The first “eureka” moment was during the preparation of my presentation. It was the first time that I was about to talk about my PhD project publicly, and I wanted to show my journey in a structured way, so that the panelists and the audience understand my own steps. The second time that I felt how everything was suddenly making sense, was during the introductory lecture of Kathrin Wildner, as well as with Fabrizia Berlingieri’s text “DISMANTLING, REASSEMBLING, COMPOSING ANEW”. This is also why I have included their reflections on subjectivity in my presentation. The third “”aha”” moment was directly after my presentation: I had a flashback of my research progress starting from my extended abstract application in January, to the acceptance and the writing of my paper.
The power of contemplation at the presentation of Lena Ehringhaus, the capacity of exploration of drawing, explicit at the work of Rui Barreira, the inputs of Ana Telles, from the field of music, are examples of the diverse approaches to Design Driven Doctoral Research
Dirk Bahmann’s presentation triggered my statement that the moment when the candidate is coming to the overarching insight in his/her PhD IS the PhD itself. Subsequently I could see how Dirk immediately understood what I was trying to say, and that this was a liberating moment for him in his PhD. Lena Ehringhaus’s presentation triggred a comparable moment, when I could see more deeply rooted themes that were implicitly there and that I could make explicit in my comments as a panel member.
The formulation of research objectives differs between early, mid- and final stage of research. The candidates seem to benefit from exposure to different perspectives, so that the design-driven aspects of research appears to be better contextualised in later stages of the research. Whereas, in the early stage candidates, I observe two main tendencies. Either they lean on the design act or processes or show difficulties in narrowing down to clarify the main axis of the research.
Again the trigger for me seemed to be having to organize my research in the categories given by Prominski and von Seggern. In stepping out of the research itself and sorting the body of work into these categories and then presenting the research through this lens. I think it also helped the audience follow the research goal and results. One of my critics commented something like ‘of course I have read a lot about the problem you are investigating as your research topic but I have never seen anyone attempt to do something to address this problem’, then I knew that I was able to communicate the goals and results clearly to persons unfamiliar with my research. So one could say, as a Final Stage research I was able to enter the area of reflecting on the work in order to see clearly what it was contributing to our practice.
Comments by Jo van den Berghe on moments within PhDs when knowledge is produced beyond the terms or expectations of the project from the outset. The search that produces new insights. This was a crucial intervention. Christoph Heinemann’s analogy of the work of the designer/thinker with St Thomas touching the wound of Christ. Ana Telles’s contribution to the discussion of the copy in which she spoke of its importance in relation to traditions in music. All of these led me to think that the specific moments pertinent to design thought and action are in themselves necessarily illustrated as knowledge.
The impact was, in my view, triggered by the workshops. Their role in the events is improving. They are becoming better at establishing dialogues, sharing different understandings of DDDr and forming a common framework for the feedback following the presentations. The shared concluding discussion and inclusion of the observers’ specific reports also helped address detailed insights on DDDr. There were also excellent examples of feedback from different disciplinary backgrounds contributing to shared discussions. For instance, in Pietro Quattropani’s presentation ‘The Concept of Copy in Arts and its Application in Architectural Projects’ where comments on the role of copying from artistic, architectural and musical perspectives came together in a rich discussion.
The capacity of researchers to open up space emancipating it from the mere traditional conception of design as merely linked to construction. The researchers, presenters, and panelists discussed a wider agency of architecture. This agency was shown through the focus on design practices and not just discussing the content of the research. Even if some PhD-projects were missing a generative use of practices or were in a seminal stage of research, the discussions were often focused on design practices motivating the research to find an own practice. This focus was very clear in the keynotes presentations (Tattara, Krumwiede, Lehnerer) and in the related discussion.
I attended a presentation as an observer (‘A Safe Space. Architecture and Preparedness in the Era of Uncertainty’) in which the comments of the panel members caught my attention: they all approached the role of design from different and complementary perspectives. Actually, everyone saw the role of design from their own experience and area of knowledge, and thus offered the candidate a very complete panoramic reflection.
The introductory workshop discussion, aligned around approaches, methodologies and techniques, was perfectly articulated and defined lingering topics with great clarity.
The position papers from the partner institutions were an excellent idea though the quality varied, and I particularly enjoyed the opening session where epistemological questions were discussed. My own panel was excellent and helped me sharpen my focus. Seeing other presentations gave me insight into the range of research being carried out internationally.
The contact with many different lines of work gives a sense of security for developing my ongoing research. Its was very important for me to understand the amplitude of the works, from studies of the sun frequencies to the relationship with choreography, or a more technical analysis on architectural typologies and consequently HOW to built a doctoral discourse around them and also its graphical translation.
The discussion after the 2.6 session and at the workshop with Johan Van Den Berghe. The two occasions provided the situation when an evaluator puts forward his own practice or opinion as an argument.
Cross referencing of methodologies across disciplines
… DDr opens the way to the everyday vision of things which give the opportunity to see the problems through the urban dynamics…
Especially while I was listening to the phd proposal “Material map” I was inspired by the methodology and methods to deconstruct architecture projects and focusing on the materiality…
Impact was primarily triggered by insightful feedback during my and other sessions.
The set up of the discussion during a PhD presentation about the role of drawing: as a revealing process vs a generative tool and approach for the design driven research.
Rather than being a simple event, the last CA2RE+ conference represented an immersive learning environment, in which relational and behavioral factors counted more than specific content ones.
The impact was perceived the first day, when the conference was introduced by the “role-play” session. This was a sort of orientation and, perhaps more, was a calibration of expectations and tool for initial orientation and self-criticism. I would say that each presentation, given the quality of the reviewers, offered a portal to the character of “impact” and its synthesis into other aspects of the conference and presentations…in that way the conference positively built upon itself.
…by the design-practice related research projects, which constantly not only produce new content, but also develop new ways of researching it…