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.
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.
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.
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.
… one aspect that was really stimulating was seeing the different and (mostly complementary) interpretations of the presentations by the reviewers in terms of the chosen methods research agendas and the definition of practice.
… Attending the presentations and workshops gave me the confirmation that design, only if accompanied by theoretical study, can give impulses and contributions to research.
This event with the title “Sharing” made it more clear, what the involved researchers and institutions understand by “design-driven” in research.
… It helped me to grasp and see the design research in my research.
Perhaps due to the fact that this conference was online, in this edition, I concentrated more on the interventions of the presenter and the other panel members. I guess this was because there were no other ‘visual distractions’ (setting, audience). This context made me pay more attention to the content of the comments and I was struck by the wealth of approaches that occur in the panel members’ interventions. I think I was more sensitive to the diversity of evaluation.
The CA2RE+ conference helps me to follow, understand and reflect on the diverse landscape of DDDr. The conference thereby helps me to position myself and my own competencies, but also to challenge these and expand my horizon.
Attending the CA2RE+ congress helped me a lot to understand and expand my idea of design-driven doctoral research. It opened my mind to a plurality of ideas … I also understood that some of the exposed methodologies would not be so difficult to transfer to my country, where architecture schools do not offer ‘research-by-design’ doctoral programs.
The growing ‘CA2RE family’ provides a steadily developing in-depth understanding of the specificities of (design) research at each participating partner institution and allow me to get a deeper understanding of my institutional network and an understanding of multiple roles of design as a driver of research
… 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.
… it helped me individuate my research approach in a defining rather than confining way, evaluate other works in a propositive rather than negative manner, and reconsider research methodology in light of different parameters.
I’m searching for motivation, enhancement of my self-confidence and also for the necessary triggers to refresh and reboot the previous experiences as a doctoral and master supervisor and/or evaluator, as well as a researcher and research manager. My awareness of what I can offer and get at these events is increasing.