Roles impacts: Presenter

a

Milano 2020 – John McLaughlin – triggers

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.

Milano 2020 – Maria Margarida Maurício – areas

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.

Milano 2020 – Maria Margarida Maurício – triggers

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.

Milano 2020 – Sandra Felix – areas

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.

Milano 2020 – Luyi Liu – areas

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.

Milano 2020 – Taufan Ter Weel – areas

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.

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

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?

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 – 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.

+ More