CONVERSATION TEMPLATE
The following sections give guidelines and act as a template for Conversation proposals. Please read the information provided and replace with your proposal text while keeping the formatting and structure the same (i.e. headings, sub-headings, paragraph styles, etc.). Delete any text highlighted in yellow before you submit your proposal. Add any diagrams or images as appropriate.
Proposed Conversation Title
Keywords: keyword 1; keyword 2; keyword 3; keyword 4
1. Convenors Information
Convenors Name / Email / AffiliationConvenor 1
(Lead and Contact) / / University of Limerick
Convenor 2
Convenor 3
Convenor 4
Convenor 5
2. Context of Conversation Topic
Here you should give a short background to, and description of, the topic that you would like to address. Please make sure that when you submit you have been in touch with all your intended convenors and that they have agreed on a role to play in the session (note: this requires conference attendance). Reviewers will be looking for relevance of topic and format, as well as feasibility for an open and engaging session. Please ensure you address all the review criteria outlined above.
We welcome Conversation proposals focusing on specific topics, objects of design, but also on the meta-perspective of how to do design and design research. We are particularly interested in Conversation proposals that bring together diverse perspectives, are experiential in nature, and that will productively challenge our assumptions of what the topics and forms of design research are or could be. DRS2018 is a general design research conference and it is expected that a wide variety of work and projects will be reported and discussed.
2.1 Review
[Add sub-sections to your context section if necessary]
Conversation proposals should be submitted to the conference submission system (ConfTool) and will be reviewed by the Conversations sub-committee of the DRS2018 Programme Committee. It is the task of the reviewing sub-chair to make recommendations to the review committee about decision outcomes.
2.2 Preparing your Conversation proposal for submission
You should submit your initial Conversation proposal in PDF format using this template. Proposals should be up to 4 pages in length in total, including any references. Follow the formatting and styles of this template.
2.3 Submitting your Conversation proposal
In preparing your Conversation for DRS2018 please note the following:
●We are aiming to produce a high-quality dissemination of the Conversation sessions. Please follow as closely as possible this template structure and associated style guidelines;
●Your initial full Conversation submission should be in PDF format. Should your Conversation proposal be accepted final submissions will be in Word format to allow us to prepare documentation;
●Please register an account and submit your Conversation proposal at:
3. Conversation research question
The audience should be able to engage with this research question together with the catalysts during the Conversation session. Try to present a clear overarching question, and then any sub-questions, if appropriate.
4. Set-up of your session
This should include what role each Conversation convenor will play in the Conversation session and how you plan to incorporate and document the contributions of DRS2018 delegates.
5. Type of space and equipment required
Consider how you intend to present or elicit work and facilitate an open exchange for 1-2 hours. Consider particularly how all convenors and other delegates/audience members can understand and follow the contributions. Since the time frame is short, ease of communication has a large role in the enjoyment and success of a Conversation session.
6. Dissemination strategy
DRS2018 will provide an online forum to collaboratively refine such a strategy. Our aim is to get an exchange going ahead of the conference with support and tips. The convenors are expected to produce a concluding document from their conversation sessions. It may take the form, for example, of a Storify report or fanzine. The dissemination will be featured on the DRS2018 site following the conference. The benefit for the convenors is a citable result for their session.
7. References
Adams, R., Mann, L., Jordan, S., and Daly, S. (2009). Exploring the Boundaries: Language Roles and Structures in Cross-Disciplinatry Design teams, in McDonnell, J. and Lloyd, P. (eds.), About: Designing: Analysing Design Meeting, Taylor & Francis, pp. 339–358.
du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H., and Negus, K. (1997). Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman, Sage.
Lawson, B. (2004). What Designers Know, Architectural Press.
Norman, D. (2010). Why Design Education Must Change, (Accessed 20 July, 2015).
Rancière, J. (1991). The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation, Stanford University Press.
Tovey, M., Porter, S., & Newman, R. (2003). Sketching, concept development and automotive design, Design Studies, 24, pp 135–153.
Ulrich, K., and Eppinger, S. (2004). Product Design and Development (3rd edition), McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Author (2012). Journal article.
Author (2015). Conference paper.
About the Convenors:
Convenor 1 add a Convenor bio that describes research interests and any other achievements in a maximum of 40 words. This description is 21 words.
Convenor 2 add a Convenor bio that describes research interests and any other achievements in a maximum of 40 words. This description is 21 words.
Convenor 3 add a Convenor bio that describes research interests and any other achievements in a maximum of 40 words. This description is 21 words.
Convenor 4 add a Convenor bio that describes research interests and any other achievements in a maximum of 40 words. This description is 21 words.
Convenor 5 add a Catalyst bio that describes research interests and any other achievements in a maximum of 40 words. This description is 21 words.