Milano 2020 – Lidija Gasperoni – triggers

The capacity of researchers to open up space emancipating it from the mere traditional conception of design as merely linked to construction. The researchers, presenters, and panelists discussed a wider agency of architecture. This agency was shown through the focus on design practices and not just discussing the content of the research. Even if some PhD-projects were missing a generative use of practices or were in a seminal stage of research, the discussions were often focused on design practices motivating the research to find an own practice. This focus was very clear in the keynotes presentations (Tattara, Krumwiede, Lehnerer) and in the related discussion.

Milano 2020 – Lidija Gasperoni – transformation

I will continue to support the theoretical, practical and institutional relevance of this kind of research and of the related initiatives. Thematically I will go deeper into the agency of practice trying also to introduce my work on “Media Agency” to the community of the design driven research. And I will write in the next months a paper on the relevance of this research.

Milano 2020 – Débora Domingo Calabuig – triggers

I attended a presentation as an observer (‘A Safe Space. Architecture and Preparedness in the Era of Uncertainty’) in which the comments of the panel members caught my attention: they all approached the role of design from different and complementary perspectives. Actually, everyone saw the role of design from their own experience and area of ??knowledge, and thus offered the candidate a very complete panoramic reflection.

Milano 2020 – Anđelka Bnin-Bninski – transformation

For me it is not possible to explain the clear strategy of the incorporation of these CA2RE + experiences into my overall approach.. I think that the real impact is about the sharpening of tools, both pedagogical and related to personal research engagements, it is about thinking “outside of the box” and about courage to step out of established forms of knowledge building and knowledge exchange.

Milano 2020 – Maria Topolčanská – transformation

…  I proposed our doctorate program to build on this experience and attain this high standard of pre-event communication with external evaluators and panel members via not only book of abstracts but also framing the conference with positions that formulate starting points from the institutional side and key supervisors.

Milano 2020 – Fabrizia Berlingeri – areas

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).

Trondheim 2020 – Johan Van Den Berghe – Evidence

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.

Trondheim 2020 – Peter Rauch – Triggers

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.

Trondheim 2020 – Débora Domingo Calabuig – Areas

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.