Hamburg 2021 – Mark Pimlott – areas

‘The discussions that followed the days of presentation actually clarified the necessity for stronger descriptions of what transpires through processes of design and its native search/research. Consciousness of what happens in design and design-driven research is not the same as understandings of methodologies

Hamburg 2021 – Mark Pimlott – triggers

Comments by Jo van den Berghe on moments within PhDs when knowledge is produced beyond the terms or expectations of the project from the outset. The search that produces new insights. This was a crucial intervention. Christoph Heinemann’s analogy of the work of the designer/thinker with St Thomas touching the wound of Christ. Ana Telles’s contribution to the discussion of the copy in which she spoke of its importance in relation to traditions in music. All of these led me to think that the specific moments pertinent to design thought and action are in themselves necessarily illustrated as knowledge.

Hamburg 2021 – Claus Peder Pedersen – triggers

The impact was, in my view, triggered by the workshops. Their role in the events is improving. They are becoming better at establishing dialogues, sharing different understandings of DDDr and forming a common framework for the feedback following the presentations. The shared concluding discussion and inclusion of the observers’ specific reports also helped address detailed insights on DDDr. There were also excellent examples of feedback from different disciplinary backgrounds contributing to shared discussions. For instance, in Pietro Quattropani’s presentation ‘The Concept of Copy in Arts and its Application in Architectural Projects’ where comments on the role of copying from artistic, architectural and musical perspectives came together in a rich discussion.

Hamburg 2021 – Claus Peder Pedersen – evidence

I mostly see the evidence of the impact indirectly through the experience of a more inclusive and dialogical conference. At previous conferences, I occasionally experienced presenters and panel members that seemed to feel uncomfortable or outside the frame of the forum. This time there seemed to be a broader shared understanding of the aims of the interactions without losing the diversity of research approaches and viewpoints. I also see the outlines of a more robust shared experience of DDDr, even though it might not have settled yet into structured learning.

Hamburg 2021 – Ignacio Borrego – triggers

The power of contemplation at the presentation of Lena Ehringhaus, the capacity of exploration of drawing, explicit at the work of Rui Barreira, the inputs of Ana Telles, from the field of music, are examples of the diverse approaches to Design Driven Doctoral Research

Hamburg 2021 – Johan van den Berghe – triggers

Dirk Bahmann’s presentation triggered my statement that the moment when the candidate is coming to the overarching insight in his/her PhD IS the PhD itself. Subsequently I could see how Dirk immediately understood what I was trying to say, and that this was a liberating moment for him in his PhD. Lena Ehringhaus’s presentation triggred a comparable moment, when I could see more deeply rooted themes that were implicitly there and that I could make explicit in my comments as a panel member.

Hamburg 2021 – Johan van den Berghe – transformation

I will further incorporate the impact in my further work by (1) my continued efforts for being open to all the signals (verbal, non-verbal and ‘between the lines’) in doctoral presentations, (2) by picking up these signals immediately and (3) by making the candidate attentive to his/her own signals in the subsequent panel conversation.

Hamburg 2021 – Alper Alkan – triggers

The formulation of research objectives differs between early, mid- and final stage of research. The candidates seem to benefit from exposure to different perspectives, so that the design-driven aspects of research appears to be better contextualised in later stages of the research. Whereas, in the early stage candidates, I observe two main tendencies. Either they lean on the design act or processes or show difficulties in narrowing down to clarify the main axis of the research.

Hamburg 2021 – Alper Alkan – evidence

In one of the presentations I attended, obviously the background of the presenter and the panel did not match. However, the dialogue translated into a reflective feedback loop that created a mutually shared understanding.

Hamburg 2021 – Lidia Gasperoni – evidence

Introduction of multifaceted experimental practices in teaching fields. One topic that sheds new light on this impact to new light was the use of teaching practices (for instance in Anita Szentesi’s work) in DDDr. In this regard, a transformative experience through many different teaching spatial practices such as film and model building was described. The impact DDr has in teaching should be more documented and addressed.

Hamburg 2021 – Lidia Gasperoni – transformation

I will incorporate this experienced impact 1. in the theoretical reflection on DDDr describing its generative and transformative impact 2. In the institutional framing by advocating for the use of these practices in teaching and doctoral supervision 3. In organizing workshops specifically for doctoral students.

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).

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.