Introspective methods are gaining momentum within the design field. They add a subjective dimension to the existing body of research, enriching our understanding of complex phenomena, human experiences, and psychological processes. The personal, revealing nature of introspection is what gives this method its unique opportunities, however, its risks too. Introspection can pose a variety of risks to the researcher themselves, as well as to those they refer to in their research. The rise of introspection in design must be met with a corresponding commitment to ethical responsibility. To get there, the gap must be addressed between existing procedural ethics and the realities of introspective practice.

This Master thesis researches how we can design to support researchers who use introspection as a method to assess the ethical risks and opportunities of their introspective research and manage these throughout their study. Through literature and empirical research, five risk dimensions and six opportunity categories were identified, providing guiding lenses through which researchers can assess and navigate risks and opportunities (R&O). Through a focus group, interviews, and an introspective self study, three key problems emerged: 1) researchers have little awareness and understanding of potential R&O, 2) it is difficult to look ahead and identify R&O in their own study, and 3) they have little know-how on how to deal with risks (and opportunities). This especially goes for researchers who are new to using introspection as a method.

A toolkit prototype was developed and evaluated with end-users. Evaluation showed that the toolkit provides valuable guidance for researcher practitioners to minimize the risks of their study, while maximizing the opportunities. Based on the evaluation feedback, a final design update was done, resulting in the final design: The Introspector’s Toolkit for Responsible Practice. This toolkit aims to help researchers understand, identify and manage the risks and opportunities of their introspective research. For further development of the toolkit, ten recommendations are proposed, including improving its collaborative use, expanding the content, improving form and interaction, and more elaborate testing.