// M02 Assignment One.

The objective of this assignment is to write a critical review of one peer-reviewed article (1500-2000 wds) plus three shorter critical reviews on talks given by lecturers (500 wds each).

Main Critical Review Piece on Peer-Reviewed Article

This part of the assignment has a word limit of 1500-2000 words and is to be written under the following five subtitles each to be 300-400 words each:

• Background: Here you describe what the article your reviewing says, essentially providing a background for further analysis. E.g. the amount of research and introduction to subject an article makes available within its writing.
• Methodology: If method is how you are doing something then methodology is why you did it, therefore you must analyse in this section whether or not the author explained why they wrote the paper. E.g. identify within the introduction which topics the author intends to write about then within the rest of the article identify where their research is coming from, what results they came up with, their findings and lastly their conclusion. Has their methodology explained why it all happened?
• Results & Discussion: The argument in hand, this is literally where the author discusses their point of view on the subject. Analyse the discussion and determine if the argument is sound and references used are accurate and relevant to the discussion.
• Findings: This section of the article is where the author discusses their findings, the result of their discussion. Examine whether their use of background within the self educed constraints of their methodology have been executed correctly.
• Conclusion: here the author distils down their findings into a final answer, pretty much the “truth” found via their discussion. Examine and Criticise whether they have been concise enough within this section, is the truth real and has it been found correctly. Can you identify any areas of further research and has the author pointed them out, lastly and most importantly as the conclusion is the findings distilled into a final answer, has that been done well and is the final answer, answering the question laid out in the introduction/background.

For my critical review piece I have chosen the article: “The eraser and the anti-eraser:  the battle over colour television in Israel” by Oren Soffer published in the 2008 November edition of the Media, Culture & Society Journal.

Gary Hall

The most interesting of the three to myself, Gary’s seminar was about piracy most specifically within the academic realm of books and other published works.

Areas for criticism:

• Well rounded seminar which covered many areas within the subject, however did not go on to explain how much further the subject could be researched into.

Andrew Beck

Idea behind seminar was that the western representation of china is just ticky-tacky. Sources used are shockwaves advert and a scene from The Departed where the term “No ticky, no laundry.” is refered to within the scene with the China-men where Frank Costello says “I’m concerned about a Chinaman who thinks it’s wise to come to a business meeting carrying automatic weapons. Because in this country, it don’t add inches to your dick, you get a life sentence for it.”

Areas for criticism:

• I believe over simplified semiotic analysis was used,
• while analysis of the shock waves advert was complete it missed some points and could have contrasted with a Chinese point of view on the representation within the advert,
• the inclusion of the departed sketch was very useful to the argument and in describing the term ticky-tacky,
• description of Chinese laundry and its meaning on western society was well argued,
• however the above description could have been fleshed out a little more,
• overall the seminar was well presented, examples where relevant and the overall conclusion sound.

The above points need to be consolidated to a 300-500 word critical review.

Shaun Hides

Idea behind Shauns seminar was that every day objects can have a human life cycle and that this can be described by objects having liminality – a term before used souley to describe human events. The idea behind an objects liminality arises in events such as when a child owns a teddy-bear which to them is alive, however when they grow up that attachment can be lost and therefore the item dies. This appears to be true of many items people feel sentimental attachment to such as cars and houses and can be seen more so when people themselves die and their relatives inheret an object which takes on the life of its previous owner in the eyes of its new owner.

Areas for criticism:

• Introduction into liminality was concise and interesting,
• however language used led to some misunderstandings at least on my part,
• link between objects and people both being in liminal spaces was well argued,
• however can liminality truly be applied to objects as having their own liminal experiences?
• in reference to the above, can objects have lives?
• Shauns argument is that they can and that those “lives” can exist within liminal spaces,
• links to other theorists work to back up claim where well thought out and relevant, especially Marxist Fetishism,
• however not enough detail within the presentation was provided with the above,
• overall the seminar was well presented, the examples while a little complicated where relevant and the overall conclusion understandable.

The above points need to be consolidated to a 300-500 word critical review.

Points for all mini-analysis

Take into consideration the following:

• For Shaun and Andrews seminars they didn’t appear to have pointed out where their research could be pushed forward,
• or with respect to the above, where they could go on to from there,
• Shaun’s seminar seemed to have more up-to-date theory than Andrews.

How to write a “Critical Review”

Each critical review should comment on to what extent does the research presented:

• confirm accepted orthodoxies within the topic area?
• challenge previous findings/accepted practice?
• provide new insights into ‘old’ areas?
• suggest new and further areas of research?

You might also want to evaluate it in terms of the extent to which any identified aims and objectives were realised, the appropriateness and rigour of the methodology, the persuasiveness of the findings as presented and the legitimacy of the conclusions/recommendations.

Finally, while criticising an article you need to ask yourself the following questions:

• Who is the author?
• when did they write it? and within what context?
• How can you implement this within your work?
• What side are you taking within their work?
• Do you agree or disagree?
• What aspect of the subject are they talking about, and are they an expert within their field?