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.
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
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.
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…
… Attending the presentations and workshops gave me the confirmation that design, only if accompanied by theoretical study, can give impulses and contributions to research.
…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.
The exhibition in the artefacts room, the workshops, discussions with other participants and panel members, the broad spectrum of the DDDr.
… 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.
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.
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.
…Employing the ‘circles of observation’ on my own research will play a part in the reflection on my process (and hence play a role in the subsequent actions)
I will try to organize my working process in a manner where I can use my supervisors and peers in a more productive way.