Hamburg 2021 – Miljana Niković – evidence

The most obvious evidence for the listed impacts is the serenity of my state of mind. In other words, I am now aware that no matter the obstacles, there is always a way to react accordingly. Not necessarily by finding suitable “”answers”” or “”solutions””, but rather by being able to justify his/her own position. If I comment the “improved evaluation sensitivity”, I think that I can start to sense some of the most typical issues that PhD candidates are dealing with. As this was the second time that I followed the CA2RE event, I was able to notice some common remarks. After a while, it made me realize similar “”risks”” even before the panelists pointing them out. I would add also how I was impressed by the panelists’ respectful, friendly and honest way of addressing challenging questions to the presenters.

Hamburg 2021 – Alper Alkan – evidence

In one of the presentations I attended, obviously the background of the presenter and the panel did not match. However, the dialogue translated into a reflective feedback loop that created a mutually shared understanding.

Hamburg 2021 – Aileen Iverson – evidence

In this reflective stage of my research I did find it necessary to do one last experiment which became a kind of container of all previous experiments while focusing the work on the scientific contribution. In this last ‘test’ the scientific contribution finally became clear: a technique of digital modeling – from the point of (digital) material properties so that the digital design object could provide feedback to influence the design because its material properties were able to connect to spatial influences, in other words the digital object being designed was not neutral but had agency due to its material and spatial interactions and these were communicated in an intuitive, (almost*) haptic interface. *the Sensor Models are still quite buggy and so this haptic interface is not smooth while still able to provide some sense of the object.

Hamburg 2021 – Lidia Gasperoni – evidence

Introduction of multifaceted experimental practices in teaching fields. One topic that sheds new light on this impact to new light was the use of teaching practices (for instance in Anita Szentesi’s work) in DDDr. In this regard, a transformative experience through many different teaching spatial practices such as film and model building was described. The impact DDr has in teaching should be more documented and addressed.

Hamburg 2021 – Claus Peder Pedersen – evidence

I mostly see the evidence of the impact indirectly through the experience of a more inclusive and dialogical conference. At previous conferences, I occasionally experienced presenters and panel members that seemed to feel uncomfortable or outside the frame of the forum. This time there seemed to be a broader shared understanding of the aims of the interactions without losing the diversity of research approaches and viewpoints. I also see the outlines of a more robust shared experience of DDDr, even though it might not have settled yet into structured learning.

Milano 2020 – Maria Hansen – evidence

To me the evidence is a crowd that stays – this number seems very stable and that is a sure sign in an online event. This crowd could be larger and I would recommend we work on that aspect.

Trondheim 2020 – Johan Van Den Berghe – Evidence

The evidence is in the sharpness and precision of my formulations, which is at the benefit of the very restricted time frame during these online sessions, where we have to miss all the other formal and informal talks with the candidates and colleagues during coffee breaks, lunches, etc… This evidence has been confirmed by Enrico Miglietta, with whom I could have a conversations after this online presentation.

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 – 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 – 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 – 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.