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.

My Simple Pass, Merit and Distinction Reminder

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.

Asking "So What?"

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.

Strengths and Weaknesses

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.

Questioning My Own Design Direction

One of the strongest points in my notes was that I should also include research that makes me question my own ideas.

For example, if I am proposing physiological sensing, I need evidence that challenges the assumption that a biosignal can directly identify overload. If I am interested in VR, I need to question whether a headset is appropriate during live travel. If I am proposing personalisation, I need to consider whether too many options could increase cognitive demand.

This stops the report from becoming an academic justification for a solution I have already decided on.

Creating a New Argument

The "create" part is where I bring several pieces of evidence together and use them to develop a position that is specific to my project.

For example, the literature on sensory variability, my participant findings around changing support needs and the limitations of fixed airport provision can be brought together to argue that accessibility may need to become more responsive rather than simply adding more fixed interventions.

That argument does not come from one source. It comes from the relationship between several sources and my own analysis.

The strongest parts of the report should be the points where evidence from different areas comes together and changes how I understand the design problem.

What I Need to Check While Writing

As I continue drafting, I want to keep checking whether I am summarising or actually analysing.

If a paragraph only tells the reader what the authors found, I probably need another sentence explaining the limitation, comparison, implication or question that follows from it.

That is the difference I want to make visible throughout the report.