical master’s-thesis process and uses the general 0–5 grading scale.

That separation matters. This is not TLME’s 40-credit combined thesis-and-seminar unit and it is not a Technology diplomityö simply because the thesis happens to carry 30 credits.

Programme and degree structure

ADDS is an English-language specialisation organised by the Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences. The broader Sustainable Societies and Digitalisation programme contains academically independent specialisations, and ADDS has its own study profile focused on accessibility, diversity and inclusive digital society.

The current ADDS-S01 advanced-studies module is at least 80 ECTS. Its learning outcomes include identifying accessibility needs and problems, communicating inclusively, testing and evaluating accessibility, collaborating with stakeholders, and contributing to emerging accessibility practice.

The programme deliberately goes beyond narrow web-compliance training. Tampere describes accessibility across culture, media, games, communication and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality. A thesis can therefore address social, communicative, design, policy, evaluation or technological dimensions, provided the question remains academically focused.

The project, seminar and thesis are separate components

The most useful way to understand the current structure is:

• accessibility project work: 5 ECTS;
• SDL.580 Master’s Thesis Seminar: 5 ECTS, pass/fail;
• master’s thesis: 30 ECTS, graded 0–5.

The programme is project-based, and the project is intended to continue through the studies and ideally evolve into the thesis. That does not mean the thesis itself is 40 ECTS. It means the programme builds a longer research-and-development pathway around a 30-credit assessed thesis.

It also does not mean that the stakeholder project and thesis must be identical. A project may generate a practical service, prototype, accessibility audit, content intervention or collaboration outcome, while the thesis must still frame a research problem, position it in literature, use a defensible method, analyse evidence and reach academically bounded conclusions.

SDL.580 Master’s Thesis Seminar

The current SDL.580 Master’s Thesis Seminar is 5 ECTS, taught in English and graded pass/fail. Tampere states that the seminar begins during the first study year in spring and continues throughout the second year. Participation in seminar sessions is compulsory.

The seminar develops research through peer reading, argument-based commenting and presentation of students’ own papers and projects. This makes it much more than a final presentation course. It is a long-form support structure for turning an early accessibility project into a defensible master’s-level research contribution.

Use the seminar deliberately. Present the research question early enough for peers to challenge it. Bring methodological decisions before data collection becomes irreversible. Treat feedback about accessibility, participant representation and stakeholder assumptions as research feedback, not only as design feedback.

What can an ADDS thesis investigate?

The current programme supports a broad accessibility field. Defensible topics can include digital-service accessibility, accessible communication, culture and media accessibility, game accessibility, inclusive user experience, assistive or emerging technologies, accessible AI, virtual or augmented environments, public-service accessibility, content accessibility, accessibility governance, or stakeholder practices.

A strong topic is narrower than “accessibility in AI” or “making websites accessible.” It identifies a population, service, context, barrier, intervention or evaluation problem, then defines what evidence can answer the question.

Examples of research logic include comparing how different user groups encounter a service; evaluating whether an intervention improves a defined accessibility outcome; studying how organisations implement accessibility requirements; analysing accessible communication practices; testing a prototype with suitable participants; or synthesising existing evidence about a specific accessibility problem.

The thesis does not have to be a software project

Tampere’s non-technical master’s-thesis framework permits empirical research or a review of existing research literature. ADDS is project-based, but that does not convert every thesis into software engineering.

Depending on the research question, methods can include interviews, focus groups, surveys, observations, accessibility testing, usability evaluation, expert evaluation, content or document analysis, qualitative coding, comparative case study, mixed methods, design research, technical accessibility audits, prototype evaluation or systematic literature work.

The programme’s technical dimension should therefore be used when it helps answer the question. A WCAG audit may be relevant, but WCAG compliance alone is not the full ADDS intellectual scope. Tampere explicitly treats accessibility as a human and societal issue as well as a technical one.

Turn a stakeholder project into research

ADDS students can work with external stakeholders throughout the programme. That creates valuable access to real services and problems, but it also creates a common thesis risk: producing an excellent project deliverable without producing an academic argument.

Separate four things in your plan: the stakeholder need, the project deliverable, the research question, and the evidence used to answer it. These may overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

For example, a collaborator may want a redesigned service. The academic thesis could instead ask which barriers users encounter, how a design intervention changes task completion, or what organisational constraints shape accessibility implementation. The redesign is then part of the research setting, not the conclusion by itself.

Agree publication boundaries early. A collaborator can influence practical scope, access and implementation, but the student remains responsible for the academic thesis and Tampere’s examination requirements.

Accessibility should apply to the research process itself

An accessibility thesis should not study inclusion through an inaccessible research process. If participants include people with disabilities, plan recruitment, consent materials, communication, interview formats, testing environments and scheduling so participation is realistically accessible.

Avoid assuming that one accessibility format fits everyone. Some participants may need plain language, screen-reader compatible documents, captioning, sign-language interpretation, alternative input methods, additional time, remote participation or environmental adjustments. What is necessary depends on the actual participants and method.

Document these choices as methodological decisions. Accessibility accommodations can affect recruitment, data collection and interpretation, and therefore belong in the research design rather than in a final administrative note.

Personal data and disability-related information

Accessibility research can involve personal data even when the project is not framed as health research. Interviews, recordings, usability sessions, screen captures, demographic information or contextual details can identify participants.

If you collect personal data, agree the processing procedures with your supervisor before collection. Tampere’s guidance requires the purpose, scope and nature of processing to be described in the research plan. Prepare privacy information and consent materials where needed, minimise the data collected, use approved tools and anonymise data when identity is unnecessary.

Do not collect disability status simply because the thesis is about accessibility. Collect only information that is necessary to answer the research question. In small or specialised communities, combinations of contextual details can make people identifiable even after names are removed.

Research ethics and representation

ADDS topics often involve groups whose experiences have historically been interpreted by institutions or designers without sufficient participation. Methodological quality therefore includes how the thesis frames people, disability and accessibility.

Avoid treating participants as a single homogeneous “disabled user” group. State who is represented, who is not, how participants were recruited and what limitations this creates. Distinguish observed evidence from researcher assumptions.

If the thesis is part of a larger scientific research project, the project’s principal investigator may be responsible for ethical review where required. Discuss any uncertainty with the supervisor before data collection.

Supervisors and academic responsibility

Tampere appoints one or two supervisors, including a primary supervisor. The primary supervisor is normally drawn from staff responsible for advanced studies or other relevant teaching and research personnel.

An external collaborator may provide practical supervision, access and feedback, but does not replace the University’s academic supervision. The student remains responsible for completing the thesis.

Bring concrete decisions to supervision meetings: your research question, evidence plan, recruitment strategy, accessibility accommodations, analysis method, publication constraints and current writing. This allows feedback to change the project before the expensive parts are fixed.

Research plan and scope control

Tampere expects a preliminary research plan that is refined through the thesis process. For ADDS, the plan should explain background, research question, theoretical or conceptual framing, stakeholder context, method, participant or data strategy, accessibility arrangements, analysis, ethics/data protection, expected contribution, timetable and project risks.

A useful scope test is whether the thesis can still answer its main question if one practical deliverable is smaller than hoped. If the academic claim depends entirely on a large prototype or partner deployment that may not happen, the thesis is operationally fragile.

Set a fallback route for recruitment difficulties, stakeholder delays or inaccessible test environments. A narrower study with traceable evidence is usually stronger than a broad project that cannot be completed or analysed convincingly.

Validation for audits, prototypes and evaluations

A prototype, accessibility report or automated audit is not automatically a research result. The thesis must explain what was evaluated, according to which criteria, how evidence was gathered and what limitations affect the conclusion.

Automated accessibility tools can be useful, but many accessibility problems require human judgment or user evidence. If an automated checker is used, state what it can and cannot detect. If participant testing is used, describe tasks, environment, participant characteristics and analysis sufficiently for the examiner to understand the evidence.

For design interventions, define the intended accessibility outcome before evaluating it. Do not choose success metrics only after seeing the results.

When a thesis combines technical conformance testing with participant evidence, keep the two evidence layers distinct. A service can satisfy a technical criterion yet remain difficult for a participant in a real task, while a positive experience from a small participant sample does not prove universal technical compliance. Explain what each method can support and avoid making one evidence source carry a broader claim than it can justify.

If the project compares versions of a service, document the relevant environment and version carefully. Browser, device, assistive technology, language, content state and authentication flow can materially affect an accessibility result. Recording these conditions improves reproducibility and makes later disagreements about findings easier to interpret.

Writing the thesis

The thesis should be clearly organised and follow research ethics and academic-writing principles. Use programme or faculty templates where provided and follow current seminar/supervisor instructions.

A practical structure is introduction and research problem; relevant literature and concepts; context and stakeholder setting where needed; method and ethics/data protection; results; analysis/discussion; limitations; conclusions; and appendices only where they support transparency without exposing restricted personal data.

The exact structure depends on method. A design-oriented thesis may integrate iterative development and evaluation, while a literature thesis may organise findings thematically. The structure should make the research logic visible.

AI use in an ADDS thesis

Tampere permits AI support under defined rules, but thesis use must be agreed with the primary supervisor and acknowledged appropriately. Students must not upload confidential information or personal data to external AI services.

AI-generated material is not a scholarly source. The student remains responsible for analysis. Current Tampere guidance allows AI-supported discussion and certain learning tasks but does not allow outsourcing the student’s analysis or asking AI to rewrite or complete the thesis draft.

For ADDS, the same caution applies to AI-generated code, alt text, captions, accessibility recommendations or synthetic test content. Generated material must be verified against the actual research objective and accessibility requirements. An AI-produced accessibility claim is not evidence simply because it sounds plausible.

Maturity test

A maturity test is part of the master’s thesis process. If the relevant Finnish or Swedish language proficiency was already assessed in an earlier degree, the master’s thesis abstract normally serves as the maturity test and only content is assessed.

When language checking is required, the student follows the separate electronic EXAM route. If the maturity test is not demonstrating Finnish or Swedish proficiency, it is written in the language of the thesis according to the applicable rules.

Check the maturity implementation registered for you rather than assuming that every international student follows exactly the same route.

Turnitin before Trepo

After the final revisions and primary-supervisor permission, submit the thesis to Turnitin for the originality check. The supervisor reviews the Similarity Report. A similarity percentage is not an automatic plagiarism verdict; matching material requires academic interpretation.

Resolve citation, quotation, copied interface text, screenshots, source code, policy extracts and third-party material before repository submission. Accessibility theses often include digital-service examples, so copyright and personal-data issues in screenshots deserve particular attention.

After the originality check is cleared, deposit the final thesis in Trepo.

Trepo, attendance and PDF/A

The student must be registered as attending at Tampere University to submit the thesis for examination and receive credits. After deposit, the University Library normally sends an email containing the examiner-access address within three working days. Forward it to the examiner or examiners promptly.

Master’s theses are permanently archived electronically, and the archival file must be PDF/A. Check the file before the deadline rather than treating conversion as a last-minute step.

Once approved, the thesis is final and cannot simply be resubmitted as a revised version.

Two examiners, 0–5 grading and timing

Tampere master’s theses are assessed by two examiners, with at least one employed by Tampere University and both holding at least a master-level degree. The Dean confirms the thesis grade based on the examination process.

The thesis uses the general 0–5 scale: 1 Sufficient, 2 Satisfactory, 3 Good, 4 Very Good and 5 Excellent. Do not confuse this with the pass/fail grading of SDL.580.

The normal examiner assessment period is 21 days. If a separate maturity exam is required as part of the thesis process, the period is 28 days. These are assessment windows, not promises that the whole graduation process will finish in 21 or 28 days. Summer submissions can follow a longer announced schedule.

Response and appeal rights

The examiner statement and proposed grade are sent to the student’s tuni.fi email. If satisfied, the student can notify faculty Study Services to help move the Dean-confirmation process forward.

If dissatisfied with the proposed assessment, the student can submit a written response within seven days from the relevant email date. The Dean may decide on the basis of the existing statement, request examiner comments or appoint an additional examiner.

After the final grade, a written appeal to the Faculty Council is available within 14 days from the point at which the student had access to the result and information about application of the criteria.

A practical ADDS workflow

A defensible sequence is: understand the ADDS-S01 structure; select the accessibility project and stakeholder carefully; register for the 5 ECTS SDL.580 seminar; turn the project problem into a researchable question; agree supervision; prepare the research and data-protection plan; make participation and research materials accessible; collect only necessary evidence; keep project deliverables distinct from academic claims; use seminar peer feedback throughout the process; analyse rather than merely report audit outputs; write with appropriate templates and citations; agree and acknowledge any AI use; complete the applicable maturity route; obtain primary-supervisor permission; complete Turnitin; create the final PDF/A; deposit in Trepo while registered as attending; forward the Library access email; and allow time for the 21/28-day examiner process plus separate graduation administration.

The central quality test is simple: can an examiner trace every major conclusion from a clear research question through a justified method to evidence and analysis? If yes, the project work is supporting the thesis rather than replacing it.

Keep a decision log for important scope, method and accessibility changes. It gives you a reliable record when explaining why the final study differs from the earliest project plan.

Final checklist

Before submission, confirm that you are working under the current 2026–2027 ADDS curriculum; the degree is Master of Social Sciences, 120 ECTS; ADDS-S01 is at least 80 ECTS; project work is 5 ECTS; SDL.580 is 5 ECTS and pass/fail; the thesis is 30 ECTS and graded 0–5; seminar participation is complete; your stakeholder project and academic research contribution are clearly separated; accessibility is built into participant-facing research procedures; personal-data and ethics requirements are resolved; AI use follows current supervisor-agreed rules; maturity requirements are complete; Turnitin has been reviewed; the final thesis is PDF/A; Trepo submission occurs while attending; and enough time remains for examination and graduation processing.

A strong ADDS thesis is not simply an accessible product. It is an academically controlled investigation of an accessibility problem in which stakeholder collaboration, inclusive research practice, evidence, analysis and conclusions form one coherent contribution.