Introduction
This workshop will accompany the HWDs 2021 I. During the HWDs we would like to experiment with different froms of feedback and try to find out together what kinds of feedbacks are productive for the individual researcher and for the a.pass environment. The aim is to transform feedback into a useful tool which is at the disposal of the researcher. We would like to explore different, playful modes of feedback, and develop the ability to "tune" the relationship between the research/presentation and its feedback. We propose to practice different feedback scores, and different feedback focal points, all to denaturalise the idea that feedback is about forming and communicating an oppinion on what has been experienced and understood in a presenation.
General Structure
On Monday the researchers will meet 10-17h with Elke and online-Vladimir for an introductory workshop on feedback. Tuesday-Friday the day will be split into two parts: In the morning there will be two research presentations, in the afternon we will practice feedback on the presentations of the day, and try smaller feedback excercises.
Monday
General Discussion: what do we want from feedback in this environment?
What is it to feed back, to nurture a research environment? Feedback through the body - emotion in feedback Separation self and researcher
BREAK
Working on Feedback Toolkit
Presentation Vladimir Focal points of feedback
Elke's Tools
Working on Feedback ideas from the researchers presenting feedback scores and ideas, creating a general toolkit for the week.
HWDs and Workshop Schedule Which Feedback mathods will we try after which presenatation, what is interesting, what seems to fit? Elke and Vladimir propose one from their list for each afternoon, and one to be picked from the collective toolkit
Tuesday
START OF BUDDY SYSTEM Morning: Presentations Chloe and Amy Afternoon: Mirroring Excercises, Collective Lecture (Amy), Feedbacking the Feedback (Chloe)- not recorded
Wednesday
Morning: Presentations Federico Vladimir and Nathaniel Afternoon: FV: Always turning, as celestial bodies "normal" feedback, or moded, but the group is spread out in space (the black dance floor). The speakers go rotating, gravitating, eclipsing, enlighting, clashing... with other celestial bodies. N: Feedback via Storytelling and personal expereinces
Thursday
Morning: Presentations Federico P and Andrea Afternoon: Relay (Andrea) - Conversation Score
Friday
Morning: Presentations Tullio Afternoon: Fishbowl - Voice Message General Feedback and Conclusion
Feedback Toolkit
Modes:
¬ diagrammatic drawing relationships between ideias and concepts, structural ¬ mirroring the 'purest' form if feedback, it tries to repeat what has been said without mediating/filtering ¬ fundamentals (belief system, ideology, epistemology, myths, ontology) (it seems to be important to you, you assume that, you must believe that) (feedback of the value system, worldview, a priori, ideology of ) ¬ alignment, affirmative, co-constuctive, elaborating taking something a step further, working from the position of the other ¬ contextual it relates with where the research is taking place now, framing ¬ judgemental voicing opinions and impressions ¬ dialectic, debate (antithesis >synthesis) it comes from the establishment of different positions in order to create a new synthesis
Mirroring Excercises:
We will practivce in pairs two forms of mirroring: Mirroring and Diagram. For this the workshop participnats will work in pairs. Each exercise works with a Talker and a Listener. The Talker will talk freely about a current thought process, urgency or problem from their research, the Listener will try to note down the talk als closely as possible. The excersise is to retell that talk as closely as possible to the Talker. etc The Diagram is the same process, ony this time the Listener pays close attentions to the relationships between the ideas in the Talk: which thought follows which thought, how are they related (are they opposing or confirming each other?) When does a new theme or idea begin, how is is related to the previous one? Etc. The aimis to deveop and then narrate a diagram of the thinking process back to the Talker
Radical Honesty Monologue:
What do I work on in my research? What are my motivations? Which ones do I possibly keep close at hand and which ones do I construct in view of the eye of the other? Playful moment of contemplation of the researcher vis-a-vis the research and the context in which it plays out.
Bodywork
allow the body to digest first, before we speak. Authentic movement processing.
Roleplaying
combininig and practicing the Modes of feedback. Talking about the work from differnt positions/modes and sticking to those position. Going round, modality is stated and changing from speaker to speaker. Modes are defined person to person at the beginning (feedback is playfully prepared according to assigned modality), feedback starts with certain turns of phrase this is a group feedback presentation of one research
starting sentences: diagram (if I look at X...), mirror (I understood you said...), fundamental (it seems to be important to you..., the assumption here is.., you work form a belief that...), alignment (if I think this further...), contextual (I would frame this in the larger/context of ....), judgemental (I really like..., I dont like....), dialectic (on the other hand....)
closing circle
bringing the collective bodymind together at the end of the day.
Relay Interview:
(after a presentation) 2 chairs, public setup one person ask the other a question, other answers, leaves, somebody else takes that place, ask the former questioner the next question and so on. 20-30 min (by Jacon Wren)
Collective Lecture
Modeled after the Everybodies Lecture method:
after presentation 30 min to prepare a lecture of 5 min on a chosen topic from the presentation.
all lectures are then combined into a fictional lecture from a fictional researcher. The lecture "parts" are announced in terms of their rhetorical function: this is an example, this is the thesis, this is the context, etc, etc. The Lecturers speak about their own "work", research etc, but "pretend" to continue the work of the actual researcher.
1h
Feedbacking the feedback (FtheF)
feedback in two stages first person feedbacks presentation in judgemental mode second person feedbacks the feedbacker in fundamentals mode several short rounds 3-6 min one round 30-45 min total
Variation: Can be done in larger segments, using recordings: In that variation the group does a fist round of "normal" feddback, 15 min. This feedback is recorded and then listened to and anlyzed in terms of its modalities (concentration on: what was adressed, what was not adressed structurally, how ideas are passed on from which attiude of is the feedback happening) by the same group, 30 min. (hardcore variation: by another group) 1 round 45 min
Always turning
"normal" feedback, or moded, but the group is spread out in space. The speakers take turns. The Speakers always turn around themselves on the spot while speaking.
Conversation SCore
2 piles on table: concepts and time frames one person picks one (or two) concepts, and talks about these for the time given. 3 responses possible: Please continue - speaker takes another time frame I want to repy - new speaker new time frame Next subject - new speaker, new concept, new time frame
PARTICIPANT'S FORMATs
Buddy System
WHY A BUDDY SYSTEM Support for learning seems to increase the speed and depth of the learning, whether it comes from support groups or from “buddies” (a partner for learning) Yet most people aren’t accustomed to intentional support, so they don’t know how to use them or are embarrassed about using them (practice with a new behavior) Therefore buddy preparation includes giving people some information and a framework to get started.
RANDOMIZE BUDDY SELECTION Unless you have specific reasons to put certain individuals together with other individuals, randomizing has advantages, including the opportunity to go to an awareness layer deeper than usual by asking the question, “How is this buddy the perfect buddy for you?” One system for doing this is two concentric circles of equal size. Put participants who are already friends/political colleagues/partners in the same circle so they won’t match up with each other. Start the circles walking around, in opposite directions. Stop the walking at a random point; the persons closest to each other in the other circle are the buddy pair.
QUESTIONS TO ASK TO GET THE BUDDIES STARTED Formulate the questions that makes sense for the goals of your workshop (environment). Sentence completions allow tremendous freedom, yet are structured enough to stimulate valuable information in a sequenced way. Give an example of sentence completion to encourage free association. Here are examples:
Questions to get started: “Some wishes I have for this workshop are. . .” “Some fears or reservations I have about this workshop are. . .” “Some ways I might ‘tune out’ or reduce my participation in this workshop are. . .” “Some support I could use might be . . .”
Some other questions: “You’ll be glad I’m your buddy because...” “A way I might need support in this workshop is...” “How I might resist that support is. . .” “How you could support me anyway is. . .”
by George Lakey, Training for Change • www.TrainingForChange.org
Suggestion this week *Meet 15 minutes in the morning Answer questions like:
Questions to get started: “Some wishes I have for this week/my feedback are. . .” “Some fears or reservations I have about this this week/receiving feedback are. . .” “Some ways I might ‘tune out’ or reduce my participation in this week/while giving or receiving feedback are. . .” “Some support I could use might be . . .”
Some other questions: “You’ll be glad I’m your buddy because...” “A way I might need support in this week/ater or before receiving or giving feedback is...” “How I might resist that support is. . .” “How you could support me anyway is. . .”
Meet 15 minutes at the end of the day Gather in the big group en share things that were said in the buddy pairs if its relevant for the group.
'RE: has to include [_____]'
(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞ writing a (more or less brief) text/note/letter/reply towards the researcher/ the presented research aspects with whatever you want to share + in whichever mode you prefer to use but has to (ideally) include a certain amount of words/sentence/notions provided by the presenter. examples: "RE: has to include [identity politics]" "RE: has to include [when I turned 10 my birthday cake had the shape of...]" "RE: has to include [from the persoective of a non-dancer/dancer ....] this is then handed over to the researcher/ if time allows some people can read their writings out loud. eventually this can also be framed in spoken form if time/frame allows.
Voice Message
Leave a voice message of your recollections from the presentation, first thing when you wake up the next day. Focus of the message can be specified by either the feedback giver or the one receiving feedback. Recommended focus is one word. It can be given to the feedback giver to think on during sleep, or the focus that comes to them during sleep. The one receiving the feedback listens to the voice message with headphones and speaks along, out loud, to the words they listen to.
Long form, wandering, getting distracted.
"becoming lost is about straying away from patterns that produce the same" bayo o The group sits around a circle with a large period of time to discusss. Feedback is entered through the various modes with the direction to splinter off into free association with the freedom to ramble. It can spiral into memories, stories one was told, movies, obscure day dreams. One begins with directly feedbacking the presentation and slowly wanders away from it through a series of sideways connections feedbacking the feedback, different position in the body, disabling the circle ie laying on the floor with heads in the center , or heads rested on anothers bellies in a sort of dreaming practice.
Curator's engagement/double figure
To assume the position of a person that, at the same time, wants to help/support the work (allow it to grow) and present the work to an outside community. So it has to do with a double engagement, with the process and with the 'outside' of it. It may happen in two parts, or two different conversations. In one it tries to respond to the work, understand its process and share the questions it raises to you. In the other, the attempt would be to connect the work with what is outside, with the questions that are circulating around, trying to connect/link them in a certain way.
Deep engagement (friendship/work partner)
To assume that the work is made by a person that you respect and admire deeply, that you really want to see growing or succeding. It has to do with a mode of conversation in which encouragement and fears/doubts are combined, but from a singular perspective.
Fishbowl Conversation
(remembered from listening to Vladimir discuss Relay Interview) A fishbowl conversation is a form of dialogue that can be used when discussing topics within large groups. Fishbowl conversations are sometimes also used in participatory events such as unconferences. The advantage of fishbowl is that it allows the entire group to participate in a conversation. Several people can join the discussion.
Four to five chairs are arranged in an inner circle. This is the fishbowl. The remaining chairs are arranged in concentric circles outside the fishbowl. A few participants are selected to fill the fishbowl, while the rest of the group sit on the chairs outside the fishbowl. In an open fishbowl, one chair is left empty. In a closed fishbowl, all chairs are filled. The moderator introduces the topic and the participants start discussing the topic. The audience outside the fishbowl listen in on the discussion. In an open fishbowl, any member of the audience can, at any time, occupy the empty chair and join the fishbowl. When this happens, an existing member of the fishbowl must voluntarily leave the fishbowl and free a chair. The discussion continues with participants frequently entering and leaving the fishbowl. Depending on how large your audience is you can have many audience members spend some time in the fishbowl and take part in the discussion. When time runs out, the fishbowl is closed and the moderator summarizes the discussion. An immediate variation of this is to have only two chairs in the central group. When someone in the audience wants to join the two-way conversation, they come forward and tap the shoulder of the person they want to replace, at some point when they are not talking. The tapped speaker must then return to the outer circles, being replaced by the new speaker, who carries on the conversation in their place. In a closed fishbowl, the initial participants speak for some time. When time runs out, they leave the fishbowl and a new group from the audience enters the fishbowl. This continues until many audience members have spent some time in the fishbowl. Once the final group has concluded, the moderator closes the fishbowl and summarizes the discussion.
Chat Show with the Substitute
Prior presentation Presenter/researcher meets with their substiture researcher . They engage in a conversation about the work and focal points that the researcher wants the feedback to focus around. Fake TV Chat Show set up, 2 chairs Substitute is interviewed by another participant 15 mins
Philosopher feedback, chasing the not-said, un-spoken , derrida feedback
pretend to be philosophers, the attention is place on what is not said, firstly by the research, secondly by the feedback. This can employ various modes to engage with the implicit inside of the feedback given or that which the feedback given did not touch upon.
*