Design Research Methodology: Critical Review
Adena Tan Sue Lynn (0345769) / Bachelor of Design (Honours) in Creative Media
Design Research Methodology
Critical Review
DIRECTORY
LECTURES
Week 05 [28/04/2022]
What is a Critical Review?
It is much more than a simple summary. It is an analysis & evaluation of a piece of medium. To write a good critical review, one must understand the material & know how to analyse & evaluate the material using appropriate criteria.
A critical review of a journal article evaluates the strengths & weaknesses of an article's ideas & content. Provided to the readers is a description, analysis & interpretation in order to assess the article's value.
Before Reading the Article
- What expectations does the title give?
- Study any sub-headings to understand how the author organised the contents.
- Read the abstract for a summary of the author's arguments.
- Study the list of references in order to determine what research contributed to the author's arguments. Are they recent? Do they represent important work in the field?
- If possible, read about the author to learn what authority they have to write about the subject.
- See if other writers have cited the author's work and if the author has made an important contribution in the field of study.
Reading the Article: Points to Consider
Read the article carefully. Record the impressions & note sections suitable for quoting.
- Who is the intended audience?
- What is the author's purpose? To survey and summarise 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 an opinion? [Facts are able to be verified, but opinions come from interpretations of facts.] Does the information seem well-researched?
- What are the author's central arguments or conclusions? Are they clearly stated? Are they supported by evidence & analysis?
- If the articles reports an experiment/study, does the author clearly outline the methodology & the expected result?
- Is the article lacking information or argumentation that you expected to find?
- Is the article organised logically and easy to follow?
- Does the author's style suit the intended audience?
- Is the author's language objective or charged with emotion & bias?
- If illustrations or charts are used, are they effective in presenting information?
Preparing an Outline
Read over the notes. Choose a statement that expresses the central purpose or write-up of your review. When thinking of a write-up, consider the author's intentions & whether or not you think those intentions were successfully realised. Eliminate the notes that aren't related. Organise your remaining points into separate groups such as points about structure, style, or argument. Devise a logical sequence for presenting these ideas, and remember that all of the ideas must support the central write-up.
Writing the First Draft
The review should begin with a complete citation of the article. For
example:
Platt, Kevin M.F. "History and Despotism, or: Hayden White vs.
Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great." Rethinking History 3:3 (1999) :
247-269.
Use the same bibliographic citation format as you would for any bibliography, works cited or reference list. It should follow a standard documentation style.
Idealistically, it should contain:
1) The first paragraph:
- 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
2) 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
3) The concluding paragraph may:
- summarise your review
- restate your write-up/literature
Revising the First Draft
Ideally, it is advised to leave the first draft for a day or two before revising. It allows for a more objective perspective on your ideas. Check for the following when revising:
- grammar & punctuation errors
- organisation, logical development & solid support of the write-up
- errors in quotations or in references
INSTRUCTIONS
To start, I decided to find some research articles to study. Initially, I looked into the ones I had included from my proposal.
However, once I read some parts of the ones I chose, I decided to focus on the below papers*:
1. Favier, M., Celhay, F., Pantin-Sohier, G. (2018). Is less more or a bore? Package design simplicity and brand perception: an application to Champagne. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 46, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.09.013
2. Oladumiye, E. B. (2018). Graphic Design Theory Research and Application in Packaging Technology. Art and Design Review, 6, 29-42. https://doi.org/10.4236/adr.2018.61003 **
3. Raja, I. S. R. A. R., Azman, B., Lim, Y. P. (2017). Perceived Aesthetics Visual Design Elements of A Packaging Design: A Preliminary Study. Malaysian Journal of Creative Media, Design and Technology, Volume 1 (3), 2017. https://rekajournal.usm.my/images/Volume_1/paper16E_031-small.pdf
4. Shi, L. (2022). Design of Packaging Design Evaluation Architecture Based on Deep Learning. Scientific Programming, Volume 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4469495
5.Vasileiadis, T., Tzotzis, A., Tzetzis, D. & Kyratsis, P. (2019). Combining product and packaging design for increased added value and customer satisfaction. Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design, Volume 10 (2), 2019. http://doi.org/10.24867/JGED-2019-2-005
Then, I got to writing. At first, I wrote each of my reviews separately to avoid confusion for myself.
Please note that none of my words in the above document are edited, especially the first two.
After this, I compiled all of my reviews on Microsoft Word. There, I edited my papers together according to their segments. I also removed parts I didn't feel was repeating the paper or didn't fit the segment it was written for. I also added some parts as I wasn't as critical as I needed to be in some of my papers.
An explanation for why there are random spaces at the end of pages
occasionally:
I felt some parts didn't look put together as the
sub-header would start near the end of the page, which made the pages look
imbalanced and disrupted the reading flow. To prevent that, I added spaces
where I thought was suitable.
FINAL SUBMISSION:
FEEDBACK
Week 05 - 28/04/2022
I was reminded to keep my Google document in a chronological order. For article names, I was advised to make it a generic topic. This will be helpful if I write a review with two similar articles, comparing & critiquing them together. Remember to do in-text citations when needed.
Dr Jinchi also helped me think of ways to re-word and structure my critique in order to create a better insight of what I thought of the paper. She also advised me to make some parts clearer to the reader
Week 07 - 12/05/2022
Dr Jinchi reminded the class to include their research problems in the paper. She also reminded that we are supposed to combine the reviews of the research we have found, either by identifying topics or by their segments in the paper. Refrain from stating the article (ex: Article #1 or Article #2). Instead, use in-text citation. Bibliography will be used as references.
When giving me feedback, Dr Jinchi provided me better ways to word my critical review, as some parts were a bit confusing. She also advised me be clearer with the methods of research done, early on in order to make it clear to the reader.
Finally, I was advised to comment if I thought the paper was suitable for my research, or not, to end my review nicely.
REFLECTION
Overall, this project was a whirlwind of emotions. In the first few days, I was really stressed with how to properly review as I've never done this when I was doing previous assignments. However, with this project, I was able to learn so much about how to review critically, and smartly. As a project, this was definitely an interesting experience as I cracked my brain multiple times to sense if something was done right or wasn't. Maybe I was overly critical at times, but I think it allowed me to have a certain standard for myself when conducting research.
