I must be one of the few people in the world that actually enjoys getting constructive criticism, and this part of the session was basically aimed at that.
Reading again through the brief and finalising what we want to do, giving us a direction to go in, it was useful to see what we needed to do and not feel bad if you know the topic but it isn’t more specific because the idea may change anyway.
We had to look at our ideas, think about where we could and already had got research from and whether they were viable ideas, and where we thought we should be by next week. We also got to give each other feedback and it was interesting to see what other people were doing and what route they were thinking of taking.
What theme/lens had I chosen:
Science with the intention of using the lense ‘truth’.
What did I look into?
- Want to look into mental disorders.
- Possibly looking into how helpful the medication prescribed is and if it helps or hinders.
- Conspiracies behind mental disorders.
What could my sources of information be?
- Articles (both newspaper and medical articles).
- The internet (but not wikipedia).
- Doctors or practitioners in the field.
What is my aim for next week?
- To have a definite direction.
- To have begun research and found some interesting stuff, possibly controversial because I want to really provoke the audience.
- To have written the wider context section of the essay.
Jenny said that maybe I should look at picking a specific condition instead of being so general. I think it would make more sense to pick a degenerative disease as this tie in nicely with the medication aspect, as you would think it should help but it probably doesn’t.
She also said I shouldn’t be scared if my idea changed naturally with the research, to something like how the research was carried out and the truth or ethics behind it, just as long as it wasn’t completely random.