Sketch Notes Second Planning Day

Quick sketch notes following the second planning day. Perhaps the most striking experience of the day for me was that outcomes did not really move us forward, but they replayed quite plainly the same processes and conversations that the working group have had over the last six months.

In the introduction to the day I talked about how one of the outcomes of the day was to disseminate what the working group has been up to. So it was for us to get stuff out and spoken about, positively or negatively, and for some conversations to happen afterwards to help get information out there. So in terms of information there is hoped to be a centrifugal flow out. I also pointed out that like committees and working groups in general you develop an internal understanding and dialogue, what you might think of as a sort of idiolect of common assumptions and understandings. But this can mean that your assumptions disappear and you can lose sight of what matters, of what is problematic, of what needs attention, more thick description and detail. So one of the outcomes of the day is to get outside perspectives so we can see what needs attention, resourcing, and so on. Finally, the day is very much about process and we are not to spend time solving problems, arguing about fine detail. If you think there is a problem, write it down or tell us and we can capture it. If there is something good, ditto. Just park the problems and move on. It is the working group’s job to work out what to do with the issues, problems, concerns, possibilities, ideas and innovations that we collect.

Key question: What will make this laboratory/studio model work?

So, the moving forward. A rationale for the planning day was that we had done a lot of thinking in the working group and had reached a position where it felt like we were making big decisions, and that rather than just us making these decisions, we needed to take them out of the working group and to others for a) critique (are we on the right track? where, how? what other things/paths/tracks have we missed or need to be considered?) and b) to provide some thick description and body to the ideas so that what is the current skeleton of a program structure and some ideas about curriculum and what matters can be solidified and, well, fleshed out. While the material gathered and generated has not been collated yet, I don’t think this happened. What we did get was a lot of material and thick description around where the difficult parts of the program structure are, and what those problems actually look like. This did closely align with the working group, and so the relation of the studio to the supervisor and to the individual research practice is one such point. As is the role of the communication orientated subject. As is the actual role and activity within the studios. From our point of view this was quite affirming as it is a bit like convergent evolution where two different groups started from partly different points and arrived at very similar outcomes. This suggests that not only are we right in identifying the sticky or lumpy bits, but also that we need to spend a lot of time, relatively speaking, in explaining and contextualising these things.

As a consequence the planning day did not really take where the working group had gotten to and then expand on that. This, in retrospect, was partly my fault. I suspect the original schedule, where things like honours research was discussed before the studio scenario exercise, may have been more productive simply because as academics there was a lot they had and wanted to say about research. Getting this out and recognised, and then asking via the scenarios how this would happen in the studios, might have given a bit more context, for many struggled with the process orientated nature of the activity. Secondly, while I tried to be careful in using terms as only placeholders, and that they could be called anything, by describing the studios as studios (even though I routinely also called them a lab), and that they would have a leader or manager, saw nearly everyone treat them as studios with managers, where a manager was an administrative and not really an academic role. If I had simply called them research labs, with research directors, then I think things would have changed quite dramatically. This at least tells us how we need to name them.

These are the notes I made from each of the working table groups as they reported back. Red are problems. Green are good bits, brown direct quotes

Some Key Observations (not necessarily clear for others or before the day)

• The studio/lab model is key to the structure and experience of the program for staff and students, and in terms of framing research as an activity and practice. The opportunity to participate in these labs is the reason why you would apply for this program.
• Have a think about all those ways the program can innovate, for example having an Open Access curriculum – how can we do this? Why?
• We need a set of values for the program, these are not the graduate attributes, but these values do inform, justify and orientate the program
• Where should these laboratories happen (may sound obvious, but it certainly wasn’t to the participants)
• What sorts of participatory partnerships could there be (industry, Salford, individual companies)?
• Should it be a hub or centre of innovation/invention? What does that actually mean? What would it look like?
• We might need to progressively develop the studio/lab model over time, so first ones are set and predetermined in advance, to ensure they work, have key staff in place, and then see what knowledge, skills and resources are needed to then run new ones
• Just brain storming: one attached to screen hub, one to communications and social advocacy, one to Asian media, one on social media? What’s missing?
• Honours research: PhD requires qualitative change in disciplinary understanding from the point of view of the discipline. In the research outcome is a qualitative change in the student’s understanding of the discipline from the point of view of the student
• Staff development, or perhaps just existing, working labs, is needed so staff can understand what a research lab is
• Why should methods in honours have to be the only methods subject for students going on to HDR? Does thinking about that differently let us treat the methods subject differently? (And isn’t it the existence of honours – that is a thesis or project – and not the methods subject that means you do not need to do another methods subject in HDR?)
• Should applicants have to demonstrate some understanding already of the studio theme? Or perhaps this is not how we get students into honours but how we get them into specific studios?
• If the thesis/project and exegesis forms the examinable component does it matter if this is different to what the studio is? What does this constrain? What does this enable?