Inspirational text by Markus

Counter Argument:

One might argue that we as scientist know how to do (our) science. Of course, we will go on learning about it, but the fundament that we build remains. Thus, this should be largely independent of the environment (e.g. Academia) in which we do it. Of course, in Academia the research goals might be often given by some funding agencies that are controlled by politicians that want to have results that make the corresponding country or region richer at a certain point. Thus, outside academia one might be able to follow different goals (though there will be always the question of funding: without an acknowledged institute, it is very difficult to apply for funding and the funding agencies would be the same as inside academia, so what's the difference?). Still the way how to do science or the process of research will always be the same.

This could be true and is a valid outcome of this meeting. ;)

Argument:

We believe that there are huge chances in rethinking the process of science!

• Inside Academia, the process is typically treated as almost irrelevant, instead only the result / output counts (e.g. “our” publication fetish).
  Thus, the machinery of academia pushes us away from the process. Of course, there must be processes behind the outputs, so how is it possible that processes are considered as irrelevant?
  • In academia, we normally do not think/talk about HOW CREATION HAPPENS.
    We learn from our supervisor how they face their problems and if we are lucky enough to have more than one supervisor we will typically have two completely different kinds of strategies. Some are better, some are worse, normally none is really refined. Most of us write some kind of diary or log, but without any real clue what to put there. Often just to have something solid after a working day, because it is often really hard to measure how much or even if we advance or not during the research process. But we never think or discuss about this. It is treated as something god-given. But maybe we could enhance our process! But what means enhancement? Etc. pp
    (PROBABLY HERE WILL START A DISCUSSION NATURALLY)
  • output orientation also induces reduced COOPERATION, because only cooperation that very promisingly leads to scientific output can be “afforded”
    (most efficient form of cooperation in this setting are based on hierarchies goup leader → senior scientist → student)
• Interestingly, most of the scientists criticize this strongly. Still, they seem IMPOTENT to change what they criticize.
  Non-academic science could offer the freedom to focus more on the process

MAYBE ASK THIS QUESTION TO THE AUDIENCE BEFORE THROWING INPUT
(since our audience is a mix of artists an scientists, I guess, we need to start the discussion about the connection between arts and science very early, I still put it as an extra point)

• What belongs to the process?
  (formulas?, derivations?, plots?, failures?, feelings?, the body state?, depends on the goal that drives the process? depne)
• How do we we perceive process?
  (also in contrast to progress: if I spent one week with deriving equations and find out later that I had a wrong starting point and thus, all derivations are wrong, did I proceed with anything? I terms of classical scientific output, for sure not! But I still went a process and maybe learned a lot during this process!)
• Can process separate from the idea that drove it before or the goal that originally wanted to be achieved?

• Can we compare arts and science?

Markus:

I do not see any difference here:
* Science: have an idea, build a cool device, hope that it works (that's called empirical evidence then)
* Art: have an idea, build a cool artwork (could be a machine too after all), hope that it works (that it has the planned effect)
The freedom in science is exactly the same too: you can try to achieve anything

Pedro:

Well, I think the analogy works this well for applied science/research, either theoretical or experimental. My point is that for basic research things are rather different: you simply don't have an idea out of the blue, but must piece together a set of principles, the whole process being heavily constrained by known facts. Unlike this, the artist does have full freedom in her choice. Moreover, the success of the final product depends a lot on the target audience, whereas the scientific output only depends on empirical confirmation.

• Another argument: there is not much experience in classical science in “dealing” with the process. But maybe we can search in other fields: ARTS,
  (History of Science also very promising as some of the antendees have seen the last two days)

SHORT PRESENTATION: An example of “interacting” with a research process

• I told a story inspried from my process and based on my notes from the time and my memory.
• The specific events that I chose to mention are only a selection. Some events were not triggered externally, but still they influenced the process.
• Form the “same” input, many story can be told.
• The story is not the process of course, but it is a way to deal with it.
• Does it make sense to deal with a process at all?
  • I had for sure fun in doing it.
  • Some things became clearer by putting them in a different perspective.
  • It triggered actually new ideas.
  • I learned also something about the process itself, but it is difficult to spell it. But one important point is that during the process, I never perceived it in the way as I put it now!

Questions for the round:

• What are your first impressions from what I presented?
• Can something like this “diary” also be relevant/interesting/useful/worth experiencing for other people?
  This question is probably very similar to what an artist must ask himself, when she or he produces something!
• This was just a kind of teaser. The space of interaction with the process is entirely unexplored. What possibilities are there?
• What about aesthetics? Does this play a role in science?
  “The center of scientific beauty” :D
• Input Willi: Process visualization (was very important for him during his research about minimization)
  Could arts help him here?

Sol LeWitt

In conceptual art, the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means tall all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctionary affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art.