Dear Rosan and all,
Thanks for your question, Rosan, but as one of the co-chairs, I feel it is
probably appropriate to point out here that 'Common Ground' was a title,
not a theme.
When the DRS first started planning the conference two years ago, the point
was raised that nobody ever does research for a specific conference, they
simply write up the research that they are doing with a slant to the
conference theme. Borrowing from the Asian Design Conference series (and
others), the idea was avoid that; that is, to invite papers on *any*
researched design topic, and then form parallel streams as best we
could from those papers selected.
However, conferences must have titles. Personally, I would have been happy
with 'DRS Conference 2002', but somebody (Nigel Cross if I remember
correctly) suggested 'Common Ground' and it met with general approval. DRS
members include architects, psychologists, engineers, artists, philosophers,
amongst many others, and logically one imagines none would go to the trouble
of joining if they felt they had nothing to discuss with the others; if they
felt they had no common ground.
The most exiting thing for me at the conference was that no less than three
separate groups set up their own sessions spontaneously. Supervising
doctorates was the theme of one, I forget what the other were just at the
moment. (Sorry, I was busy trying to organise a conference at the
time...!)
These spontaneous sessions, for me, underline the (delightful) futility in
defining a conference theme 'top down'; the most successful themes emerged
'bottom up'. As a conference organiser, whatever one forces people to write
to get to the conference, what they talk about when they get there is out
of your control.
We talked, we listened, we debated, (we got sore backsides on the
Pillar Hall seating...), but perhaps the most important thing to come out
of the conference is that, as a group of disparate individuals linked only
by an interest in some or other aspect of design, we do have something to
talk about. If people thought it was worthwhile, isn't that sufficient?
Some may wish to agonise over a definition, but I'm not sure common ground
ever had a fence.
Regards,
John Shackleton
>
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 06:52:02 -0600
> From: Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Building the Field? on which ground?
>
> What is our common ground? Was a common ground laid or refabricated at the
> conference? And how was the idea of 'common' being outlined at the conference?
>
> Could anyone who has participated in the conference share with us his or her
> idea/perception please?
>
> The very interested, Rosan.
>
>
> --
> Rosan Chow
> Sessional Instructor
>
> University of Alberta
> Department of Art and Design
> 3-98 Fine Arts Building
> Edmonton, Alberta
> Canada T6G 2C9
>
> Tel:1-780-492-7877
> Fax: 1-780-492-7870
>
John Shackleton
Design Research Centre
Brunel University, UK
|