Following the presentations of other PhD researchers and discussing my own research with them (and with the other attendees of the conference) really gave me a lot of new insights, ideas, energy to put back into the research. I also got a better idea of the variety of ways in which design can ‘function’ within a research project.
The preparation for the presentation was surely an important step for my dissertation, since it was the first time that I tested its overall arch, from the begging to the most recent conclusions, in a compressed and concrete manner. During the time before the conference, I became aware about the whole argument of my thesis, and about what are the key aspects and what is additional information that is not crucial for its understanding. It was a very challenging and regarding work. This was possible only because I knew that in Ca2re I would present it to an audience that would see it for the first time, as it is not the case when I present in my home institution. The audience and panelists were really generous with their feedback, beyond the presentation time. Their comments helped me to evaluate the legibility of the overall narration, to uncover unforeseen potentials, and to connect my work to the work of others. Also the critics that arose during and after my presentation had total sense for me. After this experience I will surely be able to describe my work in a more accurate and concise way. For me, the experience of Ca2re is not only the presentation and feedback, but also the opportunity of developing close connections with other candidates, panelists and participants, many warm and intelligent people with similar interests. I am very happy to feel accompanied, supported and understood, which gives me motivation to conclude my dissertation journey. Ca2re is not only an evaluation program but a boost of energy for continuing my research!
Although I was not able to participate in many panels, the ones I saw (and the proposals I peer-reviewed) gave me insights on different approaches to topics which I would conventionally have considered solely ‘discursive’, and part of hermeneutic practices. Seeing how some of the participants tied their research to diverse (and some even novel) pragmatic interventions and design proposals was very interesting and inspiring. One of my interests in these types of events is to see how younger academics are engaging the discipline of architecture and other, kindred ones. I found the conference theme (recommendations) to be helpful as well.
Uplifting moments of revelation with the research, made possible by the community and ocassion
All mentioned above is right. As I wrote in an email some days ago, I am still high on CA2RE+, for me it was amazing to discover all those different roads that research could take. And most important thing to position yourself in this wide network of interesting humans.
the first and very important one: meeting in person.
the multidisciplinary content has led to the criteria that were previously linked to individual disciplines now becoming intertwined and to more robust evaluative criteria.
Having again seen the different evaluation approaches but also methodological framing in the discussions has made me recalibrate my understanding of the disciplinary boundaries of architectural research. The interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary agendas are becoming more pertinent and tangible yet that seems to be not well addressed by the researchers prioritising their design objectives over the objectives of research.
My experience of Ca2Re events is that they provide an amplified and unobstructed engagement with the research and researcher, as part of an engaged community of research practitioners.
Reformulation was an extremely relevant topic in evaluating DDDr. The dynamics of discussion activated by the request of reformulating Particpants’ research proved remarkably relevant in clarifying DDDr most challenging features.
/…/ There was a good vibe among the group.
I not only pushed myself to present my project within the theme of reformulation, but gained a new understanding of what my work is producing and how much it has reformulated since I began and produced my first presentations.
The encounter of different practices and understandings of research and increasingly also the encounter of different creative disciplines at the CA2RE conferences always provide new energy and rekindles the understanding of the breadth of positions and an improved awareness of the particularity of my local context.
Enhanced clarity on how (practice-driven) theory and (theory-driven) practice come together in the research.
‘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
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.
Understanding of transferrability of knowledge to/from DDDr improved due to the explicit way I could give feedback as a panel member.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.