Order:
Disambiguations
M. Hohl [3]Michael Hohl [2]
  1. Exploring Alternatives to the Traditional Conference Format: Introduction to the Special Issue on Composing Conferences.B. Sweeting & M. Hohl - 2015 - Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):1-7.
    Context: The design of academic conferences, in which settings ideas are shared and created, is, we suggest, of more than passing interest in constructivism, where epistemology is considered in terms of knowing rather than knowledge. Problem: The passivity and predominantly one-way structure of the typical paper presentation format of academic conferences has a number of serious limitations from a constructivist perspective. These limits are both practical and epistemological. While alternative formats abound, there is nevertheless increasing pressure reinforcing this format due (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Desires, Constraints and Designing Second-Order Cybernetic Conferences.M. Hohl - 2015 - Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):84-85.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: I relate my own experiences of participating in and organizing conversational conferences to Richards’s discussion. Perhaps contradictory to Larry’s argument, I believe that in order for conversational conferences to be successful, they require some rules, structure and some hierarchy. Below, I would like to add reflections from own experience and also point to some guidelines worth considering, taken from Callaos’s recommendations.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Rigor in Research, Honesty and Values.M. Hohl - 2016 - Constructivist Foundations 11 (3):585-586.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Design Research as a Variety of Second-Order Cybernetic Practice” by Ben Sweeting. Upshot: I reflect on the theme of honesty in research and discuss the adjoining requirements of rigor from an academic perspective. Central to my discussion is Glanville’s assertion that what researchers - from either science or design - presented was not what they actually thought and did.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark