Revision Lit Review

Strengths

One of the key strengths of the literature review is the strong ability to synthesise a highly niche and specific body of knowledge. The discussion is well contextualised within the Singapore setting, with clear articulation of the local landscape and an effective emphasis on the relative lack of existing literature in this area. The research is firmly grounded in the Singapore context, particularly through references to relevant cultural policy directives that have shaped organisational practices to date. The analysis of how far government influence extends in responding to current mental health concerns is well articulated and demonstrates an awareness of the broader policy environment in which these organisations operate.

The comparison between the National Gallery and The Red Pencil is especially effective and provides a strong foundation for potential case study analysis. This contrast highlights different organisational missions, operational priorities, and approaches to arts and health initiatives, which aligns well with the overall direction of the research. With further refinement, this comparison has the potential to become a focused and theoretically informed case study driven more explicitly by the research questions. The literature review also demonstrates strong engagement with recent studies and contemporary discourses, showing that the topic is current and relevant. This engagement reflects an awareness of ongoing debates in the field and reinforces the timeliness of the research.

Areas for Improvement

The literature review would benefit from a stronger and more explicit theoretical foundation rooted in management theory in order to clearly position the study as arts management research. At present, the discussion tends to remain descriptive, and greater critical evaluation of the sources is needed. This includes analysing how the literature informs organisational decision-making, policy responses, and management processes, and explicitly explaining how insights gained from evaluating the sources shape and inform specific components of the research.

More analytical attention should be given to organisational processes rather than programme features. While descriptive accounts of programmes provide useful context, the focus should shift towards examining how decisions are made, how partnerships are sustained, and how organisational processes respond to mental health objectives within existing constraints. Concepts such as the care collection need to be clearly defined, and the literature that discusses or critiques care collections should be examined in greater depth. This includes analysing how museums navigate tensions between curatorial priorities and therapeutic or care-oriented uses of collections. Claims regarding the need for complex or intricate decision-making should be explicitly supported by management literature, with clear references to authors or empirical studies that substantiate these arguments.

The review also requires a clearer and more detailed explanation of arts and health, particularly in relation to art therapy principles. These concepts should be introduced as though they are being explained to a reader without specialist knowledge. Although there is evidence of substantial understanding, this knowledge is not always communicated with sufficient clarity. Key terms such as art therapy, art therapy principles, and arts and health must be used with greater precision, and any nuances or distinctions between these concepts should be clearly articulated.

This issue of precision is particularly evident in the discussion of the slow art programme, which is described as relying on mindfulness rather than clinical art therapy. Using such an example to respond to research questions focused on art therapy highlights a misalignment between the example and the conceptual framework of the study. Given that art therapy is a regulated clinical profession, consistency and accuracy in terminology are essential. Loose or interchangeable use of terms risks undermining the seriousness of the field and may lead to conceptual or ethical issues. To address this, the literature review would benefit from a short, clearly structured section outlining art therapy principles, definitions, and techniques, which would provide a necessary foundation for evaluating the research literature.

In the synthesis and research gap section, particularly from the second sentence onwards, the identification of gaps in the Singapore context needs to be more explicit and analytically developed. Rather than simply stating that a gap exists, the review should explain what is meant by gaps in institutional logics and how these logics shape organisational thinking and decision-making. These ideas need to be clearly connected to the studys focus on cultural policy, mental health, and arts management. The objectives suggest an interest in how programmes are developed, as well as the opportunities and challenges involved in their implementation, and this should be articulated more clearly through the literature.

Finally, the study needs to more clearly demonstrate its contribution to both arts management and art therapy practice. This includes identifying what new knowledge the research will generate and how it advances existing scholarship. The conceptual framework should be strengthened through the integration of relevant arts management theories. Institutional logics theory can help explain how organisations formulate goals and manage tensions between competing priorities, such as aesthetic or curatorial logics and care or welfare logics. Resource dependency theory may provide insight into how organisations adapt in response to funding structures, subsidies, and external partnerships. Public value theory could further support an analysis of how organisations conceptualise the value of these programmes for audiences and the wider public, and how success is evaluated. These theories should be embedded within the literature review and used analytically to frame the studys investigation of organisational decision-making and programme implementation.