Critique of a Research Dissertation2
CRITIQUEOF A RESEARCH DISSERTATION
Critiqueof a research dissertation
Thedocument below is a critique of a research dissertation ofmatch-moving’s production methods. The dissertation is fair innearly all aspects. However, there exist a number of discrepancies inthe dissertation. The dissertation’s abstract is an excellentsummary of what the reader expects. It touches all the aspectsdiscussed in the dissertation sequentially. The overall presentationof the dissertation is worth praising to some extent. However, it isalso worth critiques. The dissertation has been arrangedconsistently. The chapter three of dissertation explains thepreparation as well as the preproduction process. It also explainsthe methods that were incorporated. The chapter hence acts as a hintor introduction of the discussion found in chapter four while chapterfive explains the findings which are chapter four’s results. Thisis enough evidence that the dissertation’s consistency is worthpraising.
Onthe other hand, the dissertation has been presented with verytechnical terms. It, therefore, makes no significant sense to areader who does not have any media-based knowledge. The technicalityof the language cannot be termed as a problem but failure to explainthe real meaning of these technical names creates the major problem.For example, 3D has just been shallowly described asthree-dimensional but it is not clear the real meaning of the threedimensional from the media perspective. The dissertation’sliterature review outlines research and theories that have beencarried out in match-moving field, camera characteristics,match-moving history, similar methods to match-moving and the futureof match-moving (Hornung 2010).
Theliterature review does not raise any form of a research question thatthe dissertation is aiming to find its solution. This clearly showsthat the dissertation is not offering any solution to the problem.The author of the dissertation should have indicated how match-movingis beneficial. The author should also have indicated the objectivesin the literature review. The main idea that was supposed to beincorporated was the importance of the dissertation’s subjectmatter and how the dissertation would help in solving a certainproblem. This aspect, however cannot be traced anywhere hence puttingthe dissertation’s essence in question. The author has, however,cited the references rigorously. The sources have been well citedincluding the pages where information has been retrieved (Hornung2010).
Theauthor in the dissertation failed to indicate the criteria he used inthe section of the research method. The author did not also indicatecategorically mention the method he used. It is clear, however, thatthe research was based on reading from books as well as otherrelevant documentaries although it is not indicated anywhere in thedissertation. There was a great necessity of indicating the researchmethod and the main reason of preferring that method over others. Allthe essential ethical aspects like privacy, causingdisturbances/environment pollution and location permissions have beendiscussed in the dissertation. These are the main ethical mattersthat were supposed to be catered for, and their address reveals thatthere was a sufficient exploration of ethical issues.
Theentire project was well designed. The author indicates the entireprocess starting from the preparations to the real action of theproject and eventually gives the findings as well as theirdiscussion. The author also indicated clearly the project developmentprocess in its sequential stages. The process was also coupled with anumber of drawings. These drawings make the process easy to followthrough and also to understand (Hornung 2010).
Theseaspects clearly indicate that the project management is worthpraising. In the dissertation’s discussion, the author highlightedseveral technical challenges that erupted in the course of projectdevelopment and also gave their solution (Hornung 2010). For example,the researcher indicates that there was a difficulty related tounpredictable movements of the camera. The researcher indicates thatthese movements are caused by 3D models to seem jumping and changingposition in the frame. In response to that problem, the researcherdid an experiment of camera parenting with tracking points group.According to the researcher, the criterion seemed to offer a solutionto 3D model and unpredictable camera movements. This is enough proofthat technical challenges were reported and confronted as well.
Theintended outcomes of the researcher are well evaluated in chapterfive of the dissertation and how the project fulfilled his or herobjectives. The researcher indicates the objectives he had, theresults he achieved as well as some technical challenges that wereevident. This acts as an indication that intended as well as actualoutcomes have been well evaluated. The dissertation conclusion isalso worth praising. It restates the dissertation objectives and alsohighlights the findings. The conclusion also analyzes the project’slimitation. Recommendations for extensive research have also beenclearly discussed in the conclusion. The conclusion touched on allcrucial parameters and hence commendable. It has also given realisticsuggestions for future research. The researcher has indicated thattechnology is evolving day in day out and hence there is a necessityof another research in the near future (Hornung 2010).
Hornung,E 2010, Theart and technique of Matchmoving: Solutions for the VFX Artist (FirstEdition). Oxford,Elsevier Inc.