So today, I presented my research proposal. My dear mother was incredibly supportive and stayed with me at SFU Burnaby for four hours of Honours presentations. Unfortunately, no video because, well, I lack the necessary devices and foresight. As the kids say these days, I fail.
But, I finally have an excuse now to get a Slideshare account. I’ve uploaded my Powerpoint slides from my presentation there, although in typical me manner, my slides are quite spare – the only things you can really get from it are some of the terms for the research I’ve consulted, and my research questions. (If you’re in an RSS reader, this is your friendly click-through for full-entry reminder.)
The presentation itself went pretty well – I raced a little at the end through my research questions, hypotheses and challenges and next steps, which was unfortunate in hindsight because the focus of the presentation really should have been on those research questions and the methodology, the shakiest part of my proposal. As a result, most of the comments and discussion were focused around the theory. Granted, it is super-interesting, so I can’t take too much of the blame for that; and I did clarify my methodology a bit in response to the questions.
The other presentations were great to watch, and I’m looking forward to seeing how my colleagues fare with their research. The first half were presentations for projects have been completed – and oh boy, are those intimidating to watch. That said, I also got the feeling that I am hardly the only student who struggles with defining an appropriate research scope: topics like the history of photography or the history of music feel so much like PhD topics that I would have fled screaming for the hills. Or this just reflects on how I’m a terrible student of history, or overestimate my limitations.
I think I’ll dedicate a whole other post to the concept of Everyday Makers, which is the primary theory I’ll be drawing upon for my research on Transit Camp. (If you’re feeling faster than I am, do a Google Scholar search on ‘everyday makers’ and its authors, Bang and Sørensen – it is quite readily available.) My supervisor, bless him, has already sent me his written comments on my research proposal – that same 18-page document he printed off not much more than 8 hours ago. Today’s a little intense for me to read the comments too closely thus far. But I really want to keep the momentum going for shaping the methodology in the next month or so.
Martin Laba’s question was really interesting, which was to think of how Facebook fits into this. Amazingly enough, even though Vancouver Transit Camp is only taking place 10 months after Toronto Transit Camp, the whole time in between has seen Facebook take off like a rocket, and many of the BarCamp organization suggestions seem adorably outdated (attendees list in wiki = redundant?). What I would have said, if I weren’t entirely sleep-deprived, is that Facebook – aka. the online social network space – shapes our conceptions of how we bring about social change. His student thought immediately of a Facebook campaign as the primary method, and got 300+ people signed on to support her cause. But, the question that Web of Changers obsess over, is how to turn the online commitment – that expressed intention – into something that makes atoms move as they otherwise might not have, in the real world – communities with real-world impact, to crib a phrase from some friends. I think (relating to my rant on letter writing) that Everyday Makers want to feel that money is not the only manifestation of our desire to see a better, changed world – that our intention can move us to action, even if that action is uncoordinated, ineffective according to someone else’s standards, because it brings us joy – which we can see reflected in others around us, and which holds the hope of motivating them as well. Even if those others are not our best friends or family – perhaps even especially. There’s something strangely romantic in all that, eh?
Related to this, I will also allow myself to respond to one comment my supervisor jotted into the margins of my paper, which basically reads (not verbatim), “What if people do something and they all feel good about it but it is effectively ineffectual?” or, if we wanted to steal a sharper edged word from the last weeks, irrelevant. I think Everyday Makers, with their emphasis on the results that affect daily lives and concrete actions, will not easily say, “Yay us! We did it and it felt good and we’re happy and we’re done!” Though the tendency is certainly there (and one of the things I will be researching, certainly, is follow-up and follow-through.)
But perhaps there’s a little learning that does need to happen, in terms of taking the energy and momentum and making sure it really creates an impact in, and impression on, the organizations that really can run with it. I believe there is something about the energy of the format that makes us accountable to ourselves – that makes us as individuals (depending, of course, on who we are and how empowered we feel to affect change in our contexts) wonder, “What have I done, or what am I doing today, to carry this energy forward into what I can do tomorrow?” It sounds eerily like a personal business commitment, actually (a phrase my friends from the Behemoth will cringe at – yes, it’s just about PBC review time, isn’t it? 
, except it’s less about business and more about either the concept of change and improvement, and service to the community.
I’m tossing around the idea of making my Toronto Transit Camp research proposal into a session at Vancouver Transit Camp – if me being an organizer doesn’t completely prevent me from being able to have one, that is. Maybe I could start its own wiki for it? I wonder what my supervisors (who undoubtedly are cringing in their RSS readers right now) would think of me crowd-sourcing my research. Surely the academy must keep some things special, right?
