The aim of this, our first Animation Discourse assignment, was to choose, research, and critically evaluate an academic article found on the online publishing platform, Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, and to subsequently create and deliver a short, 10-minute group presentation that would provide an overview of the article, and relay both its relevance and usefulness in developing an understanding of the animation discipline discussed.
Having been assigned into groups, and instructed on how to access this electronic journal through the Ulster University Library, our first undertaking was to find a suitable article to cover. However, ultimately making the process more challenging, feeling time was limited during the session, instead of first collectively discussing areas of interest to narrow down the choice from the almost 470 articles available (MIAR, 2025), it was decided we each search for articles that piqued our interest, and we post links to these on a group Discord server, with the intention that these be reviewed for suitability relative to the presentation criteria, and one chosen for more in-depth evaluation before the deadline in a week’s time.
However, upon subsequent review and discussion, while interesting, some articles covered animation styles, and quite technical theories that some group members were unfamiliar with, and potentially affecting the presentation, would have proved challenging for us all to be fully conversant with in the short time available. Therefore, the consensus was to proceed with an article everyone agreed had an interesting premise, covering character design; a key discipline in the animation industry that, given recent studies, we were all well-versed in, and indicating it had equal relative importance in its field (Gann, 2022), had the same impact factor as the others we’d reviewed: Malou van Rooij’s, ‘Carefully Constructed yet Curiously Real: How Major Animation Studios Generate Empathy through a Shared Style of Character Design.’
https://journals-sagepub-com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/doi/full/10.1177/1746847719875071
Having identified which article to now focus on, our week two group meeting involved discussions regarding how we might summarise the article and again, independent research into the different concepts used by the author to support her hypothesis that the shared, simplified, exaggerated, and expressive design style employed by animation studios such as Disney, Pixar, and DreamWorks Animation, enhances the empathetic potential of their 3D characters by making them more universally recognisable, relatable and emotionally accessible to the audience.
However, with no decision made by the end of the session other than to divide up the article, and we would each cover a specific section, in preparation, I spent time re-reading and annotating the article in its entirety to understand its structure and methodology better and to help form an opinion on whether overall, the arguments, evidence, and conclusion presented by the author were valid and useful.
While doing so, having been drawn to the topic of ‘Amplification through Simplification,’ whereby in stripping away the realistic detail in character design to its ‘essential meaning’ it is proposed that emotional expressiveness and clarity can be amplified in a way that more realistic designs cannot, hoping my team would agree to me covering this section, I also completed further in-depth research into this concept including reading, and assessing the relevance and reliability of each of the sources used to underpin the claim that a simplified core design is a determining factor in fostering greater levels of audience empathy.
Thankfully, having shared this information with both my tutor and team during our week 3 session, agreement was reached that I could proceed, and with just a week remaining before the final presentation, I was eventually able to start collating a more detailed critical analysis of this material to actively question and interpret its findings, and identify potential bias and limitations.
However, as we were each covering a different section instead of the article as a whole, unsure of how best to integrate this information into my presentation and still meet the assessment criteria, I contacted our tutor for clarification, and to ensure we were all on the same page, afterward shared her reply with the group.
However, on interrogating my section further, it became clear that although the author aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of this concept through the comparative analysis of easily understood, appropriate, and mainly reliable evidence, unfortunately the inclusion of only a few sources to support her claim, the qualitative and observational nature of the discussion, a lack of counterargument, and the confirmation bias introduced, reduces both the usefulness and relevance of the article in aiding understanding of this animation discipline.
Having reached this conclusion and learning that my teammates concurred with these findings, my next step was to create my presentation slides in Canva, where for continuity, and to maintain the visual aesthetic of our final presentation, a group member had provided an exemplar slide for us to use.
A link to my slides can be found below:
At this stage too, as due to my ASD I find it difficult to speak off the cuff, and without preparation, become nervous during presentations, I began writing a script to help guide me through the presentation, and when complete, posted this on the shared group Word document.
However, increasing pressure on the remaining team members, it was only at this late stage that we learned we were losing a team member who was regrettably stepping away from the course, another advised that due to previous commitments, they wouldn’t be available on the day of the presentation, and with only two days to go, one of our team members had still yet to choose a topic (unassigned article titles shown in black).
Also heightening worries that the presentation would run over, and for the first time, we’d be stopped at the 10-minute mark, while my script was of equal length to others who said they could deliver their information within the allocated timeframe, owing to me being unable to process information, and communicate at the same speed, despite having already reduced the content in my script, I found I couldn’t. However, upon contacting my tutor, I was offered various solutions, and on the morning of the presentation, to my relief learned, that as part of my reasonable adjustments, I’d been assigned additional time to present.
Given I find presenting challenging, I believe that the time and effort I’d put into my preparation proved beneficial, as aside from feedback that my slides were a little wordy, which on reflection I now appreciate could distract the audience, and prevent them from fully engaging with the content, my remaining feedback was positive, and I’m happy with both my performance, and my overall contribution to the assignment.
Finally, the ability to now select and critically assess the quality, accuracy, and reliability of data from different sources, and the new academic reading, and notetaking skills learned, have provided me with a sound foundation to approach my next assignment, a written report on animation practice, with confidence and enthusiasm.
References:
Gann, L. (2022). What is considered a good impact factor? – Ask the Research Medical Library. [online] mdanderson.libanswers.com.
Available at: https://mdanderson.libanswers.com/faq/26159
MIAR, (2025). ANIMATION : AN INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL – 1746-8477 | Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals. [online]. [Accessed: 26 January 2025].
Available at: https://miar.ub.edu/issn/1746-8477