I think that the evidence was also visible in how the presentations were almost all focused on expressing approaches, methods and techniques more than in the past events.
/ Impact
+
Milano 2020
Panel member
+
Milano 2020
The event helped to clarify ourselves which critical point of discussion we should address in the next conference. For instance a DDR process-oriented research methodology in which individual knowledge and (inter)disciplinar context should be more focused, developed, investigated and expressed in their mutual interdependence. Also a crucial node refers to ortodoxy and heteronomy of DDR approaches (more in architecture that in arts maybe). Last about the way in which we evaluate and train doctoral research when we expose artefacts as results of the research itself (buildings/models/drawings).
Panel member
+
Milano 2020
We will share the results and impact with ELIA’s working group artistic research and will invite them to be even more closely related to the event starting in Hamburg.
Guest
+
Milano 2020
To me the evidence is a crowd that stays – this number seems very stable and that is a sure sign in an online event. This crowd could be larger and I would recommend we work on that aspect.
Guest
+
Milano 2020
Preparing the presentation is a beneficial process of self-organizing for research; while, the discussion with panel profs is a reflection and thinking; both make me more clear about my research.
Luyi Liu
+
Trondheim 2020
The evidence is in the sharpness and precision of my formulations, which is at the benefit of the very restricted time frame during these online sessions, where we have to miss all the other formal and informal talks with the candidates and colleagues during coffee breaks, lunches, etc… This evidence has been confirmed by Enrico Miglietta, with whom I could have a conversations after this online presentation.
Panel member
+
Trondheim 2020
The discussion after the 2.6 session and at the workshop with Johan Van Den Berghe. The two occasions provided the situation when an evaluator puts forward his own practice or opinion as an argument.
Panel member
+
Trondheim 2020
The set up of the discussion during a PhD presentation about the role of drawing: as a revealing process vs a generative tool and approach for the design driven research.
Panel member
+
Trondheim 2020
Perhaps due to the fact that this conference was online, in this edition, I concentrated more on the interventions of the presenter and the other panel members. I guess this was because there were no other ‘visual distractions’ (setting, audience). This context made me pay more attention to the content of the comments and I was struck by the wealth of approaches that occur in the panel members’ interventions. I think I was more sensitive to the diversity of evaluation.
Panel member
+
Trondheim 2020
… I also think we should not aim to immediate impact of procedure but to develop knowledge in a more sophisticated (and unavoidably indirect) manner.
Panel member
+
Trondheim 2020
… It helped me to grasp and see the design research in my research.
Presenter
+
Trondheim 2020
This event with the title “Sharing” made it more clear, what the involved researchers and institutions understand by “design-driven” in research.
Panel member
+
Trondheim 2020
… Martin discussed the possibility of the design work as a starting point for research for his project on landscape architecture. In the discussion the panel members urged him to get rid of the question mark, to clearly state that the design work is the starting point for research. It is not useful to make a distinction between “alternative” research and traditional research. There is only research and if its not rigorous its not research. /…/, said one of the panel members. Don`t be concerned about if what you are doing is research, but be aware if you are rigourous or not. Design should be the starting point of the research, then observe the actions. Then observe the observations and new design actions emerge out of this process. This has to be done with rigour and this rigour comes from the researcher, and from the interactions between the researcher and the research community. Sharing in a conference like this is a way to check if your project is rigorous. /…/ Maybe it will impact in the way that I stop constantly worrying about whether what I am doing is research, and rather pay attention to my own rigorousness in the process. Maybe doing a phd is about learning how to become rigorous?
Presenter
+
Trondheim 2020
Impact was primarily triggered by insightful feedback during my and other sessions.
Presenter
+
Trondheim 2020
… Attending the presentations and workshops gave me the confirmation that design, only if accompanied by theoretical study, can give impulses and contributions to research.
Presenter
+
Trondheim 2020
… I would like to explore the future potentials for the DD research beyond the doctoral stages.
Panel member
+
Trondheim 2020
… fight for the case of the design driven research in architecture at the university level
Panel member
+
Trondheim 2020
Especially while I was listening to the phd proposal “Material map” I was inspired by the methodology and methods to deconstruct architecture projects and focusing on the materiality…
Presenter
+
Trondheim 2020
Criticisms for some researches like Joel’s SF arch. pedagogy the trio’s time capsule Eszter’s games for self-consciousness are examples we can see the concern for impact.
Panel member
+
Trondheim 2020
… DDr opens the way to the everyday vision of things which give the opportunity to see the problems through the urban dynamics…
Panel member
+
Trondheim 2020
Cross referencing of methodologies across disciplines
Panel member