Notes from Meeting at Reading University 16th June
Present: Peter, Janet, Rachael, Fraser
Peter announced that following a positive review the AHRC have funded the project as a network grant (£24,000)
1. Filming Designers
Rachael, Janet, and Fraser had met with the architectural firm Civic to discuss possible projects to film. Overall Civic were enthusiastic about being involved. There are at present three options: 1) Development for the old Arsenal ground at Highbury, an urban renewal project. 2) A community facility in Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire. 3) A £12million civic centre in Wiltshire. The option to film a participatory design exercise with children had also been discussed but this was thought not to be suitable. It was pointed out to Civic that the project filmed does not have to go to completion. The timing for filming is really dependent on when approval is given for any of the three projects to go ahead. Rachael will take the lead in keeping in contact with Civic.
2. Contacting Organisations
Janet has contacted Arup via their inhouse intranet and received several positive responses. A novel technology project involving a media interface for a powerstation has been discussed. Janet has also had contact with an Arup bridge designer called Angus Lowe, who is interested in our research ideas. There is nothing concrete as yet, but there is hope.
Peter has drafted a generic letter to send to organisations inviting them to participate. He will circulate electronic copies to the others. Fraser mentioned that Phil Culverhouse at Plymouth might have some useful Engineering contacts. He will explore this further. Peter mentioned some companies he has worked with previously and also that contacting peope via the RSA might prove fruitful. He will explore both these options.
Janet also mentioned that CSM are re-locating to the Kings Cross area and that AMA Space Consultants are involved in the master plan for the project. Rachael has some knowledge of AMA. Janet will follow up the lead.
3. The Book
Janet has received a new contract from Taylor-Francis which now includes everyone. We are obliged to buy 100 copies of the book at a discount price of £32.50. We will receive 8 free books. This is based on a book of around 250 pages. There will be a 5% royalty fee for future copies sold. Publication is expected in October 2008. The possibility of including a DVD containing all or some of the data was discussed although this might prove problematic from a copyright and data protection point of view. Taylor Francis require a camera-ready copy of the book. The positive of this is that we retain full creative control, the negative is that it will be hard work. Janet will circulate the contract for final approval by all.
4. The AHRC Proposal
Peter circulated copies of the letter and reviews received from the AHRC. It was noted that they require an annual letter to report progress. Rachael mentioned it would be worth looking at other funded network grants to see if there were any useful contacts to be made.
5. Timeplan
Although the original timeplan has slipped a bit over the past few months we are still on course. It is important now to get a website up and running. Fraser mentioned that his son had useful experience that could be used in this respect. Peter will think out a website strategy and follow up. A letter inviting participation to the conference also needs to be sent out to interested researchers. This should detail roughtly what will be involved and the amount of effort required.
We again discussed the reviewing procedure agreeing that, having received the data, research groups would have a short period of time (2-4 weeks) to respond in the form of an abstract detailing what they planned to do. This abstract would be reviewed. We would then allow 3 months for further research and submission. The final paper would not be reviewed. It is also important to point out that presentation at the conference will not necessarily result in inclusion in the book.
The abstract should contain: An outline of the intended research, a rough idea about what sections of the data would be used (cross referencing the data was discussed in terms of meeting number and hour number, so 2.1 would be the first hour of meeting 2), a track record of publications indicating how past research would be carried on with the data.
An up-to-date list of invitees who have expressed an interest in participating will be kept on the website to allow others to see who will be involved.
6. The Event
The event will be self-funded and include the price of the book. Preprints will be produced as cheaply as possible to provide a working document for the conference. The event will take place at Central St Martins in London who will not charge for the space used. The exact venue is yet to be determined. All expresssed a desire to keep the conference organisation as simple as possible. A list of hotels will be provided and the conference dinner will be at a London restaurant. Peter pointed out that payment can be done simply using the PayPal system.
7. Data Collection
Peter has almost completed the transcription of the pilot data which currently stands at 60 pages for a two and a half hour meeting. Given that one of the stated objectives of the project is to produce 9 meetings worth of data this could lead to a huge amount of data which might defeat the overall point of the conference to focus on common data. The review process discussed in item 5 would alleviate this somewhat, and would allow some direction from the conference organisers, but producing too much data does remain a concern. The possibilty of selecting only one meeting from the three filmed in each company might be an option to reduce data.
The idea that the main output of the project is a book, and that the conference is really a staging post on the way to producing the book, was also talked about. In this sense the conference is an opportunity to discuss, criticise, and find commonalities with other conference papers before submitting a final piece for the book. The conference, then, is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Actions Arising
Rachael: Keep in contact with Civic
Peter: Circulate electronic copies of Invitation to Participate, Information Sheet about the Project, Consent Form, and filming set-up.
Fraser: Talk to Phil Culverhouse regarding contacting an engineering design organisation.
Janet: Follow up on CSM Kings Cross development
Janet: Circulate the Taylor Francis contract
Peter: Contact organisations via the RSA
Peter: Work out a website strategy
Peter: Maintain contact with MK architects
Janet: Circulate list of invitees
Peter: Re-confirm with Mangold their input into the project
Peter announced that following a positive review the AHRC have funded the project as a network grant (£24,000)
1. Filming Designers
Rachael, Janet, and Fraser had met with the architectural firm Civic to discuss possible projects to film. Overall Civic were enthusiastic about being involved. There are at present three options: 1) Development for the old Arsenal ground at Highbury, an urban renewal project. 2) A community facility in Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire. 3) A £12million civic centre in Wiltshire. The option to film a participatory design exercise with children had also been discussed but this was thought not to be suitable. It was pointed out to Civic that the project filmed does not have to go to completion. The timing for filming is really dependent on when approval is given for any of the three projects to go ahead. Rachael will take the lead in keeping in contact with Civic.
2. Contacting Organisations
Janet has contacted Arup via their inhouse intranet and received several positive responses. A novel technology project involving a media interface for a powerstation has been discussed. Janet has also had contact with an Arup bridge designer called Angus Lowe, who is interested in our research ideas. There is nothing concrete as yet, but there is hope.
Peter has drafted a generic letter to send to organisations inviting them to participate. He will circulate electronic copies to the others. Fraser mentioned that Phil Culverhouse at Plymouth might have some useful Engineering contacts. He will explore this further. Peter mentioned some companies he has worked with previously and also that contacting peope via the RSA might prove fruitful. He will explore both these options.
Janet also mentioned that CSM are re-locating to the Kings Cross area and that AMA Space Consultants are involved in the master plan for the project. Rachael has some knowledge of AMA. Janet will follow up the lead.
3. The Book
Janet has received a new contract from Taylor-Francis which now includes everyone. We are obliged to buy 100 copies of the book at a discount price of £32.50. We will receive 8 free books. This is based on a book of around 250 pages. There will be a 5% royalty fee for future copies sold. Publication is expected in October 2008. The possibility of including a DVD containing all or some of the data was discussed although this might prove problematic from a copyright and data protection point of view. Taylor Francis require a camera-ready copy of the book. The positive of this is that we retain full creative control, the negative is that it will be hard work. Janet will circulate the contract for final approval by all.
4. The AHRC Proposal
Peter circulated copies of the letter and reviews received from the AHRC. It was noted that they require an annual letter to report progress. Rachael mentioned it would be worth looking at other funded network grants to see if there were any useful contacts to be made.
5. Timeplan
Although the original timeplan has slipped a bit over the past few months we are still on course. It is important now to get a website up and running. Fraser mentioned that his son had useful experience that could be used in this respect. Peter will think out a website strategy and follow up. A letter inviting participation to the conference also needs to be sent out to interested researchers. This should detail roughtly what will be involved and the amount of effort required.
We again discussed the reviewing procedure agreeing that, having received the data, research groups would have a short period of time (2-4 weeks) to respond in the form of an abstract detailing what they planned to do. This abstract would be reviewed. We would then allow 3 months for further research and submission. The final paper would not be reviewed. It is also important to point out that presentation at the conference will not necessarily result in inclusion in the book.
The abstract should contain: An outline of the intended research, a rough idea about what sections of the data would be used (cross referencing the data was discussed in terms of meeting number and hour number, so 2.1 would be the first hour of meeting 2), a track record of publications indicating how past research would be carried on with the data.
An up-to-date list of invitees who have expressed an interest in participating will be kept on the website to allow others to see who will be involved.
6. The Event
The event will be self-funded and include the price of the book. Preprints will be produced as cheaply as possible to provide a working document for the conference. The event will take place at Central St Martins in London who will not charge for the space used. The exact venue is yet to be determined. All expresssed a desire to keep the conference organisation as simple as possible. A list of hotels will be provided and the conference dinner will be at a London restaurant. Peter pointed out that payment can be done simply using the PayPal system.
7. Data Collection
Peter has almost completed the transcription of the pilot data which currently stands at 60 pages for a two and a half hour meeting. Given that one of the stated objectives of the project is to produce 9 meetings worth of data this could lead to a huge amount of data which might defeat the overall point of the conference to focus on common data. The review process discussed in item 5 would alleviate this somewhat, and would allow some direction from the conference organisers, but producing too much data does remain a concern. The possibilty of selecting only one meeting from the three filmed in each company might be an option to reduce data.
The idea that the main output of the project is a book, and that the conference is really a staging post on the way to producing the book, was also talked about. In this sense the conference is an opportunity to discuss, criticise, and find commonalities with other conference papers before submitting a final piece for the book. The conference, then, is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Actions Arising
Rachael: Keep in contact with Civic
Peter: Circulate electronic copies of Invitation to Participate, Information Sheet about the Project, Consent Form, and filming set-up.
Fraser: Talk to Phil Culverhouse regarding contacting an engineering design organisation.
Janet: Follow up on CSM Kings Cross development
Janet: Circulate the Taylor Francis contract
Peter: Contact organisations via the RSA
Peter: Work out a website strategy
Peter: Maintain contact with MK architects
Janet: Circulate list of invitees
Peter: Re-confirm with Mangold their input into the project
posted by Peter Lloyd at 10:11 AM
0 comments
