The related study: the written element of the Personal Investigation, at least 1000 words of continuous critical writing exploring the context of the practical work, with a structured argument, visual evidence and a bibliography.

What this dot point is asking

The related study is the written element of the Personal Investigation: at least 1000 words of continuous critical writing exploring the context of your practical work. It is where your contextual and analytical understanding (AO1) is expressed at length, and it must connect to your practice. This dot point is about what the related study requires, how to structure 1000-plus words into an argument, and how to link the writing to your making.

What the related study requires

The related study is a formal, written component, and its requirements are specific. It must be at least 1000 words of continuous writing (not bullet points or captions), it must explore the context of your practical work, it must be supported by a bibliography acknowledging your sources, and it must be clearly identifiable in your submission. It is the one piece of extended writing in the course, and it carries the analytical and critical understanding AO1 rewards.

Build it around a question

The most common weakness in a related study is that it is a general survey ("the life and work of...") rather than an argument. A strong study is built around a focused question or thesis, the same kind of focused enquiry that drives the practical work, and uses each analysis as evidence for it. "How do artists use surface and accumulation to convey memory?" gives a study direction; "Frank Auerbach" alone does not. The question should connect to your practical theme, so the writing and the making share a concern.

Structuring 1000-plus words

A clear structure turns the word count into an argument rather than a ramble.

• Introduction. State the focused question or thesis, why it matters, and how it connects to your practical work.
• Body. Several analytical paragraphs, each using claim-evidence-interpretation-link, building the argument through analysis of specific named artists and works. Use visual evidence (illustrations of the works) and accurate vocabulary.
• Conclusion. Answer the question, draw the threads together, and state explicitly how the study informs your own practice.
• Bibliography. Acknowledge every source (books, catalogues, websites, galleries).

Linking the study to your practice

The defining feature of the related study is that it is "related": linked to the practical work. The strongest studies do not sit alongside the portfolio but illuminate it, exploring the artists, ideas and context that drive the making, so the writing and the practical investigation share a concern and inform each other. When the study explores how artists convey memory through surface, and the practical work pursues exactly that through layered painting, the two elements reinforce each other, which is what the linked component is designed to reward.

Try this

Q1. State the requirements of the related study. [Knowledge recall]

• Cue. At least 1000 words of continuous critical writing exploring the context of the practical work, supported by a bibliography and clearly identifiable in the submission; it is the written element of Component 01.

Q2. Explain why the related study must connect to the candidate's practical work. [Short explanation]

• Cue. The two elements of the Personal Investigation are "linked": the related study explores the artists, ideas and context behind the practical work, so the writing and the making illuminate each other and share a concern; a study disconnected from the practice fails the spirit of the component.