# Enhancing Discoverability: A Metadata Framework for Empirical Research in Theses
## Appendix E User Feedback Questionnaire  
**User Feedback Questionnaire on Metadata Documentation Framework and System Prototype**  
_Section A: General Information_  
1. [topsep=0.5 ex,itemsep=  
Which features would make the process easier for you? (check all that apply)  
Field examples/tooltips  
Dropdown menus  
Field autofill  
Metadata preview before submission  
Other:  
**For Faculty:**  
* Do you believe this framework improves students' research documentation?  
Yes  
Somewhat  
No  
* Would you use this tool in your supervision or teaching?  
Yes, in both  
Only in supervision  
Only in teaching  
Not interested  
**For Repository Administators:**  
* Is the system compatible with your current repository infrastructure (e.g., DSpace, EPrints)?  
Yes  
Partially  
No  
* What features would support scalability in your institution? (check all that apply)  
Bulk metadata import  
Mandatory field validation  
Role-based access control  
Logging and audit trail  
Between 24-27 July 2025, nine participants from the Hellenic Mediterranean University were invited to interact with a functional demo of the system. The group included:  
Five graduate students from the Department of Social Work  
Three faculty supervisors with thesis advising responsibilities  
One institutional repository administrator  
Participants completed a short task-based walkthrough and responded to a structured feedback form (see previous part). While this was not a formal usability study, the responses provided useful early stage insight into the strengths and limitations of the system from a user-centered perspective.  
_Summary of Key Findings_  
**Students:**  
* Found the form-based interface intuitive and appreciated the structured separation between general and empirical metadata.
* Requested clearer definitions for fields such as _Observation Unit_, _Geographical Unit_, and _Time/Space Management_.
* Suggested adding tooltips, dropdowns for recurring values, and previews of the completed metadata record.
* One student noted: _\"It really helped me clarify how to document my sample and method without being too technical.\"_  
**Faculty Supervisors:**  
* Supported the framework's role in guiding students toward more complete methodological documentation.
* Recommended making certain fields (e.g., research hypotheses) optional for qualitative or exploratory work.
* Proposed including a general-purpose _\"Notes\"_ field to capture context not reflected in standard metadata.  
**Repository Administrator:**  
* Validated the compatibility of the XML export structure with institutional repositories.
* Suggested adding basic field validation, and a batch import feature for legacy theses.  
_Implications and Next Steps_  
Based on this feedback, the following minor enhancements are planned:* Integration of contextual help (tooltips) for complex fields
* Optional metadata fields for non-structured research outputs
* Role-based access control for students and repository staff
* Exploration of a batch-entry module for archival scalability  
_Note: This feedback activity was conducted internally for prototype testing and did not collect or store any personal or sensitive data._