Looking for some clarity please. I'm studying MSc Music Tech, one of the modules is 'Research Practice' and the assignment I am seeking clarity on is, a critical review. In the assignment instructions there are two parts which are causing me confusion. It asks -

1) 'Compare, contrast and evaluate research findings'

Then further down it asks -

2) 'In the main discussion of your review, analyse and evaluate your findings'

I am confused as it appears to be asking me to do two very similar things.
What is the difference between research findings and my findings?
Does 1) have its own section, or should it also be included with 2) in the main discussion of the review?

Thanks in advance

Your university might have some information on what they expect a critical review to include. I would have a quick search as some universities expect different things.

Otherwise, a critical review should critique the logic, methods and findings of a piece of work. Ie is their methodology slightly flawed which might skew results or did they ignore important concepts/literature to find the answer they want. You could probably critique each section individually and in depth, to complete part one. Then part 2 is making connections between your comments on different sections, to give an overall summary.

Hope that helps

Thanks for the reply, rewt. Yes, that has helped clear the mists somewhat. So, to use a very simplistic example then. If I have a bed, chair and guitar stand, part 1) would be where I'd look at each object in turn and critique, say, the design, assembly method, materials etc and part 2) would be the main area of review, where I'd use analysis to synthesise, for example, that all three are used for resting things on but only two would be suitable for humans, even though the materials used in all three were quite robust and that the only one both a human and guitar could lie, sit rest on, would be the bed. Is that more or less the gist?

Thanks