A 2 was an important turning point in my dissertation. This post looks at how I responded to some critical tutor feedback.
Learning Objective
LO2 synthesised and articulated your critical, contextual and conceptual knowledge and understanding into a coherent critique of advanced academic standard
Link to Learning Log
A 2: CTS Tutor feedback my responses and changes made
A. Tutor Feedback
February 2021
Morris Gallagher 513748
Contextual Studies – Assignment 2 – Literature Review
Formative feedback
Normally to be written by the student, and endorsed by the tutor with additions/amendments in red.
Key points
- ENGAGEMENT: “Good engagement with the subject.”
- CONTENT: Would have been better to have MORE analysis of a smaller amount number of sources. This would also create space for;
- Your theoretical framework – at least in outline with key sources identified
- Analysis which includes more of your own thoughts and feeling (intertextuality)
- A prose like summary, rather than the bullet points that you have
- THEORY: We discussed applicable theory – I had that in my first drafts but removed it as I thought that was for A3 and A4. We agreed that I should send an annotated statement of my key theoretical sources that I will use and send that to you.
Summary of tutorial discussion
- Learning points from tutor annotations on written assignment pieces
The majority of the annotations are about expanding out texts, such as the semiotic system of masking, the influence of signs and the analyses of images like Currie’s, ‘The Three Oncologists.’ I thought erroneously that this was for A4.
I understand about making a fuller explanatory conclusion rather than bullet points. That was squeezed out by my interpretation of the written guidance for CS which was about including lots of images, although doing so has meant that the analysis of the images is cursory rather than more expansive.
This is an iterative process in the research, reading, writing, reflecting, getting feedback, and rewriting that shapes the work. There is no other way to do this.
This is a new area of writing that I am learning; hitherto I have been writing in health care sciences and journalistically. It will take some time to understand and learn what is needed so that my writing articulates what I feel and want to say and to communicate that I have explored the subject to a high standard.
- Learning points from tutorial
The critical, directive and shaping feedback is very helpful, and it confirmed to me today that I am researching the ‘right’ images, ideas and theories. I have done much of this theoretical reading and writing a few months ago. I just need to work it into my writing, and that should show itself in reworked A2.
- recommendations and actions regarding research proposal.
- To reflect on the advice given
- To send an annotated bibliograph or 3-4 key sources for your theoretical framework
- To send a re-worked A2 with the recommended changes when ready
Summary of Research Proposal (amended in the light of the tutorial)
To include stages and timescales
| Strengths | Areas for development |
| Clarity of writing | Fewer images and MORE analysis of a select group of images |
| Extent and quality of research | Bring in those theoretical sources that are ‘waiting in the wings,’ so that we can clearly see what your theoretical framework is now |
| The subject is “interesting” | Intertextuality: personal, textual, visual – let’s have more of yourself applied to your essay and analyses |
| Give YOUR view about works and not simply a summary of other people’s |
B. My initial responses
Key points
- ENGAGEMENT: “Good engagement with the subject.”
- CONTENT: Would have been better to have MORE analysis of a smaller amount number of sources. This would also create space for;
- Your theoretical framework – at least in outline with key sources identified
- Analysis which includes more of your own thoughts and feeling (intertextuality)
- A prose like summary, rather than the bullet points that you have
- THEORY: We discussed applicable theory – I had that in my first drafts but removed it as I thought that was for A3 and A4. We agreed that I should send an annotated statement of my key theoretical sources that I will use and send that to you.
NOTE: A lot of this is knowing what the in needed to shape the final piece of work. I have spent a long time reading theory and other research, but if I am honest I don’t have the detailed knowledge of, for example, Foucault’s work that I need.
Summary of tutorial discussion
- Learning points from tutor annotations on written assignment pieces
The majority of the annotations are about expanding out texts, such as the semiotic system of masking, the influence of signs and the analyses of images like Currie’s, ‘The Three Oncologists.’ I thought erroneously that this was for A4.
I understand about making a fuller explanatory conclusion rather than bullet points. That was squeezed out by my interpretation of the written guidance for CS which was about including lots of images, although doing so has meant that the analysis of the images is cursory rather than more expansive.
NOTE: What is the balance of what is needed?
This is an iterative process in the research, reading, writing, reflecting, getting feedback, and rewriting that shapes the work. There is no other way to do this.
This is a new area of writing that I am learning; hitherto I have been writing in health care sciences and journalistically. It will take some time to understand and learn what is needed so that my writing articulates what I feel and want to say and to communicate that I have explored the subject to a high standard.
- Learning points from tutorial
The critical, directive and shaping feedback is very helpful, and it confirmed to me today that I am researching the ‘right’ images, ideas and theories. I have done much of this theoretical reading and writing a few months ago. I just need to work it into my writing, and that should show itself in reworked A2.
- recommendations and actions regarding research proposal.
- To reflect on the advice given
- To send an annotated bibliograph or 3-4 key sources for your theoretical framework
- To send a re-worked A2 with the recommended changes when ready
NOTE: I have completed these tasks which helped me to focus on what are my sources – I think I have been looking at too much theory and with not enough drilling down with prime sources.
Summary of Research Proposal (amended in the light of the tutorial)
To include stages and timescales
| Strengths | Areas for development |
| Clarity of writing | Less images and MORE analysis of a select group of images |
| Extent and quality of research | Bring in those theoretical sources that are ‘waiting in the wings,’ so that we can clearly see what your theoretical framework is now |
| The subject is “interesting” | Intertextuality: personal, textual, visual – let’s have more of yourself applied to your essay and analyses |
| Give YOUR view about works and not simply a summary of other people’s |
NOTE: Mmm…I think the message is focus and more of myself
C. Changes made – Reflections and actions
1. REFLECTIONS
I’ve had time to think about my tutor’s comments. I’ve also taken to heart the need to pin down my theoretical framework which I have outlined in detail in another post.
1.1 Disappointment
I was extremely disappointed by my tutor’s reaction to my literature review. I saw it as a review of some literature about medical iconography and the evolution of the doctor in imagery and not the genesis of my main essay. My tutor saw it as the prelude or base for the extended work. I had read several books and frameworks for doing the literature review but that did not prepare me for what I think is now needed.
1.2 Intention
The truth is that I have several niggles or self-criticisms about my literature review. They are related to my intention which is to say something about the development of medical power in visual culture. As it stands A2 is a chronological review of medical iconography but does not meet my intention.
1.3 Theoretical Framework
My main task was to look at my theoretical framework. My tutor suggested that but did not give me feedback on my document. I realize that I have to work this out for myself. There is another post detailing this but here is a summary followed by some reflections of what I have produced.
This was a very important exercise for me because it confirmed to me three things
- My essay is about medical and institutional POWER
- My best sources are Foucault and Hall; POWER and CULTURE
- I am on the right track but need to have a detailed understaning of my theories and how they apply
I spent three weeks buying reading and studying several Foucault and Hall books. The most interesting thing was that they provided new ideas about power relations that I could use in my dissertation. For example;
- His essays on power provides a complex framework for thinking about settings where alternative respresentations of medical images can be expressed – the body being one of these as in the work of Jo Spence
- These essays also talk about how autocracies control what is seen – who decides. I can see this in the Covid-19 medical briefings and will probably write about this first for A3
When I began the annotation exercise I thought that Bakhtin’s theory of ideology and dialogue might be a useful main theory, but after studying Foucault it was clear that the had much more to say about my subject.
1.4 Analysis and personal voice
I have published a lot of research in health care. One of the features of original research is that you don’t extrapolate beyond the data and you definitely don’t give your opinion. I think what is being asked for is an opinion or formulation of research or images, which is a little alien to me as a researcher but not as a person. The other dimension here is employing my unique voice as a doctor. I thought that was not what was wanted and deleted these in a version of A2; I will put more personal experiences as a doctor in a future version but the contributions need to be relevant.