Singapore design workshops: disclose a composite persona in a research story

The problem

Your Singapore design presentation uses a composite character drawn from several interviews, but the audience may mistake its invented name, quotation and journey for one actual participant.

Separate a record from a presentation device

Prepare a table for your own use with an observation, where it came from and what you think it means. Mark any fictional or combined example as such. A composite can help explain a pattern, but it should not be presented as a real interviewee’s quotation or history. Remove participant identifiers from material you are permitted to share. Keep three layers visible: the material you actually have; the interpretation you make; and the character or scene used to explain it. A name invented for a slide belongs to the third layer. It supplies no interview record and should not acquire one merely because the story feels convincing. If you have only a supplied classroom exercise, describe that origin rather than claiming field research.

Trace each detail through five origin fields

For every important detail, record the underlying note or other material; its permitted origin; the meaning you infer; any invented or combined element; and the disclosure needed in the presentation. Preserve differences between sources instead of putting everything under one character name. If the material contains no participant statement, mark the statement absent. If an account comes from another team member, credit its actual contribution and use it only within the sharing arrangement. Use the record to explain where the presented details came from. Confirm the permitted coursework and team contribution separately, and check whether the character makes those actual origins clear to the audience.

• Choose a design-learning format and permitted student contribution →

Check what the workshop actually addresses

DesignSingapore’s closed School of X archive describes a January 2024 workshop on storytelling for user research. Use that historical topic to find a current session addressing research communication rather than only visual presentation. Ask whether the tutor examines participant reasoning or teaches a shared exercise, and whether you may bring the specific permitted fragment needed to discuss your character labels. The archive supplies neither a current seat nor an official five-field disclosure method.

• DesignSingapore: archived user-research storytelling workshop ↗ · Source checked 8 October 2026

Find the unsupported single-person story in an invented case

Every person, note and slide in this exercise is fictional. Supplied practice note A describes one visitor reading a room number from a notice. Supplied practice note B describes a different visitor asking a desk worker for directions. Neither note contains a quotation, a recurring habit or a stated reason for the action. The student creates an illustrative character named Asha and a slide saying Asha always needs staff help to find the room. The name is invented, the two actions come from different toy records, and always adds a habit neither record supplies. Combining the notes cannot create a real person who performed both actions. Keep A and B as separate entries; mark the character name and combined scene as presentation devices, and the habit as unsupported.

Test whether the fiction is recognisable

Show the presentation to a peer and ask which details they think belong to one real person. If they identify the composite as an interviewee, revise the introduction and slide labels. Keep an actual quotation attributed according to your approved anonymisation method; do not place invented words in quotation marks. A combined character should not make differences between interviewed people disappear. In the invented case, ask what the viewer thinks the character name and two actions represent before explaining your intention. Suppose a peer answers that they can tell Asha is invented, but they still think one source visitor both read the notice and asked for help. That supplies a specific interpretation of the shown slide. It does not establish what every reader would infer. The label has clarified the name while leaving the combined-action origin unclear. Record the response and the exact version the peer saw; do not report the whole disclosure problem solved from recognition of the name alone.

Revise the disclosure without merging the source records

For the fictional case, a clearer presentation could state that the character name is invented and combines separate fictional practice notes, with no actual interview quotation represented. Show note A’s reading action and note B’s asking action in separate labelled entries beside that statement. Remove the unsupported always claim rather than softening it into a presumed motive. If a combined scene still helps illustrate your question, label it as an imagined combination and keep it visually distinguishable from the supplied notes. This revised display supplies the intended origin labels; it is not evidence that real visitors behave this way or that every viewer understands the revised slide. A planned peer check can examine the remaining interpretation later.

Write a bounded account of what the revision changed

Keep three lines: the earlier representation; the precise disclosure change; and the evidence still missing. In the invented example, the earlier slide attached a combined action and unsupported habit to Asha. The revision separately labels A and B, identifies the invented name and removes the habit. No participant quotation, motive or real-world pattern has been added. If a later permitted reader check actually supplies a response, record it beside that version and keep its scope. A clearer label and an actual comprehension observation are different results. For a real case study, retain the original permitted observations, your interpretation and each illustration’s origin, so a reviewer can inspect the distinction without receiving private raw material.

Find feedback on the presentation boundary

Search Boardzip for design-learning or user-research sessions, then confirm whether the facilitator discusses participant presentations. Take one disclosure question with clearly labelled invented names and combined details, plus a permitted account of their actual origins. If the session accepts only a shared exercise, use its supplied material and label that origin. After an actual discussion, save the version, the reader’s interpretation, the change made and what remains untested. Learning at a public talk can inform your explanation without validating your research evidence or granting permission to show private material.