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.
I think that the evidence was also visible in how the presentations were almost all focused on expressing approaches, methods and techniques more than in the past events.
As an observer I had to write a report that is the evidence of my perception of that panel.
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.
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
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.
I received emails from participants in which they confirm the impact my interventions have had on their research and their growing insights.
Criticisms for some researches like Joel’s SF arch. pedagogy the trio’s time capsule Eszter’s games for self-consciousness are examples we can see the concern for impact.
… 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?
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.
The evidence is in the way the /…/ candidates visibly understood the feedback they received…
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.
I look back on my notes and try to implement the comments in my current work.