Delft 2022 – Nina Bačun – Evidence

I will seriously rethink the title of my research. After CA2RE+ I find it much easier to frame the scale of the case studies I will approach to, and scale in general, since I usually have problem with narrowing things down. My tendency is always wider perspective, one should know when to stop.

Delft 2022 – Boštjan Botas Kenda – Evidence

at presentations where multidisciplinarity was in the DNA, it helped to interweave comments and questions from my colleagues on the panel as well as responses from the audience.
an example of a presentation on Architectural Plug-In, where the sonority and the space opened up a wide-ranging discussion.

Ljubljana 2021 – Berilsu Tarcan – Evidence

i was giving some examples for how the textiles I created match with the writings from my personal research diaries, using autoethnographical documentation. It really made me realise how much they are interwoven with each other. Creating these textiles also helped me realise how nomadic societies were living and creating artefacts. Showing them together in the conference made me more aware of how they are connected to each other.

Ljubljana 2021 – Valentina Dall’Orto – Evidence

The Evidence of the impact described lies primary in the shifting from a descriptive research to a critical interpretation of the topic. In particular, I received very useful advices regarding the tools that I am using in the research

Ljubljana 2021 – Pieterjan Ginckels – Evidence

As I am underway to more senior roles and positions, the impact consists of inspiration – energy – to clearer identify my agendas and positions, but also to affiliate with partners and their schools of thought to realise these. Moreover I am confident that the newly started conversations with doctoral researchers, supervisors and administrators will lead to collaborations. I will also aim to contribute to future CA2RE+ events (and the like).

Ljubljana 2021 – Maria Hansen – Evidence

There were a few presentations that covered the blurry area between architecture and arts, and it was these in particular that further deepened my understanding. (example the presentation from TU Delft/University of Trieste on Geometries of Time; and Hebrew University ‘How to Use a Monument’).

Ljubljana 2021 – Miljana Niković – Evidence

Right after the presentation, during the discussion with the panelists, it became clear that I have to take a new direction in terms of “design”. The last day, during the general feedback, it was certainly very helpful to hear the observer’s comments about my presentation, as well as peers who contributed with additional remarks.

Ljubljana 2021 – Viktorija Bogdanova – Evidence

Maja Zander’s way of presenting, inviting people and enjoying the discussion through complete improvisation. Berlise Tarcan’s poetic inscriptions made of fabric and placed within a dialogue with Norway’s natural environment. Also, her exhibitions gave me the feeling of literally touching the colors through a soft envelope.

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.

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.