Before I started properly writing the Critical Report, I went back to the assignment brief to understand exactly what the report was expected to do. I knew it was a 5,000-word academic submission, but I needed to separate the report from the Studio Practice and understand what would actually be assessed through the writing.
The brief describes the report as a short dissertation that should sit closely alongside the Studio Practice. It needs to review, analyse and reflect on the historical and theoretical context around the project, while also explaining and justifying the research methods used.
This immediately helped me see that the report could not simply document what I had done each week. It needed to construct a clear argument around the project.
The assignment brief recommends including a detailed introduction, a research question, a literature review, an outline of the research methods, a discussion of the findings and a full conclusion.
This gave me a basic structure to begin working from, but I did not want to treat it as a rigid template. I needed each section to have a clear role within the argument.
The introduction needed to establish the context and problem. The literature review needed to show what is already known and where the gaps or disagreements sit. The methodology needed to justify how I gathered and analysed my primary research. The findings and discussion needed to bring my participant data into conversation with the wider literature. The conclusion then needed to explain what the research had actually established and what still remained unresolved.
The structure needed to support the argument rather than becoming a set of separate academic sections that did not connect to one another.
Another useful part of the brief is that the reader may come from outside the immediate academic field.
This means I need to write at Master's level without assuming that the reader already understands autism, airport accessibility, biosignals or bioresponsive technology. I need to introduce terminology clearly and avoid unnecessary jargon.
This has become increasingly important as the project has moved into more technical areas. If I cannot explain HRV, biofeedback or a closed-loop system clearly, then the writing is not doing its job.
The brief also makes it clear that the report and Studio Practice are being developed concurrently.
I initially thought of them as two separate assignments, but the more I have worked on the project, the more they have started to influence one another. Writing the report has exposed gaps in the design research, while the Studio Practice has given me new questions to investigate academically.
This means the report should not simply justify a finished design after the fact. It should show how research has actively shaped the direction of the project.
The report needs to use Harvard referencing throughout, which means I also need to keep much tighter control over where claims come from.
I cannot rely on a paper simply because it sounds relevant. I need to understand what the authors actually studied, who took part, what the limitations were and whether the evidence genuinely supports the point I am making.