Ultimately, I thought the brain storming session we had was good because you were able to gather ideas from a mind other than your own. It was like having a resource of hundreds of articles because we had all read different things and that had inspired different ideas and particular interests. I thought my group was quite productive and had great discussion with no one being anxious to speak up.
First of all, I think we spent a little too much time writing our statements. At least for me by that point I knew what interested me, what I ultimately wanted to change and the ‘who, what, when, where, why’ of it all.
My statement ended up being:
The media we consume influences the way men and women behave and treat one another. This in turn reinforces inaccurate representations of the sexes and the inequality of the genders.
Our main difficulty came in honing on what interested us and turning that into a design intervention due to lack of understanding as to what data visualisation, generative systems and service design actually are (I do now have a relatively good understanding now, I think). I found that even with four brains combined we had trouble finding places for design intervention within our own polemics.
In addition to that I found time to be a bit of an issue. We would get really engrossed into someone’s topic when the tutors would call time and we would have to move on to the next person. It was hard for our own maps to feel cohesive when time was so limiting. I can’t imagine it was like for groups with more than four people.
I also imagine that if one’s group was small and not particularly chatty it could potentially be more difficult to generate a multitude of different ideas quickly.
Emergent Practices 
You must be logged in to post a comment.