Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio
Abstract
Critique is a central feature of design education, serving as both a structural mechanism to provide regular feedback, and as a high stakes assessment tool. However, this study addresses informal peer critique as an extension of this existing form, engaging students in communication outside of the formal pedagogy. The purpose of this study is to gain a greater understanding of the role of informal critique in externalizing design thinking and judgment, as analysed through Bourdieu’s habitus. Structures surrounding critique, including the role of informal vs formal spaces, objectivity vs subjectivity of critique, and differences between professor and peer feedback are addressed. Beliefs about critique are analysed as critical elements of an evolving habitus, supported by or developed in response to the culture inscribed by the formal pedagogy. Informal critique reveals tacit design thinking and conceptions of design, and outlines the co-construction of habitus between students and the formal pedagogy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Prior work has extensively documented what usability issues experts identify, but far less is known about how experts reason through these issues across stages of perception, interpretation, and projection.
“While prior work has extensively documented what usability issues experts identify [35, 52], far less is known about how experts reason through these issues across stages of perception, interpretation, and projection [43, 76].”
From Criticmate: Stagewise Human–AI Co-Critique in Single-Screen UI Evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as [35]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Criticmate: Stagewise Human–AI Co-Critique in Single-Screen UI Evaluation
Ko, J., Choi, J., Morales, C., Kim, D., & Ko, M. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790929 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gray, C. M.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gray, Colin M.
- ORCID
- Gray, Colin M.
- Venue
- Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Intellect
- Published
- 2013-12-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 195-209
- ISSN
- 1474-273X (ISSN-L)
- 2040-0896
- OpenAlex
- W2328229129
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 4.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Art Design & Communication in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art Education and Development
- Keywords
- habitus, design education, design studio, design thinking, feedback, peer assessment, tacit knowledge, Pierre Bourdieu
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review