Once I understood the basic structure of the literature review, the next problem was working out what "critical" writing actually looks like in practice.
I already had a large amount of research, but simply having good sources would not automatically make the report analytical. I needed to show what I thought the evidence meant, where it was strong, where it was limited and how different findings could be brought together to create a new argument.
In my notes I reduced the assessment progression into a very simple reminder for myself.
At the most basic level, I need to remember and understand the research. The next level is applying and analysing it by showing how sources connect. The strongest level is evaluating the evidence and then using that evaluation to create a new argument or design position.
I know this is a simplified way of thinking about the marking criteria, but it has been useful while writing because it gives me something practical to check against.
I do not just need to show that I have read the research. I need to show what I can do with it.
One of the easiest ways I have found to make my writing more critical is to keep asking "so what?"
If a study says autistic adults value predictability, so what does that mean for airport accessibility?
If another study shows that independence can include receiving support, so what does that mean for the assumption that an independent traveller should manage without assistance?
If sensory responses vary between individuals and contexts, so what does that mean for a shared sensory room designed as one fixed environment?
The answer to those questions is where my own argument begins to appear.
I also need to actively look for weaknesses in evidence that supports my own ideas.
This feels important because it would be easy to become too attached to sources that seem to validate the direction of my project.
A paper can be useful and still have limitations. A small sample can still produce valuable qualitative insight. A laboratory study can demonstrate a technical possibility without proving it will work in an airport. A 2026 emerging technology paper can be relevant without being long-established evidence.
Being critical means keeping both sides visible.