PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Additional to the conventional peer review pro-cess (abstract, paper, or artefact), we added a second peer review according to the circles of observation as mentioned above. These consti-tute a second round of peer reviews that is direct and intense, due to its conversational nature and the immediate proximity of the work which hap-pens in real time. By doing so, this second part of the procedure turns into an improved review process of the second order, in the way Ranulph Glanville describes second-order observations (Glanville, 2002). According to our experiences in the panel discussions this was demonstrated to be an asset for better observing design driven research processes.

In particular, in the artefact sessions, the artefacts all have been brought together in an exhibition, in which essential layers of non-verbal communication work as additional streams of knowledge exchange.

Additionally, the presence of artefacts in the con-ference exhibition permits a more permanent

engagement between the work, the presenters, and

48

CA²RE+

all the participants. The frictions that occur between artefact presentations lead to more formal and

informal conversations about the research.

Due to either the often ephemeral nature of research topics or the thematic or methodolog-ical idiosyncratic approaches, these research processes need constant calibration that can be provided through an integrated implementation of the circles of observation. By doing so, this per-manent process of observation and calibration is a constructive asset to the robustness of the research processes in design driven research.

RECOMMENDATIONS

At this stage of the Erasmus+ project, we formu-late the following three recommendations to be implemented in the organisation of future Eras-mus+ events.

EMPATHY

According to our observations of the ongoing processes of Design Driven Doctoral research at the event, the notion of empathy is clearly at work. There, Theory U offers a set of grips needed to include empathy, not only at the event but in all the circles of observation in a more structured way. The actions that take place in the first half of the Theory U method are of value for our observa-tions. Each stage in the U-curve expresses a way of connecting, going from downloading (an instru-mental way), to a way of seeing (with fresh eyes), to sensing (an empathic way of connecting), and as far as a stage of concentrated observation of yourself in a context with an open will to change.

49

CA²RE+

Hence, it is recommended to investigate further the agency of Theory U in design driven research.

VALIDATION

Design driven research, like any research, needs proper levels of validation. By explicitly exploiting the circles of observation within a rigorous review process, the research can establish a correspond-ing set of levels of validation. To develop these connections, we suggest that the following levels of validation are taken into consideration (McNiff et al., 1996):

• Self-validation: can the responsible researcher vouch for the improvements and present a sys-tematic enquiry to accomplish this?

• Peer validation: can the researcher convince their peers to have gained genuine knowledge and that the claimed improvements work effec-tively?

• Up liner validation: can the researcher convince managers and those in authority that their

claimed improvements work effectively?

• Client validation: will the people the researcher is supporting agree that improvements are in their interest?

• Academic validation: does the academic com-munity agree that the researcher’s work has contributed to a recognised body of knowledge?

• General public validation: does the wider com-munity of readers, in organisational or general

50

CA²RE+

contexts, agree that the researcher’s work has contributed to a recognised body of knowledge?

The target should be twofold. Firstly, a more sys-tematic application of the circles of observation is needed. Secondly, and coming from the applica-tion of these circles of observaapplica-tion, more precise formats of evaluation and the development of robust levels of validation must be accomplished.

Meeting these targets through the six main pro-ject themes, from observation and sharing (which this book highlights), to comparison and reflection (book 2), and reformulation and recommendations (book 3), contributes to meeting the four main objectives of this project, which are:

• To develop a collective learning environ-ment through the evaluation of design driven research training;

• To create evidence of a design driven research learning environment and evaluation materials;

• To identify the design driven research strate-gies, to explicate the design driven research evaluation process, and to prepare the design driven research framework;

• To disseminate the CA2RE learn-ing-through-evaluation model and its framework.

REPORTER

For the Ghent event, it was the intention to appoint a reporter for each presentation. However, clear

51

CA²RE+

instructions were missing due to a lack of insight into the role of the reporter. Hence, this reporting did not happen sufficiently. We therefore lacked a structural observer for each presentation and depended on informal comments and obser-vations from panel members and the audience.

Since things happen in every presentation, a reporter would be most beneficial for keeping an overview and looking at things from the spe-cific thematic lenses of the conference, in this case, ‘observations’. Above all, the installation of a reporter is both a plea and an opportunity for more refined feedback loops from the obser-vations into the research projects (we refer to numerous testimonies of participants, gathered in the impact questionnaires). The recommendation would be to refine further the role of the reporter.

This implies that the reporter not only acts as an observer but also becomes an active mediator and facilitator in the panel discussions whenever necessary. Such an interaction will help to imple-ment the conference theme more explicitly in the conference activities and to supervise the two other recommendations (i.e., empathy and valida-tion) as formulated above.

REFERENCES

Glanville, R., Doing the Right Thing: the Problems of … Gerard de Zeeuw, Academic Guerilla, in Glanville, R. (guest editor) ‘Gerard de Zeeuw—a Festschrift’, Special Issue of Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 2002, vol. 19, no. 2.

Lagrange, T., Look Space! A Story of Analogous Spaces, Grafische Cel Luca, Ghent, 2016.

McNiff, J., Lomax, P., and Whitehead, J., You and your action research project, Routledge, London, 1996.

Scharmer, C. O., Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 2009.

Van Den Berghe, J., (PhD Dissertation) Theatre of Operations, or:

Construction Site as Architectural Design, RMIT University, 2012.

52

CA²RE+

Selected fellow