Design Research Methodology - Project 2: Critical Reviews

28/4/2022 - 12/5/2022 (Week 5 - Week 7)

Sasilvia Cheong Pei Hoong / 0345031 / Bachelors of Design in Creative Media
Design Research Methodology
Project 2 - Critical Reviews

---

LECTURES

WEEK 5 (28/4/2022 )

What is a critical review

Critical review is much more than a simple summary, it is an analysis and evaluation of a book, article, or other medium. Writing a good critical review requires understanding a material, and to know how to analyze and evaluate that material using appropriate criteria. A critical review of a journal article evaluates the strengths and weakness of an article's ideas and content. It provides description, analysis and interpretation that allow readers to assess the article's value. 

Fig. 1.1 Critical review  

Before you read the article

• What does the title lead you to expect about the article?
• Study any sub-headings to understand how the author organized the content
• Read the abstract for a summary of the author's arguments
• Study the list of references to determine what research contributed to the author's arguments. Are the references recent? Do they represent important work in the field?
• If possible, read about the author to learn what authority he or she has to write about the subject.
• See if other writers have cited the author's work. Has the author made an important contribution in the field of study?

Reading the article: Points to consider

• Who is the intended audience?
• What is the author's purpose? To survey and summarize research on a topic? To present an argument that builds on past research? To refute another writer's argument?
• Does the author define important terms?
• Is the information in the article fact or opinion? (Facts can be verified, while opinions arise from interpretations of facts.) Does the information seem well-researched or is it unsupported?
• What are the author's central arguments or conclusions? Are they clearly stated? Are they supported by evidence and analysis. 
• If the article reports on an experiment or study, does the author clearly outline methodology and the expected result?
• Is the article lacking information or argumentation that you expected to find?
• Is the article organized logically and easy to follow?
• Does the writer's style suit the intended audience? Is the style stilted or unnecessarily complicated?
• Is the author's language objective or charged with emotion and bias?
• If illustrations or charts are used, are they effective in presenting information?

Prepare an outline

• Read over the notes.
• Choose a statement that expresses the central purpose or write up/literature of our review.
• When thinking of a write-up/literature, consider the author's intentions and whether or not one think those intentions were successfully realized.
• Eliminate all notes that do not relate to ones write-up/literature.
• Organize the remaining points into separate groups such as points about structure, style, or argument,
• Devise a logical sequence for presenting these ideas.
• Remember that all of the ideas must support the central write-up/literature.

Write the first draft

Fig. 1.2 First draft example 

The first paragraph may contain:

• A statement of your write-up/literature
• The author's purpose in writing the article
• Comments on how the article relates to other work on the same subject
• Information about the author's reputation or authority in the field

The body of the review should:

• State your arguments in support of your write-up/literature
• Follow the logical development of ideas that you mapped out in your outline
• Include quotations from the article which illustrate your main ideas

The concluding paragraph may:

• Summarize your review
• Restate your write-up/literature

Revise the first draft
Leave the first draft for a day or two before revising. Which allows to gain more objective perspective on the ideas. Check for the following when revising:

• Grammar and punctuation errors
• Organization, logical development and solid support of the write-up/ literature
• Errors in quotations or in references

One may make major revisions in the organization or content of the review during the revision process. Revising can lead to a radical change in the central write-up/literature.

Fig. 1.3 Process of writing a critical review

Fig. 1.4 Structure of a critical review

---

INSTRUCTIONS

---

Week 5

For week 5 I was not able to do much but just picking out articles that I would be working on for my critical review and just watching and reading the lecture and notes for the critical review. These are the 5 articles that I have picked out and pasted the pdf files into the google drive:

Fig. 1.1 5 articles chosen

Week 6

After that, I went to Mendeley to read the articles and highlight certain points with different colours and also add notes on parts that I wanted to emphasize and add extra words to them. There was one article that I was unable to open in Mendeley so I utilize the editing tools my laptop provided instead.

( Apologies for the low-quality image as I was not able to obtain a screenshot from my Mendeley as everything disappeared before I could capture anything so I got this from my feedback session recording instead)

Fig. 1.2 Utilizing Mendeley 

Fig. 1.3 Highlighting points

I wrote down the one critical review for the articles once I finish reading and highlighted the key points so that I do not get my memories mixed up by reading all of them at once.

Fig. 1.3 Critical review #1

Fig. 1.4 Critical review #2

Fig. 1.5 Critical review #3

Fig. 1.6 Critical review #4

Fig. 1.7 Critical review #5

Week 7

Through the feedback session, we were told we should combine our 5 critical reviews into one so that some similar parts from the article can be combined together. I was slightly confused as the lecture notes and recording did not state it that way. As it was quite late into the week and submission was near, I slightly panicked and it was quite hectic but I managed to get through everything and revise the critical review. I used some parts of what I wrote in the individual critical review and search for similarities through them and combine them together as I compare and contrast them individually.

Fig. 1.8 Critical review updated

Final

Fig. 2.1 Final critical review

---

FEEDBACK

Week 7 (12/5/2022) - 

General Feedback: It was suggested to straight away summarize the articles inside of Mendeley so that when it is consolidated later it can be turned into one submission. The individual critical reviews are what was done by the seniors. By writing notes and highlighting them the articles will be summarized and the process will be cut short. 

Specific Feedback: To submit the critical review the whole report is needed to be consolidated, the 5 articles that are read and summarized are to be combined into one material. Look at the example of the consolidated review provided in the google classroom. It will be tougher now, but it will cut short the process for the dissertation. It will have the evidence to put in, an understanding of the methodology, and how to draw the conclusion. Every student will have a different method of understanding, certainly, all 5 of the articles are needed to be introduced. There are notes about hope the structure should be reviewed, evaluate the articles, how the structure of the articles would take place, and whether there are similarities, whether they are highlighting the aim for the study, putting forward a particular objective. Every article will have its gaps and limitations, compare and contrast to be more critical to evaluate the articles with the next article, rather than look at one, review one and then write. Look at the two notes provided in the google classroom as it gives you a description of all the questions, it will help the rethink when reviewing the articles. The article's summary has to be combined by knowing the similarities. Those notes are instruments to question those articles, the review can be structured in the format according to the notes. In the end, it depends on the reviewer's preferences. Every time a question is asked there must be a reasoning to it, whether is it described vaguely or substantially.

---

REFLECTIONS

Experiences

The critical review is extremely challenging for me to do, as someone who does not like to read or write it was practically torture as it involved so much reading and writing to do. Though as we grow we must learn how to change and adapt to the challenges we faced, I would be lying if I said it was not tough. The final week for the assignment was also quite hectic as many changes has to be made since the lecture notes and recording did not state that the critical review has to be combined into one so I was genuinely confused about it during the feedback session, but after some explanation, I understand that it is to cut the process for our dissertation.

 

Observation

Reading through the 5 articles that I have chosen in Mendeley and highlighting all the points and writing the notes did help me with sticking to the point when writing down the reviews as my eyes would not be confused by the number of words that are in each article. I also noticed that every author of the 5 articles that I have chosen all have a different writing style and different ways of carrying out their methodology and it is interesting to look at it from different perspectives. 

Findings

I found that doing individual reviews was way easier than doing it all together in one, but as we do our dissertation having a combined critical review will be better. The critical review also helped me to learn more about how to construct my words and sentences in a more proper matter and be critical when reviewing them.

---

REFERENCES

Fig. 1.1 -1.4 

from week 5 lecture slides