Trondheim 2020 – Enrico Miglietta – Evidence

The most evident impact was a period of visiting PhD organized after the participation to the first CA2RE+ event the finding of co-supervisors that can follow me in a specific part of the research regarding the Ddr.

Trondheim 2020 – Marieke Behne – Triggers

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…

Trondheim 2020 – Bjørn Melås – Evidence

… 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?

Trondheim 2020 – Javiera González Zarzar – Evidence

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

Ghent 2019 – Ajdin Bajrović – Transformation

…continue the work on research with a higher awareness of fragility of the research process. This includes additional work on research development as well as development of the presentation of research since it is closely related to understanding the process of research itself.

Ghent 2019 – Viktorija Bogdanova – areas

… It was like observing a theatre of ties about which you were previously blind. The deep dialogues/multilogues with the other participants that had similar paths of interest enhanced my knowledge and desire for what I actually do – by making me able to see what I didn’t see before.

Ghent 2019 – Viktorija Bogdanova – evidence

Evidence… starting to immediately re-write the draft of the research paper that I’ve sent for the conference – a core element of the PhD’s content. Another evidence – e-mails of good will for collaboration with some of the participants and keynote speakers.

Ghent 2019 – Eva Beke – Triggers

Being able to talk about (& around) something which is actually present, instead of only represented, makes a lot of sense in our research community. Experiencing it around my own artefact and witnessing presentations of others, helped me to think more about how to communicate with and the autonomy of the research production.

Ghent 2019 – Louise De Brabander – evidence

The impact of the scheme is only becoming visible now, since these circles of observation span different stages in a research project. I keep the scheme in mind, especially when I am reflecting on my own work and in calibrating my own observations and the comments and observations of different peers on my work.