Tampere University Human-Technology Interaction Master's Thesis Guide: 30 ECTS, CSEE-HTIY and Trepo

What this guide covers

Tampere University’s Human-Technology Interaction (HTI) option is a 120 ECTS, two-year specialisation in the Master’s Programme in Computing Sciences and Electrical Engineering. The applicant-facing degree is Master of Science, not Master of Science (Technology). That distinction controls the thesis process: the HTI MSc thesis follows Tampere’s non-technical master’s thesis framework rather than the Technology diplomityo process.

The current 2026-2027 HTI study object is CSEE-HTIY Human-Technology Interaction, shown as an advanced-studies module of at least 120 credits. It covers human-centred software development, interaction and interface design, user experience, usability, accessibility, psychology, multimodal interaction, playful and social applications, and research methods. The programme page also connects thesis work with TAUCHI, Gameful Realities, other Tampere research and industrial projects.

The current HTI thesis pathway is 30 ECTS

HTI has a curriculum-history trap. The old pre-2021 structure used a 40 ECTS thesis. That figure is not the current thesis extent. Tampere’s official transition documentation introduced HTI.920 M.Sc. Thesis in Human-Technology Interaction as 30 ECTS. The current official 2024-2027 correspondence table then maps HTI.920 directly to COMP.920 Master's Thesis, Computer Sciences.

That gives a defensible current chain: the 30 ECTS HTI.920 thesis pathway was carried forward into the current COMP.920 thesis object. The current guide therefore uses 30 ECTS for the applicant-facing HTI MSc thesis and explicitly rejects the obsolete 40 ECTS structure.

Because the current public course page for COMP.920 is not exposed in the same easy-to-read way as many Tampere course units, keep the provenance in mind when checking Sisu: current correspondence table plus the official HTI transition record establish the credit continuity. If your own study right shows a different programme-specific implementation, your current Sisu plan and written programme instructions control.

CSEE-HTIY and the three HTI profiles

CSEE-HTIY describes three useful competence profiles: Designer, Interaction Developer, and HTI Researcher. They help students shape coursework and topic direction, but they do not create three different thesis regulations.

A Designer-oriented thesis might investigate an interaction concept, service, inclusive design process or user experience. An Interaction Developer thesis might build and evaluate an interface, immersive system, multimodal interaction or intelligent prototype. An HTI Researcher thesis might emphasise qualitative user research, quantitative evaluation, controlled experiments or mixed methods. In every case, the academic contribution must be stated as a research question and supported by evidence. A polished design or technically complete prototype is not, by itself, a thesis contribution.

ITC.CEE.800 Tools for theses: current, but check placement

The current ITC.CEE.800 Tools for theses course is 5 ECTS and pass/fail. Its four parts are basics of research methods, research ethics, information searching skills and career planning. All four parts of the current completion option are compulsory, and Tampere recommends completing the course before starting the thesis and its parts while thesis planning is underway.

However, the public CSEE-HTIY module does not expose ITC.CEE.800 as a universally compulsory child unit for every HTI student. Do not invent that placement. Check your own Sisu plan. If ITC.CEE.800 appears in your study right, complete it according to the current implementation. Its 5 ECTS remains separate from the 30 ECTS thesis and does not make the thesis 35 ECTS.

Historic COMP.810 should not be imported automatically

Older Computer Sciences curricula used COMP.810 Master’s Thesis Seminar in Computer Sciences, 5 ECTS, including HTI implementations. Old course pages remain discoverable, but the current 2026 public route for that historical object does not establish it as a current course. Therefore this guide does not claim that COMP.810 is the current HTI seminar registration.

Tampere’s current non-technical master’s thesis instructions still require seminar participation, an oral presentation and serving as an opponent. The safe rule is: follow those current process requirements, then use your current Sisu/Moodle and programme instructions for the exact seminar registration, timetable and milestones. Do not reconstruct today’s study plan from an archived course page.

HTI.350 and experimental research

Current HTI.350 Experimental Research in Human-Technology Interaction is a 5 ECTS advanced course. Its content covers experimental research, research ethics, basic statistical methods and scientific reporting. The current course uses the general 0-5 scale and its listed completion components are compulsory for students who take that course.

HTI.350 is strong preparation for an experimental thesis, but the current public course page does not establish that every HTI thesis must use experimental methods or that every student must take HTI.350 as a thesis prerequisite. HTI also explicitly develops qualitative and quantitative user research and evaluation competence. Choose a method because it answers the research question, not because one course exists.

What counts as a defensible HTI thesis topic

A good HTI topic sits at the relationship between people, technology and a researchable problem. Examples include usability or user-experience evaluation, accessibility, interaction design, multimodal interfaces, human-robot interaction, extended reality, social or collaborative technologies, service interaction, sustainable design, gamified systems, intelligent interfaces, or sociotechnical questions.

Scope matters. “Design a better app” is a development goal, not yet a research question. A thesis could instead ask how a specific interaction design affects task performance, comprehension, trust, workload or experience in a defined context, or how users make sense of a new interaction mechanism. A design thesis can create an artefact, but the thesis contribution comes from the research process and evidence around it.

Do not assume every thesis needs a prototype

Some HTI questions genuinely require an implemented prototype. Others can be answered using interviews, observations, diary methods, surveys, existing-system evaluation, secondary data, literature synthesis or controlled experiments using an existing platform. Tampere’s general non-technical rules allow empirical research or review of existing literature.

If you do build a prototype, separate engineering completion from research adequacy. The prototype only needs the fidelity required to test the research question. Spending months polishing features that are irrelevant to the evaluation can weaken the thesis by consuming time that should go to recruitment, analysis and writing.

Document which parts are functional, simulated, mocked or omitted. If participants believe a feature is autonomous when it is actually Wizard-of-Oz controlled, that study design must be disclosed appropriately in the method and ethics planning.

User research: recruitment and inclusion criteria

HTI conclusions depend strongly on who participated. Define the target population before recruiting. State inclusion and exclusion criteria, recruitment channel, sample characteristics relevant to the question, and whether participation was compensated. Convenience samples can be legitimate, but their limits need to be reflected in the claims.

Avoid writing “users” as though a small student sample represents everyone. If the thesis is about older adults, children, professional operators, people with disabilities or another specific population, recruit and design the study in a way that supports those claims when feasible and ethically appropriate. If the actual sample is narrower, make the conclusion narrower.

Participant burden also matters. Long experimental sessions, repeated questionnaires, VR exposure, sensory stimulation or cognitively demanding tasks can create fatigue or discomfort. Plan breaks, stopping criteria and accessibility accommodations where relevant.

Accessibility and inclusive HTI research

Accessibility is an explicit HTI programme theme. A thesis that claims an interface is accessible needs evidence aligned with that claim. Automated checks can be useful, but they do not automatically represent the lived experience of people with diverse access needs. Likewise, a single participant with a disability should not be treated as representative of an entire population.

Define which accessibility dimensions the study addresses. Consider sensory, motor, cognitive, language and situational barriers when relevant. Report assistive technologies, device settings and interaction conditions that materially affect results. If a participant needs an accommodation, make sure the research procedure does not unintentionally exclude the people whose experience the thesis claims to study.

Controlled experiments: design before data collection

For experiments, define independent and dependent variables, conditions, hypotheses and primary outcomes before collecting the final data. Decide whether the design is within-subjects, between-subjects or mixed, and justify the choice. Repeated-measures designs can improve sensitivity but introduce order, learning and fatigue effects.

Use counterbalancing or randomisation when appropriate. Record device, software, display, interaction settings and timing logic when they can influence behaviour. If the study compares input techniques, latency, visual feedback or hardware differences may become confounds. Pilot the protocol before full recruitment so basic usability or logging failures do not invalidate the final sessions.

There is no universal HTI sample size. Plan sample size from the research question, expected variability/effect or desired estimation precision, design structure and feasible population. A number copied from another paper is not a substitute for a rationale.

Statistics, multiple comparisons and interpretation

Select analyses that match the design and measurement scale. Check assumptions when the method requires them. If repeated measures or nested observations are present, do not analyse them as independent rows simply to increase sample size. Report effect sizes and uncertainty, not only p-values.

HTI studies often produce many questionnaire scales, task metrics and conditions. Testing every combination can create a multiple-comparison problem. Identify primary outcomes and hypotheses in advance where practical, and distinguish confirmatory tests from exploratory analysis. A statistically significant difference does not automatically mean a practically meaningful user-experience improvement.

If a measure is a validated scale, follow its scoring rules and cite the source. Do not modify item wording or combine subscales casually and then use the original validity claims without justification.

Qualitative interviews, observations and thematic work

For qualitative HTI research, document how participants were selected, how the interview or observation protocol was developed, how data were recorded and transcribed, and how interpretation proceeded. Keep a clear connection between raw material, codes/categories/themes and the final claims.

Methodological rigor does not require one universal recipe. Inter-coder agreement can be useful in some designs, while reflexive thematic approaches may use different quality criteria. Similarly, there is no universal numerical saturation threshold for every interview thesis. Explain the methodological tradition you are using and apply its logic consistently.

Reflexivity matters when researcher decisions shape data collection or interpretation. Record major changes to the protocol and explain why they were made. Negative or contradictory cases can strengthen the discussion when they challenge an overly simple theme.

Mixed-method and design-evaluation theses

Mixed methods should do more than place a survey beside interviews. Explain how the quantitative and qualitative components answer complementary parts of the question and how they are integrated. If one component is exploratory and the other confirmatory, state that sequence.

For design research or iterative prototyping, keep an audit trail of design decisions. Explain which findings triggered changes and which changes were based on practical constraints. Final evaluation should address the research question, not merely ask participants whether they liked the prototype.

A design artefact can be valuable evidence, but distinguish design rationale, implementation, and research evaluation so the reader can see which claims arise from which source of evidence.

Personal data, privacy and participant material

Human-participant research often involves personal data even when names are removed. Voice recordings, video, screen recordings, eye-tracking traces, device identifiers, demographic combinations or free-text responses can make people identifiable. Plan the controller role, processing purpose, privacy information, minimisation, access and retention before data collection.

Pseudonymisation is not the same as anonymisation. Store the linking key separately where applicable. Limit access to raw participant material. Do not place participant recordings, company data or confidential prototypes in personal cloud folders or external AI services merely because they are convenient.

When publishing screenshots or quotes, consider whether the material can identify a participant or reveal confidential information. Consent for participation does not automatically mean unrestricted publication of identifiable media.

Ethics and research integrity

Discuss ethics early with the supervisor, especially if the study involves vulnerable participants, sensitive topics, health-related interaction, deception, intrusive sensors, strong emotional manipulation or material risk. Follow the current Tampere route that applies to the actual research setting rather than assuming that all classroom-scale user studies have identical requirements.

Explain participant information, voluntariness and withdrawal where applicable. Avoid collecting data that are not needed for the research question. If the study is part of a larger research project, clarify which project approvals, data-controller arrangements and protocols apply to the master’s thesis.

Research integrity also includes transparent reporting. Do not suppress inconvenient usability problems, failed conditions or participant exclusions merely because they weaken the preferred design narrative.

AI tools in an HTI thesis

Tampere permits AI use within current study guidance, but the student remains responsible for the thesis, analysis and correctness. Agree the practical boundaries with the supervisor and acknowledge AI use according to current instructions.

AI can assist with permitted tasks such as brainstorming, code debugging or language support, but generated output is not independent scholarly evidence. Verify citations, code and interpretations yourself. Do not upload participant transcripts, personal data, confidential company material or unpublished research data to an external AI service without an approved basis and environment.

If generative AI or an AI interface is itself the research object, record the service/model version, settings, prompt strategy and date when those details materially affect reproducibility. Model behaviour can change over time.

Literature review and theory

HTI theses should connect the practical problem to relevant HCI/HTI theory and prior empirical research. A literature review is more than a catalogue of similar interfaces. Use it to define constructs, identify what is already known, justify methods and explain why the chosen evaluation measures are appropriate.

Distinguish peer-reviewed research from product documentation, design guidelines and commercial claims. All can be useful, but they answer different questions. For a literature-review thesis, make the search and selection process sufficiently transparent that readers understand how the evidence base was constructed.

Information-searching training in ITC.CEE.800 can support a systematic and ethical search process when that course is part of the student’s plan.

Supervision, research plan and company projects

Tampere appoints one or two supervisors, with one primary supervisor. Agree the research question, scope, method, recruitment/data access, ethics/privacy issues and timetable early. If a thesis is commissioned by a company, the company can support practical access and implementation, but Tampere’s academic supervision and examination remain controlling.

A useful HTI research plan includes: problem and research questions, theoretical background, target population, recruitment, procedure, prototype/system description if any, measures, analysis plan, data-protection/ethics arrangements, limitations and timeline. For iterative design, specify which phase produces the evidence used in the final thesis conclusions.

Freeze the core evaluation logic before the final study where feasible. Changing the primary metric, participant exclusions or hypotheses after looking at results should be documented rather than silently optimised.

Seminar, presentation and opposition

Current Tampere non-technical thesis instructions require thesis-seminar participation, an oral presentation and acting as an opponent. These requirements remain current even though this guide does not resurrect historic COMP.810 as the present HTI registration.

Check current Sisu/Moodle for the operational implementation. Confirm when seminar registration is required, when you present, what opponent work is expected and whether programme-specific milestones apply. The absence of a current public COMP.810 page is a reason to check today’s implementation, not a reason to skip the seminar process.

Writing the HTI thesis

Write the method in enough detail that readers can understand exactly what participants experienced and how data became results. Describe the interface or prototype only to the level needed to reproduce or interpret the research conditions. If the system changes during data collection, document versions and decide whether the datasets can validly be combined.

Keep results and discussion distinguishable. Report uncertainty, missing data, exclusions and failed tasks where they affect interpretation. Discuss internal validity, construct validity and external validity in terms relevant to the chosen design. A lab result may not generalise to long-term real-world use; an interview sample may illuminate experience without estimating population prevalence.

A common structure is introduction and questions, related work/theory, method, results, discussion, limitations and conclusion. Design-heavy theses may add system or design chapters, but supervisor and programme instructions take priority over generic structure.

Maturity test

The master’s thesis process includes a maturity test. When the required Finnish/Swedish proficiency has already been demonstrated in the specified way, the thesis abstract normally functions as the maturity test and only its content is assessed. When language checking is still required, the current electronic EXAM route applies.

When the maturity test is not being used to demonstrate Finnish or Swedish proficiency, it is written in the thesis language. The maturity test cannot be replaced by recognition of prior learning. Confirm your own route rather than copying another student’s case.

Turnitin, Trepo and permanent archiving

After the primary supervisor gives permission for final submission, the thesis goes through Turnitin originality checking. Once the supervisor has reviewed the similarity report and the final version is ready, deposit the thesis in Trepo, Tampere University’s institutional repository.

You must be registered as attending to submit the thesis for examination and receive credits. The Library normally provides the Trepo access link that the student forwards to the examiners. The permanent archival file should be PDF/A.

Turnitin and Trepo are separate stages. The similarity percentage is not, by itself, a plagiarism verdict; the report needs academic interpretation. Check the final file before deposit because an approved thesis is final and cannot simply be resubmitted as a revised new version.

Examination, grading and response rights

The non-technical master’s thesis follows the general 0-5 scale. Two examiners prepare the assessment, with the current Tampere rules governing examiner qualifications and the dean’s approval process. The examiners’ statement and proposed grade are sent to the student’s tuni.fi address.

When the thesis abstract serves as the maturity test, the normal assessment window is 21 days. When a separate electronic maturity test with language checking is required, it is 28 days. Summer schedules can be longer. These are examiner/assessment windows, not the time needed to conduct the research or write the thesis.

If the student disagrees with the proposed assessment, the current process allows a written response within seven days. After the assessment decision, an appeal can be made to the Faculty Council within 14 days from access to the result and information on the application of the criteria.

Graduation planning

Do not schedule graduation from the thesis assessment clock alone. Remaining credits, Sisu study-plan approvals, seminar components, maturity completion, grade recording and the graduation application/process must also be ready. Check the current graduation schedule before choosing a final submission date.

A practical final sequence is: supervisor permission, final originality check, Trepo PDF/A deposit, examiner access, maturity route, assessment, possible response period, grade registration and graduation processing.

Practical HTI thesis workflow

1. Confirm that your study right is the HTI Master of Science route and check the current CSEE-HTIY structure in Sisu.
2. Confirm the 30 ECTS COMP.920 thesis pathway and do not copy the old 40 ECTS HTI structure.
3. Check whether ITC.CEE.800 belongs to your current study plan; do not add its 5 ECTS to the thesis credit value.
4. Follow current Sisu/Moodle for seminar registration instead of importing historic COMP.810.
5. Decide whether the research question needs qualitative user research, an experiment, mixed methods, design evaluation, a prototype or a literature-based approach.
6. Define the target population, recruitment, inclusion/exclusion and participant-data plan before collection.
7. If experimental, fix conditions, primary outcomes, counterbalancing/randomisation and analysis logic before final data collection.
8. If qualitative, document protocol, interpretation/coding approach and reflexive decisions according to the chosen methodology.
9. Separate artefact quality from research contribution in design/development theses.
10. Complete writing, maturity, Turnitin, Trepo PDF/A deposit, examination and graduation steps under current Tampere instructions.

The strongest HTI thesis is not the one with the fanciest interface or the largest collection of UX methods. It is the one where the human problem, theoretical framing, research question, participant/sample logic, method and evidence align closely enough that the conclusions are credible and appropriately bounded.