Research for a university project. - Bike locks

I reckon one way worth approaching this is from the angle of the act of theft.

Think about some of the ways that bikes have been stolen;

Hacksaws
Pen lids
Gas cannisters
Bottle jacks
Bolt croppers
Angle grinders
Cutting torches

Each of them have exposed certain vulnerabilities, some of them have been designed out. I get the sense that in the reactive nature of security, existing lock types have been redesigned to try and design out their inherent vulnerabilities. For instance, a D-Lock is always going to be of a certain maximum width and therefore still vulnerable to a pincer/cutting attack such as massive bolt croppers.

If I were in your position, I would start research with how the bikes have been stolen in the first place; bolt croppers, cutting torches, angle grinders, etc... Look at what features, design or materials, would remove the vulnerabilities that these attacks are exposing.

Rendering the bike useless is a no win to me. How you lock the bike still plays an important part in the security. If someone comes along and clears all the bikes in a set of racks, they probably won't even notice it doesn't work. The bike is still stolen and you don't get to ride it again. Pyrrhic victory isn't really the sort of outcome that should be a desired result. The only way to make this reliable would be to make the effect so patently obvious as to render the bike undesirable to a thief or thieves operating in volume.

Counter-attack locks might well appeal to a cyclists desire for justice, but do you really think it would be allowed to market? The area of liability on this sort of thing gets very complicated very quickly. Any corporate lawyer would rightly veto any involvement in the manufacture or sale of such an item without first gaining explicit approval and immunity from prosecution from the government across various departments representing trade, justice and the judiciary at the very least.