Thesis: Augmenting Shopping Realities: Studies on Augmented Reality (AR) in Retail
Author: Camen Teh
Degree/Institution/Date: PhD, University of Nottingham, February 2023.
How is the artifact documented?
There are basically two “work pieces.” First, the hierarchical value map from Study 1, which connects AR attributes, consequences, and values. It’s documented with an implication matrix, centrality and abstractness indices, and a final map; you can see which items ranked most important, like product evaluation, amplified product information, and product knowledge.
Second, the web-based AR product presentation was used in the field experiment. The design varies the visual style (cartoonised vs realistic) and whether simple control buttons are present. When students scan a code on the product, one of the versions plays. The figures make the manipulations and trigger flow clear.
Where and how can it be accessed?
I discovered the research while I was scrolling through research of various universities on HCI and AR technology, and stumbled upon this research. So research is accessible at the university of nottingham web-page. I was not able to find it on other platforms.
Do theory and implementation align?
Yes. Study 1 shows that shoppers care about information that builds knowledge and supports evaluation; Study 2 then tries concrete design moves (visual style + simple controls) that could nudge curiosity and controllability, and checks whether that helps people make sense of a “weird” product and move toward buying. The pipeline is coherent.
Is the documentation clear and comprehensible?
Yes. The thesis shows step-by-step procedures, visuals for manipulations, and full instrument lists; reliability/validity and manipulation checks are reported, enabling reproducibility and critique.
Does the artifact meet master’s level quality standards?
This is a PHD research. Nevertheless, Research constitutes substantive work pieces with clear research aims, implementation details, and evaluation, meeting and in places exceeding typical master’s expectations. The absence of a public build/repo is a practical limitation rather than a quality flaw.
Systematic Evaluation (CMS Criteria)
- Overall presentation quality: Clean structure, figures and tables used purposefully. Reads polished.
- Degree of innovation: Neat combo: means-end mapping of retail AR, then a live store test of visual style and simple controls. The finding that a stylized look can help sense-making for unfamiliar products is genuinely interesting.
- Independence: The author builds or modifies stimuli, runs a campus-store experiment with random assignment, and reports checks and stats. Feels hands-on.
- Organization and structure: The thesis is easy to follow: it opens with an introduction and an overarching AR literature review, then presents Study 1, a short bridge chapter that links Study 1 to Study 2, and a full chapter on the field experiment, before closing with implications and limitations. The table of contents and chapter headers make this flow clear.
- Communication: The author explains the manipulations plainly and even shows them with simple figures, and the measurement section reports reliability and validity in a straightforward way.
- Scope: Study 1 goes deep with 45 interviews, which is plenty to build the value map, and Study 2 is sizable for a field setting with 197 student participants. It tracks both purchase intention and an objective purchase measure via pre-orders, so the behavioral side isn’t just hypothetical.
- Accuracy and attention to detail: The author explains what was tested and shows that the setup worked as intended. Most of the questionnaires feel solid, and while one of them is a bit shaky, it doesn’t break the study. Overall, the write-up is careful, tidy, and easy to follow.
- Literature: The work includes a focused AR-in-retail review in Appendix A with a transparent selection funnel that narrows to 53 journal papers, and the measurements used in the experiment are adapted from prior validated scales and documented in the item tables. It reads grounded rather than hand-wavy.
Overall Assessment (strengths & weaknesses)
Overall, this is a well put together thesis that treats AR in retail as a tool for better decisions rather than a flashy add-on. It moves cleanly from ideas to practice: first mapping what shoppers actually need from AR, then testing simple design choices in a real store. The write-up is clear, the artifacts are documented inside the thesis, and the practical message is easy to use: give people decision & useful information, let them control the presentation a little, and don’t assume photorealism is always the best choice for unfamiliar products.
There are a few issues. The live AR build isn’t shared as a public demo, and the field test sits in a single, student-heavy setting, so we should be careful about claiming it works everywhere. Still, the work is coherent, transparent, and genuinely helpful for anyone designing AR in shops. For a PHD, it comfortably meets the standard and, in places, goes beyond it.
