Top 40 Potential Viva Questions
Item Questions
1 Can you start by
summarising your thesis?
2 Now, can you summarise it in one
sentence?
3 What is the idea that binds
your thesis together?
4 What motivated and inspired
you to carry out this research?
5 What are the main issues
and debates in this subject
area?
Answers
 Issues on lack of IK adoption in the museum due to
unknown determinant factor.
 TAM model cannot be used to explain and predict the
phenomenon because of the different technology in
different field. Additionally, the previous TAM is not
applicable for the practitioner because it too focusses on
the cognitive belief (PU & PEOU).
 Museum sectors are frustrated – huge amount of money
have been spent on providing the IK technology for the
visitor use. However, not all the visitors use the
technology provided.
 This research identifies and propose a comprehensive
model to solve the problem for the museum and
practitioner in increasing the technology adoption in the
museum.
This thesis is an explanatory case study research that
developing a structural model in explaining and predicting the
determinant factor to increase the adoption of interactive
kiosk technology in the museum.
 It’s all about improving the technology adoption in the
museum.
 The thesis believed that a clear set of determinant factor
will help the museum sectors and design practitioner to
enhance the level of IK adoption.
 There is a demand from the National museum department
to established a set of a guideline for the best interactive
kiosk implementation.
 I believe with my supervisors’ expertise in museum study
and design. And I can see there are opportunity for me to
have them as my guidance with their expertise and
experience.
 Difficulties in determining the most crucial factor because
so many research has been conducted on the different
technologies and different research field. I need to careful
chose what are the most relevant factor that related to
this research context.
6 Which of these does your
research address?
7 Why is the problem you have
tackled worth tackling?
8 Who has had the strongest
influence in the development of
your subject area in theory and
practice?
9 Which are the three most
important papers that relate
to your thesis?
The importance of:
a) Identifying the potential determinant factor for IK
adoption in the museum.
b) Developing a structural model to explain and predict the
phenomenon.
 Until now the M’sian govt is still struggling to solve the
issues on technology adoption in embracing the IR4.0 and
SDG agenda.
 There are lots of money have been invest by the
government to the National Museum Department in
developing the museum facilities. Department of Malaysian
Museums spending more than 14millions for services and
supplies in maintenance and development of 21 federal
governments’ museums (Jabatan Muzium Malaysia, 2018).
So that the gov need to ensure that the investment is
beneficial worth it for the national agenda in technology
adoption.
 The benefit of the investment by the government on the
interactive kiosk are depending on the acceptance of the
new technology by visitors in the museum (Kim & Qu,
2014; Wang & Shih, 2009)
 Davis,Venkatesh (1986) – TAM (belief factor)
 Tsai (2017) – Design factor
 Burmistrov (2015) – Interactive kiosk
Local
TAM in museum:
Awang, Yaakub, and Othman (2009)
Nizar and Rahmat (2018)
 Davis,Venkatesh (1986) – TAM (belief factor)
 Meta-Analysis of TAM (King & He, 2006; Yousafzai, Foxall,
& Pallister, 2007) – broader view
 (Lee, Kozar, & Larsen, 2003) – Past, Present & Future TAM
10 What published work is closest  Several publications/articles established the evolution of
to yours? How is your work the theory (TAM), the accessibility review of the
different? interactive kiosk in the NMM, and the category of museum
visitors in general.
 The most specific:
The Determinant Factors of Intention to Use Interactive
Kiosk Technology in The Museum – Visitor Studies
Journal, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group

 The relationship format is not the original format in TAM,

it’s been employed in recent studies and capable of
providing a new perspective for prediction compared to
TAM's traditional way. Some of the studies also modified
and used TAM without positioning the belief factors (PE
and PEOU) as the moderating effects between the
external factors towards usage intention (Kamal et al.,
2020; Shahbaz, Gao, Zhai, Shahzad, & Hu, 2019; Ying
Chieh et al., 2012).
11 What do you know about the  According to Ni and Ho (2011), the word “kiosk” originally
history of IK? comes from the Turkish term “kösk”, which refers to an
open summerhouse or pavilion. Before the arrival of
technologies, a kiosk was a small, rough standalone
structure usually used as a stall or shelter in public areas.
In the early 1870s, kiosks were used around Paris's streets
for gallery advertisements and displaying theatre. The
advancement of technology in the 20th century has shifted
the traditional kiosk functions to convenient access of
information and transactional services through the
interactive system.
 The first IK was introduced in 1977 at the University of
Illinois by a student. The system provides maps, bus
schedules, courses, and other relevant info for students
and visitors on campus (Anke, 2009). The first commercial
IK was presented in 1991 at a Computer Dealer’s
Exhibition (COMDEX), with a system to locate missing
children. Since then, IK's rapid developments have taken
place in various places until the museum exhibition spaces.
 According to Economou (2008), IK is the early application
and the most popular of new technologies in museum
exhibitions. However, different IK is used for different
purposes and can be classified into several different cases.
12 What is your The model development.
novelty/originality? 1- I modified and used TAM without positioning the belief
factors (PE and PEOU) as the moderating effects between
the external factors towards usage intention.

The relationship format is not the original format in TAM, it’s

been employed in recent studies and capable of providing a
new perspective for prediction compared to TAM's traditional
way. (Kamal et al., 2020; Shahbaz, Gao, Zhai, Shahzad, & Hu,
2019; Ying Chieh et al., 2012).

2- Majority of the studies using TAM measuring the

accessibility of the design of the system. But in my
research, I am measuring the accessibility and
comfortability of the physical design.

13 What are the most recent The IK market is expected to grow 5.56% within 6 years
major developments in your (until 2026) incoming due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
area?
It is important for visitor to use the IK provided because IK
in museum is not limited for museum learning only. The
museum management can collect the valuable market
research data through the kiosks such as:

 How long visitors view a particular exhibit.

 Directions that many visitors are more likely to take after
viewing certain exhibit.
 The number of visitors.

14 How did your research
questions emerge?
15 What were the crucial
research decisions you made?
16 Why did you use this research
methodology? What did you
gain from it?
 How many visitors are taking advantage of the cafes, gift
shops, and other facilities in the museum.
 1- Potential determinant factor
 2- Relationship
 3- Contributions to the practitioner

 Not all the visitors interested to use the digital media
elements in museum exhibition (Burmistrov, 2015)
Because the use of multimedia in the museum is highly
self-selected (Falk & Dierking, 2013)
TAM model Blurry and not applicable for practicioner-
Different factors for different technology such as
behaviour, existing habits on traditional service pattern,
belief, design, user interface, system, security, and more.
 Therefore, the IK provider (museum) needs to identify the
most crucial Determinant Factor?
 The selections of methodology (quantitative)
A meta-analysis study on 345 papers between 1985 and
2007 on contemporary trends and issues in information
technology adoption was found a conclusion on the
methodological employed. The researchers suggest
future researchers in technology adoption use the
positivist paradigm, empirical and quantitative research,
the survey method, and the Technology Acceptance
Model theory (Williams, Dwivedi, Lal, & Schwarz, 2009).
In the other meta-analysis study of TAM, the authors
had mentioned that a field-study survey approach is
more realistic because the data is based on the real
contributions from under natural technology usage
conditions (Yousafzai et al., 2007).
My preleminary findings in page-19 for the latest study
in 2020 also show that the majority of the studies were
employed a quantitative research approach (24
papers=80%) compared to the qualitative (3
papers=10%) or mixed methods (3 papers=10%).
17 What were the alternatives to As I mentioned in the recommendation, I recommends the
this methodology? future researcher to employ a longitudinal survey in this similar
research. In a longitudinal survey, the data collection process
can be conducted in a longer period without the need to offer
any appreciation rewards that might affect the sincerity of
response, subsequently decreasing the data's validity.
Additionally, the richness of data can also be obtained in the
longitudinal studies with a mixed-methods approach. The
expert validations can support all the statistical results at the
end of the study with qualitative data in a different perspective.
18 Software Touch inform, Esper, Hexnodate, Kioware, Foodzaps

19 How did you deal with the ethical I do explain on research ethical approach in page 120.
implications of your work? PAPA principle : Privacy, Accuracy, Property, Accessibility.

In the data collection process, most of the time the

researcher has to deal with the Department of Museums
Malaysia for permission. Through an appropriate way, the
researcher submitted the research application form
(Appendix 1) with the research proposal for their
consideration.

20 How has your view of your
research topic changed?
At first, I believe that all the hypotheses are significant due to
the literature support from the previous studies. However, both
of variables from the physical design are rejected in the finding.
It is unexpected result. I still believe that the conceptual
framework still can be proved in the other research field.

21 How have you evaluated  It is a comprehensive study where the data was collected in
your work? the real field of study with an appropriate protocol.

 I believe that I conduct this research with a systematic

process that guided by three supervisors.

 Certain part of my argument also was published in several

indexed article.

 So that, I believe that I have conducted all the process in

this research in a proper way.
22 How do you know that your  There are 3 stages of draft testing process to ensure the
findings are correct? reliability and validity the research instrument (informal
test, pre-test, pilot test).
 All the items been tested in outer model assessment:
 Indicator Reliability : Outer loadings > 0.4
 Internal Consistency Reliability : Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.6
 Composite Reliability : CR > 0.7
 Convergent Validity: AVE > 0.5
 All the calculation also been checked several times to
ensure there is no error been made.
23 What are the  Strongest
strongest/weakest parts of your - A good number of samples: more than
work? Recommended Raosoft 259, returned 277 (100%
response rate)
- Good cooperation from museum and respondents
- The development of structural model with
recommendations info for the practitioner. Before this
there is no clear explanation in technology adoption
model for the practitioner.

 Weakest – Small Generalization.

This decision was made based on Ch’ng and Cai's (2020)
statements, which mentioned that most studies that
evaluate the technology adoption in museums were
conducted within a single site only. Moreover, A meta-
analysis of evidence on technology adoption studies found
that the investigation on a specific technology at a
research field based on the actual usage has many
advantages in avoiding methodological problems such as
hypothesis guessing, blurry interconnection, and common-
method bias (Yousafzai et al., 2007).
24 What would have improved  Perhaps more item measurement can be added.
your work?
 Test the conceptual framework to the other IK in other
museum.

25 To what extent do your The proposed structural model can be generalized to the other
contributions museum that use similar IK design.
generalise?

26 Who will be most interested in The research will help both the public and private museum
your work? sector, any technology provider, and IK designer

27 What is the relevance of your
work to other researchers?
 The questionnaire set of this research has been developed
from a variety of established literature and modified to suit
into this research context. It also was tested with high
reliability and validity results. Therefore, it can be replicated
or modified for future investigation in another research
context.
28 What is the relevance of your
work to practitioners?
29 Which aspects of your work do
you intend to publish – and
where?
30 Summarise your key findings.
31 Which of these findings are the
most interesting to you? Why?
32 How do your findings relate to
literature in your field?
 assist the decision-maker for the museum to identify the
areas that need improvements
 Can be used as guideline and standard for all IK in
Malaysian museum.
 Facilitate in managing maintenance works.
 Provide clear understanding of standard to be achieve in
implementing the IK.
Based on this research, I will publish a guideline book for
the National Museum Department with entitled:
Design Guideline: interactive kiosk for museum.
I was discussed about this with the certain people from
national museum department and it still in progress for
more details.
 it can be concluded that to increase the IK adoption for the
museum should begin with the perception enhancement
(cognitive belief on usefulness) and then followed by the
user interface and navigation design development.
However, the system support, accessibility and
comfortability of the physical design should be consider if
the majority of user is from digital immigrant category.
 PEOU has no direct effect to the usage intention. This is
surprising finding because majority of the research that
using TAM show that PEOU and PU is the major variable
for technology adoption.
Possible explanation:
 The majority population of digital natives
 Complexity is not a problem – willing to learn
 Meta-analysis-PEOU will have less or no impact on usage if
the technology is relatively easy to use
 Physical design has no direct effect.
Contrast to the other research that show accessibility and
comfortability supposedly significant to the technology
adoption.
Lack of evidence (item measurement)
Many evidence for each factor from the previous studies were
discussed and synthesized in chapter 2 and 3. Each of findings
also been explain and discussed critically in the chapter 6.
For example:
 PEOU has no direct effect to the usage intention. This is
surprising finding because majority of the research that
using TAM show that PEOU and PU is the major variable
for technology adoption.
Possible explanation:
 The majority population of digital natives
 Complexity is not a problem – willing to learn

33 What are the contributions
to knowledge of your thesis?
34 How long-term are
these contributions?
35 What are the main
achievements of your research?
36 What have you learned from
the process of doing your PhD?
37 What advice would you give to a
research student entering this
area?
38 You propose future
research. How would you
start this?
 Meta-analysis-PEOU will have less or no impact on usage if
the technology is relatively easy to use.
 The research extends the range of existing theory on the
technology adoption.
 The proposed model has confirms that by enhancing the
determinant factors will help in improving the IK adoption
in the museum. Therefore, this research model is expected
to be the new reference for future technology adoption
research in the museum context.
 Apart from that, the conceptual framework of this study
also contributed to the extension of knowledge on the
understanding of the technology adoption phenomenon.
Five additional factors (system support, user interface
design, navigation, accessibility, and comfortability) were
modified into TAM model, in which the original model has
been extended. In that extension, two new dimensions of
the physical design (accessibility and comfortability) also
been introduced for a wide-ranged of measurement to the
design factors. Even the relationship is not significant for
this research, it still relevant to be carried out by another
researcher for different research context in future.
The latest study has reported that the IK market is expected
to grow 5.56% within 6 years (until 2026) incoming due to
the Covid-19 pandemic.
 This model can be used as long the museum keep using
the interactive kiosk technology.
The development a structural model of determinant factors
in explaining and predicting the interactive kiosk adoption in
the museum through an extension of design factors in the
Technology Acceptance Model.
 How to manage time and stress
 Research Method/process.
 How to analyze a quantitative data
 How to deal with people - communication skill.
 How to publish to make people know on the topic and
share the knowledge.
 Networking with industry (museum sectors)
 Get the experience on the real site.
 A long lonely & challenge journey but at the end of the day
it was worth it
 Getting research grant
 Collaboration with industry
40 And, finally… What have you done  Research & the developed tool
that merits a PhD?
 Method

 Compilation of literatures

 Contribution to research

 Originality
Concurrent validity

Concurrent validity is the ability of a test to predict an event in the present by

using some criterion or standard to indicate a construct accurately.
the researcher compares the design’s factor identified in this case studies of
technology adoption, with other previous related studies in the literature review. By
doing that, the researcher can compare the current test with the established test from
the established literature.

Predictive validity

Predictive validity is the ability of a test to predict an event in the future by using some
criterion or standard to indicate a construct accurately (Golfashni, 2011). The predictive
validity of this research is established through the predictive power analysis for the
predictive relevance and the relative impact.

Convergent validity - correlations

Bryman (2012) states that the convergent validity should be measured by comparing
the same developed concept through other methods. It means that several measures
of a similar construct operate in similar ways (Neuman, 2014). Convergent validity has
been established in this research through several measurements. The researcher test
for convergence across different measures through factor analysis of multiple
measurements and structural equation modelling. The high correlations also would be
evidence of the convergent validity. - Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

Discriminant validity – measures of unrelated construct

Discriminant validity is in contrast to the convergent validity (Neuman, 2014). The
purpose of discriminant validity evidence is to discriminate between measures of
unrelated constructs. In this research, the discriminant validity is established by the
statistical evidence. The evidence of the convergent validity and discriminant validity is
presented in the Fornell-Lacker criterion and Cross loading analysis

Explanatory power
Coefficient of Determination (R2)
the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable, which can be predicted from
the independent variable.
Predictive Power (Q2)
Predictive Power analysis was conducted to generate a testable prediction of the
model.