Month of Research: Reflection? Results? Resolution?

Visitors to MoR’s Wedding 2200 “open notebook”, Uferstudios 2017. Image by Sasha Amaya.

Uferstudio’s Month of Research comes to an end. Its aim was to explore different modes, methods, and themes under the umbrella of collaborative investigation. The Month of Research was separated into many research groups, one of which was the Month of Research Research Group, which investigated the functioning of the Month of Research itself and its group. Below is an excerpt from the MORR blog:

“At the end of the Month of Research, as throughout it, each of the groups was given an opportunity to share their work or research findings. Our group — which researched the Month of Research itself — did not collectively feel we had made any particular discoveries or findings. Rather, reflecting on the experiece, we realised that many of the moments which had felt most illuminating had to do not with analysis (although, of course, there was an element of time involved here, too), but with the collection and organisation of information we received through our visits to and discussions with other groups. Therefore, for the last day we decided to that it would be apt to present not content but a structure for the sharing of information.

We devised four frameworks for sharing information, which we dubbed (1) Let’s Get Personal, (2) Let’s Get Opinionated, (3) Let’s Get Results, and (4) Let’s Get Questioning! Following is a short summary of those frameworks.

Let’s Get Personal!

People pair up in partners; sitting opposite, each pair has seven minutes to discuss each questions. (Partners can stay for all three questions or switch at each question — we decided that everyone would switch at each question.)

(1) What did you hope or expect [for the Month of Research]?

(2) What were some things that were challenges for you?

(3) What can you take away [from the Month of Research] going forward?

Let’s Get Opinionated!

In the opinion game one persons states a very strong opinion and next must counter it. In our version we allowed these two extreme or polar opinions to be followed up by three more opions. Therefore there were a minimum of two opinions and a maximum of five. The sixth person would have to begin with a new statement, although the third, fourth, or fifth persons also could. There were 4-6 persons in each group.

E.g.

Opinion 1: “The Month of Research should have paid artists because… x… y… z…”

Opinion 2: “The Month of Research should not have paid artists because… p… q… r…”

Let’s Get Results!

Moving on from reflecting on the more personal aspects of the process, we had a round of sharing of any results that came explicitly out of the research proposals with which we began. It was perfectly acceptable to say that one did not have any research results. We also broke this down into two small group of 6-8 persons.

Let’s Get Questioning!

In the final framework we darkened the room and everyone lay down on the floor, dispersed throughout the room. The goal was to produce a series of questions, jumping off points for further research and reflection. As each person let a question flat into the air, a pause would ensue, after which another question would follow.

Some questions which were generated included:

Why research?

Why movement?

Are we friends?

Is it important to be friends?

Are the only two options working alone and working in a group?

Why do we think of working in a group as so noble?

What would happen if we returned in a year to the same people and the same question?

Would we do it all again?

Was it worth it?

What else could we have done with this time?

Why would it be bad if we wasted our time?

Who isn’t here with us today?

Where do we go next?”