Enhanced clarity on how (practice-driven) theory and (theory-driven) practice come together in the research.
In this reflective stage of my research I did find it necessary to do one last experiment which became a kind of container of all previous experiments while focusing the work on the scientific contribution. In this last ‘test’ the scientific contribution finally became clear: a technique of digital modeling – from the point of (digital) material properties so that the digital design object could provide feedback to influence the design because its material properties were able to connect to spatial influences, in other words the digital object being designed was not neutral but had agency due to its material and spatial interactions and these were communicated in an intuitive, (almost*) haptic interface. *the Sensor Models are still quite buggy and so this haptic interface is not smooth while still able to provide some sense of the object.
I am a practicing architect and I see this research impacting my future projects in their model-building investigative stage and I also want to find opportunity to teach this in Universities so that students have a way of working digitally from a standpoint of ‘live’ design objects whose material properties are attached/ engaged with space.
This is a very difficult question because the word “design” involves a very constructive mixture of feelings (sensations), knowledge (learning) and creation (production). Thus, I cannot say that my understanding of DDDr is complete yet – probably because I am still processing its modalities – but I consider myself closer to its core than before this event.
The first “eureka” moment was during the preparation of my presentation. It was the first time that I was about to talk about my PhD project publicly, and I wanted to show my journey in a structured way, so that the panelists and the audience understand my own steps. The second time that I felt how everything was suddenly making sense, was during the introductory lecture of Kathrin Wildner, as well as with Fabrizia Berlingieri’s text “DISMANTLING, REASSEMBLING, COMPOSING ANEW”. This is also why I have included their reflections on subjectivity in my presentation. The third “”aha”” moment was directly after my presentation: I had a flashback of my research progress starting from my extended abstract application in January, to the acceptance and the writing of my paper.
The most obvious evidence for the listed impacts is the serenity of my state of mind. In other words, I am now aware that no matter the obstacles, there is always a way to react accordingly. Not necessarily by finding suitable “”answers”” or “”solutions””, but rather by being able to justify his/her own position. If I comment the “improved evaluation sensitivity”, I think that I can start to sense some of the most typical issues that PhD candidates are dealing with. As this was the second time that I followed the CA2RE event, I was able to notice some common remarks. After a while, it made me realize similar “”risks”” even before the panelists pointing them out. I would add also how I was impressed by the panelists’ respectful, friendly and honest way of addressing challenging questions to the presenters.
Each CA2RE+ event helps me to get a bit closer what can be considered as DDDr. Encountering different interpretations and approaching from multiple perspectives were challenging yet promising for a research to identify and claim their own niches.
This event ensured and encouraged me to collaborate with people from different disciplines.
Again the trigger for me seemed to be having to organize my research in the categories given by Prominski and von Seggern. In stepping out of the research itself and sorting the body of work into these categories and then presenting the research through this lens. I think it also helped the audience follow the research goal and results. One of my critics commented something like ‘of course I have read a lot about the problem you are investigating as your research topic but I have never seen anyone attempt to do something to address this problem’, then I knew that I was able to communicate the goals and results clearly to persons unfamiliar with my research. So one could say, as a Final Stage research I was able to enter the area of reflecting on the work in order to see clearly what it was contributing to our practice.
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.
Feedback, questions and dialogue with panel members revealed weak points (e.g. focus, positioning, clarity for broader audience) and possible directions; discussions, other presentations, exhibition and workshop exposed a great variety of approaches and methodologies.
The position papers from the partner institutions were an excellent idea though the quality varied, and I particularly enjoyed the opening session where epistemological questions were discussed. My own panel was excellent and helped me sharpen my focus. Seeing other presentations gave me insight into the range of research being carried out internationally.
I am an early stage researcher and it was very useful to have this extremely rich overview of so many different works and approaches that undoubtedly will inspire my ongoing investigation at many levels. It was also possible to deepen the understanding of possibilities within design driven research in order to support the investigation’s discourse over methods.
The contact with many different lines of work gives a sense of security for developing my ongoing research. Its was very important for me to understand the amplitude of the works, from studies of the sun frequencies to the relationship with choreography, or a more technical analysis on architectural typologies and consequently HOW to built a doctoral discourse around them and also its graphical translation.
This was my second CA2RE paper presented and my third CA2RE conference. They serve to energise my research and take it in different directions, both through the very generous and targetted feedback on my papers, but also as importantly through attending other presentations, both similar and different to my research trajectory. It allows me to contextualise my research and position it within an international context of design research.
… Attending the presentations and workshops gave me the confirmation that design, only if accompanied by theoretical study, can give impulses and contributions to research.
Impact was primarily triggered by insightful feedback during my and other sessions.
… 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?
… It helped me to grasp and see the design research in my research.
I rewrote the doctoral activities on the time schedule. I also have a better idea and I feel able and more confident to develop the work that is missing (typological description from a design perspective) when I couldn’t see how to do it before the Ca2re. I also got rid of the idea that theory cannot be a design tool
I plan to incorporate a stronger design perspective rather than an historical or interpretative one