During the course of the "Research Methods and Professional Practice" module, I was exposed to a plethora of research-related knowledge and materials, ranging from research and surveying methodologies to literature review-related good practices and research writing. Moreover, the module dived into the ethical consideration of research and computing, as well as professional practices in drawing conclusions from data. My technical background and lack of previous literature-related knowledge forced me to embark on this module with only a foundational understanding of literature-related concepts, especially for the theoretical aspect of it, even though ethics and surveying were something that I was more familiar with. This individual reflection aims to review the learning journey by using a diary-like approach separated by unit for each of the 12 units of this module.

 Starting with Unit 1, the unit subject revolved around ethics in computing as well as research aims and scientific methods. As described in the opening paragraph, due to the lack of theoretical and research-related background, this specific unit has been intellectually challenging for me as I had to understand the purpose of the research and also deep-dive into the ethics of computing through the collaborative discussion case studies and the reflective activity. The webpage "The Difference Between Deductive and Inductive Reasoning" (Miessler, 2020) assisted me in better understanding one of the subjects discussed in this specific unit and somewhat bridging the gap in my pre-existing knowledge. At the same time, the case study gave me a unique perspective on ethics and ethical considerations.

 This week's reading has been lengthy, and therefore, due to conflicting priorities, it has been difficult for me to engage fully. Despite that, one of the most exciting readings providing insights about ethics and their realms has been "The Ethics of Computing: A Survey of the Computing-Oriented Literature" (Stahl et al., 2015). Despite not being an ethicist and not a researcher in academia, both subjects triggered my interest by starting to think about projects or papers that I would like to write with a research focus or an ethics and compliance focus. A positive side effect has also been the understanding of how journal publishing works, which, even though it has been a product of my own research, the seed has been indeed planted by this unit.

 To continue with, in Units 2 and 3, I have been more involved with hands-on tasks related to the literature review assignments and the research proposal, both due at a later stage. These two units engage with research and literature review writing and different methodologies in research, subjects that were both alien to me. The video "My Step by Step Guide to Writing a Research Paper" (Hammock, 2018), one of the readings of Unit 2, greatly assisted me in the subsequent steps of this module. At the same time, the "Research Proposal Review" greatly confused me as I could neither easily apply the methods in my research ideas nor envision how my research would be structured.

 At the same time, the continuous engagement with my peers through collaborative discussion provided more unique perspectives on the ethics of computing. The seed of paper writing that I mentioned earlier continued to grow, and the literature review deliverable was of particular interest to me, thinking that I could apply something similar to a great extent as a capstone project. Moreover, the acquired knowledge helped me engage in a work-related research project.

 Grouping Units 4 to 6, the units provide more extensive information on research data collection methods and practices (e.g. questionnaires, case studies, etc.). These units presented information that I have been more familiar with and discussed some of the concepts I have previously used in my daily work (e.g. questionnaire design); thus, they have been relatively easy for me. Even though I had previous engagement with the concepts, I found particularly interesting the reading about Cambridge Analytica (Confessore, 2018) and focus group ethical considerations (Sim, 2019), the latter due to the continuous usage of focus groups in my daily work. The aspects mentioned above have been complemented by the literature review outline, which has been my first attempt to present a literature review in my academic career. Surprisingly, and due to the subject that I selected, which has been of great interest to me, the literature review outline writing came naturally to me and further enhanced my enthusiasm for paper writing.

 Units 7 to 9 provide a logical continuity to the previous units, describing statistical methods and qualitative and quantitative analysis. Similarly to Units 4 to 6, the units described concepts familiar to me, both due to my daily work and previous master and bachelor courses (e.g. statistics). Even though the units provided little new information, generalizability has been academically interesting. The second collaborative discussion presented another opportunity to engage with peers and further discuss data-specific ethical aspects of computing. The slower-paced units allowed me to better focus on my literature review and dedicate sufficient time, which would otherwise have been impossible due to my professional commitments. Unfortunately, further information received on the capstone project requirements shattered some of the previously developed ideas around the dissertation, and significant changes had to be made to my approach in order to integrate an implementation aspect to the dissertation itself, something that I found particularly challenging considering that my ideas have been developed in light of the upcoming research proposal dissertation. Nonetheless, the ideas of paper writing remained outside of a university setting, which is also why they are not presented publicly in the eportfolio.

 Finally, Units 10 to 12 presented research writing, eportfolio development and project management materials, respectively. As said several times throughout this reflection, my technical background created an unconfident environment for me; therefore, receiving more guidance regarding research writing has been beneficial, especially the resources "Writing and Presenting Your Research" (Farquhar, 2012), and "Inside the mind of a master procrastinator" (Urban, 2016). Project management material also gave me ideas about what I want to do in the future and if I would like to go through a project management educational programme. At the same time, considerable challenges in terms of timing arose, primarily linked to the last-minute change of plans regarding the research proposal presentation, leading to delayed submission time.

 Throughout this module, I explored and familiarised myself with different research methodologies, ethical considerations in computing, and academic professional practices. Due to limited pre-existing knowledge, I faced challenges in understanding research concepts. Succeeding units introduced hands-on literature review and research proposal presentation, data collection methods, and statistical approaches, which improved my understanding. The final units, emphasizing research writing and project management, shaped my future plans. Throughout the module, collaboration with peers has also been beneficial, while logistical challenges mainly related to conflicting priorities hindered my performance. Overall, this module improved my research capabilities and helped me find a passion for paper writing, which I aim to pursue in the future.