Reference
Sadokierski, Z. (2019). Critical Journal / Contextual Portfolio: A framework for documenting and disseminating RtD as scholarly research. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/135917
Highlights
The first part of the framework provides guidelines for documenting RtD through a Critical Journaling practice, which emphasises chronologically capturing and reflecting on: contextual research, self and peer critique, and regular ‘overview maps’, alongside iterative design processes.
first part is relevant to my thesis
‘ANCHORS
author, is the publication date relevant?, what is the argument?, how is it relevant to my work?, what does it lead me to do or ask?
OVERVIEW MAPS
regular pulling back to see the big picture. to-do: decide on the format and interval
EXPERIMENT LOGS
the primary goal of Critical Journaling is to capture the thinking and processes that are consciously, or could later be argued as, scholarly activities
a collective of scholars from the universities of Indiana (USA) and Aarhus (Denmark) argue that systematic and comprehensive documentation of RtD provides a “key raw material out of which [academic] knowledge is constructed.
The Critical Journaling framework I propose foregrounds journaling with critical intention – not only to record design and research activity, but to rigorously critique that activity as an intrinsic part of the RtD practice
In this instance, visitors may be able to critique the graphic qualities and narrative within the individual diagrams, but without understanding the work as a response to Drucker’s Graphesis, they cannot assess how they function as an interpretation and demonstration of theory. Therefore, I produced a Contextual Portfolio to accompany the exhibited work in order to frame the research context and aims, for audiences interested in the research agenda.
contextual portfolio actually might be necessary, for exactly this, user testing? iterating?
a) ‘Anchors’ – analysis of Drucker and the novels which inform the diagrams, as well as other texts that informed the work. (fig. 8) b) Research statement, extracted from my ‘overview maps’. (fig. 9) c) The ‘experiment log’ structure is used to document the design process for each diagram, with the intention to present my iterative process for critique. (fig. 10)
To properly address how Contextual Portfolios may be considered high quality research output, the issue of equivalence must be addressed. This is a wicked problem for RtD researchers that I don’t presume to solve; following are some conversation starters.
The Critical Journaling Guidelines foreground documenting how and where design practice informs, and is informed by, literature and design precedents. As ‘synthesis documents’ Contextual Portfolios provide an evidence base by which to evaluate contextual research, critical thinking and novel processes which may not be evident in a design artefact.
definitions!
Summary
The author seeks to establish a framework that would make it possible to bring RtD activities into the realm of high-quality research (which can be quite challenging due to the speculative design approach) precisely because core RtD activities are difficult to document. Existing models do not comprehensively capture the thought processes and reasoning involved in this highly creative activity.
Her approach consists of two parts: critical journal and a contextual portfolio. When working on the critical journal, she strives to balance legibility with at least some conventions and a clear structure, while ensuring that the work’s design-oriented nature is not lost. Meanwhile, the contextual portfolio aims to let the artefact speak for itself and to present a substantive, defensible scholarly argument.
- it’s more operational than Gaver and Bowers’ annotated portfolios, and it adds the theory–practice link that Pedgley lacks
Critical analysis
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| the author gives concrete prompts! | though it is not tested out on actual novice researcher as she proposes |
| it’s an expert synthesis that responds to known critiques of existing models | the evidence base is her experience alone, with no external testing |
| honest about the limits of the framework | leaves validation quite open, which is where novices are most exposed (and her example reproduces the the problem she identifies) |
Relevance to my research
- very relevant, as it is the framework I have chosen to use in my RtD research