Beyond Transparency — Comments on the Update to Submission and Reviewing Guidelines for CHI

This is a crosspost from an article, I wrote first on Medium.

[This post specifically addresses a recent update for the submission and reviewing guidelines of CHI, a conference within the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) research community, but might be relevant for readers interested in discussions around what constitutes ‘good research’ more broadly.]

To discuss different aspects of what constitutes quality in research, a myriad of terms and concepts are summoned. We talk about rigour, transparency, accountability, replicability, reflexivity, significance, stringency, consistency and many more. As someone who is passionate about methodology and enthusiastically discusses epistemological consequences of different ways of knowledge production, I was excited to see an update to the submission and reviewing guidelines for CHI 2020. After all, it was a chance to reflect on what we can know and how by looking at how we claim knowledge in the first place.

Given that I have received reviews calling my approaches too critical for the field of HCI and its methods, the description of methodological detail on the one hand (R1) putting others to shame on the other (R2) too excessive, I welcome any approach that aims at a shared understanding of what we might understand as high-quality research and where different conceptualisations might differ, how and why. So, let me start this post by sincerely thanking the authors and contributors that have worked towards updating these guidelines in a concerted effort. They pushed the discussion further and rejuvenated vigour in collectively thinking on this. Let me take here the opportunity to further reflect on the guidelines, synthesising some critique brought up in different social media platforms and adding my own, personal perspective on this.

The overall aim of the update is to increase transparency in reporting research. It is relevant to keep this in mind as an overarching goal, particularly as by focusing on transparency in this update, the initiators have added another dimension to how we, as a community, assess research and what matters to us. This means, that how we assess transparency and what we define as transparent is core to understanding which research is (highly) valued and communicate expectations to authors.

The first key component the initiators refer to is replicability. By starting with this one, they already set the pace. Replicability only makes sense from a post/positivist or critical realist paradigm, one that assumes no standpoint and operates with a notion of disembodied objectivity. However, the initiators do not indicate how the concept of replicability expects a certain kind of research and, given it is the first one listed, potentially excludes others. It implicitly (not necessarily intentionally) disregards those coming from a critical/feminist/queer lens in particular, those, like myself, who root their work firmly in an epistemology that values the privilege of partial perspective and values different kinds of situated knowledges. How do you replicate an autoethnography where the very point is to provide an in-depth, highly contextual analysis? How do you replicate an argument for ‘tangible bits as a new interaction paradigm’ (a paper that has the highest citation count of any CHI paper according to my query)?

Another aspect, the initiators focus on is sharing data. Inspired by (and heavily advertising for) the Open Science Framework, “reviewers may expect that all materials created for this research (such as experiment code, stimuli, questionnaires, system code, and example datasets), all raw data measured, and all analysis scripts are shared.” There is a lot to unpack here, notably the lack of nuance on whether the practices associated with open science are at all achieving what they are set out to do (thanks to stuart reeves for pointing this out). Such a requirement also ignores the vast varieties of institutional particularities that researches have to consider, ranging from supranational levels (EU, GDPR) to individual, local routines. And while the update acknowledges that sharing data might not always be possible (and argues for explaining why), it sets a normative expectation on sharing and, subsequently, a normative expectation for research (and institutional contexts) that allows such sharing. On that note, a discussion in the CHI Meta Facebook group has pointed to a more nuanced discussionand some practical guidelines, though those might not be appropriate when working with marginalised participants. In addition, there is an assumption that all data can be digital or digitalised; if it can’t be provided, it needs to be specified why. According to the update, why data can be shared and which reflections go into sharing which parts of the data is less relevant (a.k.a. sharing as norm), absence has to be defended (a.k.a. diverging from the norm has to be defended and can be attacked).

In consequence, the update also invites authors “to share as much non-sensitive and non-proprietary code as possible to help reviewers scrutinize, replicate and reproduce your results”. Besides the culture of suspicion and mistrust this perpetuates (instead of assuming expertise and knowledge and asking for clarification out of curiosity and respect), this adds an entirely new workload to authors and reviewers without acknowledging the potential effects this might have, particularly with an update published only 6 weeks before the abstract submission deadline. Ignoring that papers introducing datasets have a notoriously difficult time in getting accepted to CHI, merging the publication of data with any type of reporting on analysis, devalues them further and makes it less likely for them to be accepted in the larger field as stand-alone contributions. However, the sentence also drastically increases demands on reviewers. For context, associate chairs are expected to manage reviewers for 8–10 papers and additionally provide in-depth reviews for another 8–10 papers within a time span of only six weeks — all that while the semester starts up again (at least at my university, it coincides with the start of a teaching term) and most of us are expected to continue conducting high quality research and contributing to self-administrative aspects of the academy. If we want to take this seriously (and I am not sure we should to the extent the update implies), we also need to change the practices and frames in which authoring, submission and reviewing occur.

Most of the online critique has centred, though, on the different requirements posed for reporting “technologically oriented” and “qualitative” approaches. Full disclosure on this part: One of the initiators (Matthew Kay) already indicated that this part will be revised. However, the core distinction seems inappropriate as the first category conflates a technology focus with quantitative research, which, in my opinion, is an inadequate reduction of the vast variety of approaches that can focus on technology (including those that make an argument as philosophy research through design).

Lots of buzz has been about limiting positionality, rationale for design, transparency of decision making and ethical contextualisation to qualitative approaches (see my annoyed tweetMelanie Sage questioning this suggestion or further discussions initiated by Sarita Schoenebeck). In my understanding, this should be required of any research. At the very least, expecting some work to provide more detail than others is deeply unfair given that CHI operates with a strict page limit (which was also raised as an issue by Casey Fiesler on Twitter). On a side note, the wording on sharing conveys an entirely different approach as to why and how this valued. Authors are “welcome” to only share data after having obtained explicit consent to do so. This indicates an opportunity instead of implying a requirement.

Before I conclude, allow me to reiterate that I am deeply grateful for the initiative to rekindle discussions around how we present our research and review our peers. My critique and the comments on social media indicate a level of care and an expectation towards the field to keep working on the issues of quality assessment in HCI research. Going forward, we should discuss which implications the high-level expectations we state have for how we organise and value authoring and reviewing processes. As a longer term project, I am interested in collecting actionable criteria for the assessment of a range of contributions, epistemologies and methods present in HCI. Let’s keep talking about it.

Post Scriptum:

Edit Notes:

  • edited the sentence discussing the simultaneous start of the reviewing period with the start of the teaching term to localise it appropriately to my personal context (thanks to Geraldine Fitzpatrick for pointing this out).

“Anonymous Review” says it all

This is a crosspost from an article, I wrote first on Medium.

Ableism is deeply tied into our everyday language. There are countless examples of where disabilities are used to imply negativity very explicitly. Today, though, I want to write about a more deeply entangled case; I am asking people to stop (and I’m only using this term once) saying “blind peer review”.

This is not a new request. However, the term is so persistent in my academic environment that it took me until today to realise that I more fundamentally need to change my own use of language to encourage others to revisit commonly used terminology with me. While some of that is due to the sheer ignorance my sighted privileges allowed me to have, I have a sneaking suspicion that I might not be the only person who needs a refresher — given that just today, I found the term used casually on a conference website related to my field.

So, in revisiting previous debates let me draw on them. A succinct argument for using ‘anonymous review’ instead has been made by Tremain, 2011:

The phrase is demeaning to disabled people because it associates blindness with lack of knowledge and implies that blind people cannot be knowers. Because the phrase is standardly used in philosophy and other academic CFPs, it should become recognized as a cause for great concern. In short, use of the phrase amounts to the circulation of language that discriminates. Philosophers should want to avoid inflicting harm in this way.

Ultimately, I’d assume, that not just philosophers are in this responsibilities, but rather everyone who is engaged in research from a simple perspective of being considerate about people around us. It requires sighted researchers to actively engage with the epistemological consequences of tying ‘seeing’ to ‘knowing’, or as Rodas, 2009 puts it:

Our language bespeaks our unconscious belief that blindness is automatically agnostic, unknowing. Whether we speak of a blind trust or of trusting blindly, the symbolic foundation is the same. Our language depends on the common understanding that not seeing equals not knowing.

Using blindness metaphorically, even in a presumed positive context, then is not helpful either given that the metaphors are built, established and reinforced predominantly by sighted people.

[M]etaphors of blindness are based upon the presumption of what the experience of blindness must be like, rather than the lived experience of blindness itself. (Schalk, 2013)

The damage perpetuating such language does to the blind members of our communities takes form in epistemic violence, to say the least. It ties into powerful dynamics fueling a neglect in terms of making publications, conferences and practices more accessible. This actively excludes blind people from the academy or requires them to put up with extra effort to participate. Both is unacceptable. I have been guilty of this and need to learn how to do better myself. I call on my sighted colleagues to do the work with me. It starts with language. Let’s talk about “anonymous peer review” from now on, shall we?

Rodas, J. M. (2009). “On Blindness. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 3(2), 115–130.doi:10.1353/jlc.0.0013

Schalk, Sami. “Metaphorically speaking: Ableist metaphors in feminist writing.” Disability Studies Quarterly 33.4 (2013).

Tremain, Shelley. “Ableist Language and Philosophical Associations.” New APPS: Arts, Politics, Philosophy, Science. July, 2011.

CHI 2019 Cowl Knitting Pattern

This year’s theme for CHI is ‘Weaving the Threads of CHI’, inviting us to see the connections between different strands of research and how they connect the field. To provide the community with an opportunity to reflect on how different aspects of the field come together to create something each of them could not do individually, we offer up a knitting pattern that visualises the ‘Threads of CHI’.

Materials:
Yarn: The sample piece uses fairalpaka DK yarn (100m/50g). A finished piece requires about 1 ball o the main colour (MC; teal) and about 20g of the contrasting colour (CC; tangerine).
Needles: We used 3.5mm double pointed needles (dpns) for the sample piece. You might prefer to knit with 40cm circular needles.

Abbreviations:

  • knit (k)
  • purl (p)
  • knit through back loop (ktbl)
  • twist through back loop (twbl) – insert right needle into second stitch on left needle and purl without dropping, then ktbl into first stitch on the left needle, dropping both together

Stripe Pattern:
Repeat all parts for the round (chart below).

  1. p1,k1tbl,p1
  2. repeat step 1
  3. p1,tw1tbl
  4. p2,k1tbl
  5. move first stitch of the round to left needle, repeat step 3
  6. repeat step 4
  7. repeat steps 5 and 6 twice more

Mosaic Pattern:
Each round seen on the chart is knitted twice, once as a knitted round, once as a purled round. Note that after each garter ridge, colour changes, starting with teal. Essentially, you start with a knit teal round according to the black stitches in the chart slipping all white ones (with teal yarn in back), then you purl the stitches you knit previously, slipping all you slipped previously. Then you switch to the tangerine and knit all white stitches in the chart (indicating row 3), slipping the black (a.k.a. teal) ones and repeating with a purl round. This sounds much more complicated than it really is. You can also find an introduction to garter stitch mosaic patterns here.

Instructions:
The pattern comes in two sizes: S/M and L (sample piece shown in S/M). Instructions are given for S/M (L). The pattern is knit in the round.

  1. with MC cast on 108 (126) stitches; connect in the round be careful not to twist.
  2. purl 1 round, knit 1 round, purl 1 round
  3. knit Stripe pattern 36 (42) times through the round
  4. knit 1 round, purl 1 round (twice)
  5. switch to CC
  6. knit 1 round, purl 1 round
  7. knit Mosaic pattern 6 (7) times through the round
  8. knit 1 round, purl 1 round, cut CC
  9. with MC: knit 1 round, purl 1 round (twice)
  10. knit Stripe pattern 36 (42) times through the round
  11. knit 1 round, purl 1 round, knit 1 round
  12. bind off loosely by purling the last round
  13. weave in ends and block lightly, if desired.

No Blow Hat

Viennese winds can be harsh, particularly if you’re a child. Having had their previously favourite hat blown off their head numerous times, I was asked to please make another hat, that doesn’t do that. Behold, the No Blow Hat, so elastic, it clings onto your head without pressure (and, as a side effect, fits most heads no matter their size).

You’ll need: some sports-weight yarn in as many colours as you want. 3.5 mm needles (double point or hat round needle).

Abbreviations:

  • ktbl — knit through back loup
  • p — purl
  • k — knit
  • m — make (I do that here by picking up the yarn between two stitches and knitting it through the back loop. This effectively twists the yarn and makes the potential hole smaller)
  • k2tog — knit 2 together

Pattern:

  • Cast on 84 stitches (I use long-tail cast-on); join in the round (be careful not to twist)
  • 7 rows (ktbl, p1) to end 
  • (k7, m1) to end — 96 stitches
  • *row 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23: knit
  • row 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12: (k3, p3) to end
  • row 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24: (p3, k3) to end*
  • repeat stitches between * twice
  • For the colour effect above, you want to change the yarn every 12 rows.
  • Optional: repeat rows 1-12 once more.
  • (k10, k2tog) to end
  • knit
  • (k9, k2tog) to end
  • knit
  • (k8, k2tog) to end
  • knit
  • (k7, k2tog) to end
  • knit
  • (k6, k2tog) to end
  • knit
  • (k5, k2tog) to end
  • (k4, k2tog) to end
  • (k3, k2tog) to end
  • (k2, k2tog) to end
  • (k1, k2tog) to end
  • pull yarn through remaining stitches, pull tight and weave in ends.

Enjoy!

Bobble Hat

Green Hat version of the Bobble Hat Pattern

I started creating patterns again. So here comes one that is surprisingly easy, but comes with a bunch of interesting different shapes and effects. Still not good at making pictures, though.

You’ll need: about 75g of bulky yarn for main colour (MC); about 20g of bulky yarn for contrasting colour (CC), 4.5mm needles (either double point (dpns) or round), tapestry needle

Abbreviations:

  • CC – contrasting colour
  • MC – main colour
  • ktbl – (knit through back loop); k2tbl (knit 2 through back loops)
  • k – knit
  • p – purl
  • sskslip slip knit (left leaning decrease)
  • k2tog – knit 2 together (right leaning decrease)
  • x (number) – repetitions

Pattern:

  • Cast on 90 stitches with CC, join in round (being careful not to twist)
  • (k2tbl p2) x 22, k2tbl for 15 rows
  • switch to MC
  • knit 4 rows
  • *(k9 p5 k4) x5, for 6 rows
  • knit 6 rows
  • (p5 k13) x5, for 6 rows*
  • knit 6 rows
  • repeat between * once more
  • knit 2 rows
  • (k1 ssk k12 k2tog k1) x5
  • knit
  • (k1 ssk k10 k2tog k1) x5
  • knit
  • (k1 ssk k8 k2tog k1) x5
  • knit
  • (k1 ssk k6 k2tog k1) x5
  • knit
  • (k1 ssk k4 k2tog k1) x5
  • knit
  • (k1 ssk k2 k2tog k1) x5
  • knit
  • (k1 ssk k2tog k1) x5
  • knit
  • (k1 ssk k1) x5
  • pull yarn through all remaining loops and pull tight
  • weave in ends.

The contrasting part is folded towards the inside as to support warming the ears and creating a neat edge to the hat. Hopefully, you’ll enjoy the resulting pattern as much as they do:

Current Penalty Code Cheat Sheet (March 2016 codes) for Penalty Trackers

While I had the wherewithal to create a new penalty code cheat sheet when the new verbal codes came out… over a year ago and to share it with my league, I’ve kind of forgot to make it available for anyone else, also because I thought that would only matter to me and someone else would surely do it as well and imposter Bla Bla Bla. I got over it. So, have thepenalty codes cheat sheet with the updated codes from March 2016. I will probably soon have to make another one.

Presentation and Journal Paper: Evaluating Experiences of Autistic Children with Technologies.

Last year in Barcelona, I have given a talk about how I plan to evaluate the experiences of autistic children with technologies. You can find the slides for the talk here. They also allow a unique glimpse into a preliminary state of what was later becoming my paper at the International Journal of Child Computer Interaction, which incidentally is available for free until April 7th using this link. Note, for example how in the main graphic there has been a change in the top intersection where ‘interests’ as the defining characteristic of the relationship between child and technology has been replaced by ‘interaction’. Interests have — following an insightful discussion with Narcis Pares in Barcelona — been moved to the design process instead.

Subjectivity in Mathematics – Implications of Richard Buckminster Fuller’s Energetic Geometry

This is an essay I have written as part of a Philosophy of Science course with Blay Whitby in Summer 2016.

Abstract

I compare Euclidean and Energetic Geometry to show how there is a set of mathematical languages, which are subjected to interpretation. This theoretical exercise provides deeper insights into the agendas and world views mathematical concepts carry and deconstruct the presumed ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ stance that is largely attributed to them.

The Point of Euclidean Geometry

There is a large desire in human society to order the world it exist in, because “[b]eing able to see connections confirms our hope that our world is under- standable and not just a bunch of senseless accidents” [Meyer, 2006, p.5]. Consequently, around 300 BCE Euclid attempted to structure space by formally defining Elements [Euclid and Joyce, 1996].
There is just one problem. “(…) [T]here seems to be nothing in nature that is absolutely straight enough to be a “true” line segment” [Meyer, 2006, p.7]. Hence, Euclid’s geometry has to produce a symbolic system that is tightly cou- pled to rigorous rules of precision. Otherwise the geometry cannot function as an abstraction beyond a visual depiction (ibid.). This means that the underlying axioms of which formulae are deduced have to be both strict and generally applicable at the same time.
It is all the more surprising then that Euclidean geometry does not give strong definitions for its pre-axiomatic building blocks such as the point and subsequently also lines and planes [Meyer, 2006, p.22]. Rather, they remain undefined. Considering that Euclid’s geometry demands rigour and proof through axioms, it appears inconsistent that when it comes to the core parts of these axioms, Euclid relies on ’common’ knowledge of what constitutes a point. Through this, Euclid offers a subjective gateway into geometry. It becomes then situ- ated within the tools that are used to work with them (e.g., pen and paper vs. computational construction) and depends on context, that, for the sake of comparability gets abstracted away to defend the objectivity of a system, whose grammatical base has not been properly specified.
Following this, Euclidean geometry constructs meaning through the formulae and abstractions of the world, which is limited by the axiomatic space it provides. We will see how this defines discursive limits and how representations of the world contain ideological and subjective points of view.

Fuller’s Critique

During the first half of the 20th century, Richard Buckminster Fuller – alongside being a well-received architect – publicly criticised the construction of the Euclidean right angle. Fuller points out, that it relies on the opportunities and limitations provided by the instrument used. Next to the already often cited ones (ruler, compass and pen), Fuller adds another important agent into this set: the flat surface on which a right angle is constructed on [Fuller, 1999a, p.175]. This pre-axiomatic critique of Euclidean geometry can also be seen as a critical approach to the prevalent world view at the time as it shows itself by the methods and spaces spanned open by geometry as a way to measure the world.
To Fuller, mathematics as a discipline and geometry as a part of that discipline is full of ”inconsumerable ratios and a barrel full of clumsy constants” [Fuller, 1999a, p.178]. Constants such as π or e are difficult to conceive. This shows how not only the instruments, but also the creations they produce are lost in the resulting complexity. ”Whatever happens in the depths of matter, disappears behind ever larger apparatuses, which we cannot look inside and even if we could, we would not see anything and even if we saw, we wouldn’t understand it, since the quantal world doesn’t bother to shape itself in our form of sensual experience. In one word: the constructive mediatedness of our perception is in theoretical and practical aspects so overwhelming, that it becomes understandable, that some physicists don’t really know what their matter actually is.” [Mutschler, 1998, p.33, translated from German]. To Fuller, this is not acceptable. His ontology requires a world that has an image that is as easily perceivable as the world itself (Heidegger might agree, see Heidegger [1926/1967]).
Euclidean geometry and mathematical constants put a layer on the world, which does its elegance no justice [Fuller, 1999a, p.178]. Its abstractions fail to simplify the direct world, but rather construct purely nonphysical constructs such as straight lines [Fuller, 1999a, p.173]. Those who practise Euclidean geometry agree (cf. Meyer [2006, p.5]). The three dimensional space became more and more of a problem. ”The leitmotif of the 19th century, which con- nected maths, physics and philosophy, the >space problem< emerged: How can the natural space be described mathematically." [Mehrtens, 1990, p.44, translated from German]. Energetic Geometry

With the feeling ”(…) that the whole universe must be the starting point for his enquiry (…)” [Morrell, 1986, p.613], Richard Buckminster Fuller understood mathematics as a generalised form of learning which – in his opinion – should be oriented on patterns found in nature (ibid.). While I personally am not inclined to distinguish between nurture and nature, this perspectives make sense within the then contemporary major scientific paradigm.
Because Euclidean geometry is insufficient for Fuller, he developed an alter- native geometry, which he claims to be intuitive and supporting human creativity. This is especially important to him. It is interesting though, how – despite the thousands of years of the history of humankind full of innovation and archi- tecture – he claims to have developed a more fitting system that is supposed to be better for exactly what has been already achieved with an old out-dated one: the creatively built and inspiring environment in which he thinks.
To Fuller, every physical force (such as warmth, electricity and magnetism) can be described in energetic terms. A geometry delivering a more intuitive image of the world, should, hence, follow this, which is why he calls his approach Energetic Geometry. He starts with new basics, in order to follow a more strict construction of his postulates [Fuller, 1999a, p.178]. For this, he first defines his tools with the goal of an explicit mention of the inscription of tools in the the- ory they are being used by. This does neglect, that the implicit assumptions of Euclidean Geometry are not effectively circumvented, but rather made explicit.
”[T]he apparently simple and unproblematic idea of a »point« had to be rethought, and »the phenomena accommodated by the packaged word point will always prove to be a focal center of differentiating events.« For Fuller, geometry did
not describe a timeless space of pure Cartesian form, but rather a universe where lines »cannot go through the same point at the same time.«” [Nye, 2009, p.88]. Fuller tries to abstract from the undefined grounds of Euclidean geometry and defines his core elements as events and vectors connecting those. This equivalency to points and lines is being presented by Fuller himself in Fuller [1999b]. Geometrical deliberations are especially suitable for equivalent theories due to their strictly axiomatic build up. ”(…) Equivalence of axiomatic theories is given ipso facto, since every mathematical system of axioms can be described differently achieving the same. Whether something is an axiom or a theorem depends on its place in a network of mathematical relations, which can be differently arranged while accomplishing the same thing.” [Mutschler, 1998, p.29, translated from German]. Energetic geometry, hence, provides a different way of expressing the same things as Euclidean geometry.

Geometry as Construct

While Fuller is by far not the first who voices issues with Euclidean geometry (see, e.g. the concept of spherical geometry Katz and Imhausen [2007, S.4]), he does provide a unique ’solution’ to the spatial problem. He does not base his work on the right angle, but rather on the rigid construct of triangular bodies and derivations thereof. Polyhedra are especially fascinating to him and also provide a way to illustrate how geometry is constructed by the language and the implicit ideologies roaming through it. Buckminster Fuller describes polyhedra as such:

(…) Every vector (line) leads from one center of a sphere to an- other and therefore represents the operational effect of melting two forces. Every vector (line) consists of two halves, each of them be- longing to one of the spheres and each half of the line represents the radius of each tangential sphere, which all are in a right angle to the identical tangent point and construct a continuous straight line: Through that it is defined that a unit (represented by the inter nuclear vector-module) necessarily holds double the value, which means: unity is inherently two, since it represents the unity of at least two centers of energy. [Fuller, 1999b, S.183, translated from German]

In comparison, the definition of a polyhedron from a Euclidean perspective:

A polyhedron is a three-dimensional solid bounded by a finite number of polygons called faces. Points where three or more faces meet are called vertices. Line segments where exactly two faces meet at an angle are called edges. The vertices and edges of a polyhedron make a graph called the graph of the polyhedron. [Meyer, 2006, S.418]

It should be mentioned, thought, that rigid polyhedra are rare to find and often constructed by humans. “There were only a few polyhedra to be found in nature or the man-made world at that time in history: rooms of buildings, which are basically rectangular parallelopipeds; the pyramids of Egypt; and perhaps a few other examples.” [Meyer, 2006, S.432]. Therefore, polyhedra are more of a thought experiment in other versions of geometry.
Interestingly enough, although Fuller attacks the straight line with a passion only two years earlier [Fuller, 1999a], he now re-establishes it. He also just renames points and calls them centres of spheres. Hence, it is not necessarily the mathematical consistency, he attacks in Euclidean geometry. His agenda is a different one.
The difference between the two definitions can be seen especially in the lines (or vectors). Fuller’s centres of energy are loaded with meaning while Euclidean geometry tries desperately to keep all meaning out, which necessarily fails. The basis from which we construct, analyse and depict the world around us, is, hence constructed in and off itself only providing another tool to express what we perceive.
Another example for a different dialect within geometry is Hilbert’s. ”(…) [Y]ou can extract the graphic model of Euclidean geometry from the abstraction of Hilbert geometry.” [Mutschler, 1998, p.35, translated from German]. Since one geometrical system can be translated in another, we can understand it as a language system. In that context, we can see mathematics as one language and different versions of it as dialects.
However, then geometry cannot be what it claims it is: an accurate depiction of the perceivable world. ”If it depends on the phrasing of a theory on whether a space is Euclidean or not, whether reality consists of particles or fields, then we cannot naively understand the theoretical concepts as portrayal of a world being for itself.” [Mutschler, 1998, S. 35, translated from German]. Fuller’s energetic geometry, hence, shows how mathematical systems are subject to interpretation and are con- structed through their perception every time. The societal agreement on how to ’properly’ construct the meaning given by Euclidean geometry is fairly rigorous in the western world; that doesn’t necessitate only one way to understand it, though.


References

Euclid and David E Joyce. Euclid’s Elements. Clark University, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, 1996.

Richard Buckminster Fuller. Dymaxion Comprehensive System – Einführung Energetischer Geometrie (1944). In Richard Buckminster Fuller, Joachim Krausse, and Claude Lichtenstein, editors, Your Private Sky: R. Buckminster Fuller: The Art of Design Science, pages 172–181. Springer, 1999a.

Richard Buckminster Fuller. Energetische Geometrie (1946) /Dichteste Packung von Kugeln). In Richard Buckminster Fuller, Joachim Krausse, and Claude Lichtenstein, editors, Your Private Sky: R. Buckminster Fuller: The Art of Design Science, pages 182–183. Springer, 1999b.

Martin Heidegger. Sein und Zeit. Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen, 1926/1967.

Victor J Katz and Annette Imhausen. The Mathematics of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India and Islam: A Source Book. Princeton University Press, 2007.

Herbert Mehrtens. Moderne – Sprache – Mathematik: Eine Geschichte des Streits um die Grundlagen der Disziplin und des Subjekts formaler Systeme. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 1990.

Walter A Meyer. Geometry and its Applications. Access Online via Elsevier, 2006.

William R. Morrell. Some Perspectives of Fuller’s Mathematics – An Undergraduate’s Assessment by William R. Morrell, Yale College, Class of 1986. In Robert W. Gray, editor, Synergetics Dictionary Online, pages 613–618. Online: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/ SynergeticsDictionary/status.html, 1986.

Hans-Dieter Mutschler. Die Welt als Konstruktion. In Kurt Komarek and Gottfried Magerl, editors, Virtualität und Realität. Bild und Wirklichkeit in den Naturwissenschaften, pages 25–42. Wien; Köln; Weimar : Böhlau, 1998.

David E. Nye. Energy in the Thought and Design of R. Buckminster Fuller. In Hsiao-yun Chu and Roberto G Trujillo, editors, New Views on R. Buckminster Fuller, pages 86–98. Stanford University Press, 2009.

EROC 2017 Workshop ‘Announcers – Your greatest promotional weapon’

At EROC 2017, the European Roller Derby Organizational Conference, at the end of January in Berlin, I had the great pleasure to attend a workshop talking more generally about announcing. It was held by sMACklemore, an independent announcer, who did little events as tournament head announcer such as the Men’s World Cup in Calgary 2016 and is also one of the hosts of the ‘Talk Derby to Me’ podcast series. With kind permission, I share my notes of the session here. There are three parts to it: Why Announcing?, Important Stuff for Announcers and Important Stuff for Leagues. But since both interested leagues and announcers should know about the other side as well, here you have it as one big giant post. Sometimes you’ll see a Leagues in the Announcers section, which means, this was related to something important for announcers, but Leagues should consider that in their bout preparation.

Why Announcing?

What people hear is more easily retained than what they see. The background medium of announcing (think of radio working in a similar way) makes a game memorable.

Just winning games is not enough to grow your league and the professionalism.

Important Stuff for Announcers

What do you even do?

  • Inform the audience
  • Educate the crowd
  • Promote upcoming events
  • Entertain the crowd
  • Promote sponsors
  • Make people want to come back for more games
  • Sell merchandise (by mentioning it; Leagues: a ready list for announcers is handy)
  • Give out contact details of the league, Facebook etc.
  • Sell the sport, the drama and the enthusiasm

Keep in mind:
The first few jams you explain EVERYTHING. There is a really good chance, that there are quite a few people in the audience who have absolutely no idea what is going on. Having them in on the fun within a couple of jams is essential. However, don’t bother talking too much before the game starts. Nobody will listen to it really anyway, but if you test the PA, do so potentially engagingly without expecting too much.

It’s really important to create an emotional connection with your audience. You want to make derby desirable to grow your fanbase. And that means, as an announcer, you need to be passionate as well. Hence, (Leagues) it’s important that there is an emotional connection between announcers & league, that is fostered and upheld.

The sport is highly complex and fast paced. And there is a whole lot of visual, auditory, and, let’s face it, olfactory input. This means, that a background explanation is essential for the audience to make sense of all that.

When the crowd is pumped up and loud, let them be invested in themselves. People should leave on a high at every game.
You can excite people by upping tempo, tone and speed. Particular words are not essential to carry over excitement.
You don’t need to be super knowledgable about the sport to start announcing, but you need to be able to get excited about it.

Important Stuff for Leagues

Invest in your announcers! Usually they don’t want to have much, but at least give them food and water. If you can, consider reimbursing travel costs and if required, host them!

How to recruit announcers?

  • local, community radio stations
  • Media/broadcasting students at local colleges or universities
  • Local podcasters
  • Public speakers (teachers, lecturers)
  • Auction houses
  • Other sporting commentators
  • Local celebrities

How to develop announcers in your league?

Bring announcers to away games as well. Especially in international games, that encourages fans to join you on your trip as they can be ensured that they will understand something in their language.

Include them in trainings and scrimmages, where you potentially also offer them a small audience, e.g., friends and family, for practice. Provide a mentor, even if you don’t have any other announcers. It can be any member of the league (well, maybe not a completely new one who’s still figuring things out for themselves). And let them grow! Give them opportunities for feedback from peers, by inviting other announcers and encourage self learning. Invite them in footage watching sessions where they can listen to the game.

How to grow that sweet sweet emotional connection with your league?
Involve them as members of the league. This includes committee work, but also visibility: promote them on your social media. Show that you trust in them and want to invest in their skills by sending them to other leagues, tournaments and/or learning camps (such as EROC, Rollercon or EuroDerbyCon). Alternatively, you can always invite others and host your own. This is only beneficial for your now growing army of announcers.

Hi, I’m Tinker Bull, Bench Coach of the Vienna Beasts, the B-Team of Vienna Roller Derby. Under the name Extermikate, I’m also a roller derby official (skating and non-skating).

Fancy Sweatbands

This pattern was mostly an experiment with a multicoloured Wollmeise yarn I had still lying around. But hey, why not have a fancy sweatband!

2016-05-05_21.02.26_medium2

You need about 25g of fingering yarn and 2.5 mm double-pointed needles.
Multicoloured yarn adds the nice colour-effect.

2016-05-05_21.02.32_medium2

Abbreviations:

  • k — knit
  • p — purl
  • k2tbl — knit 2 stitches through back loop
  • m1 — make 1 — add a stitch by lifting and twisting the strand between the two stitches on row below
  • k2tog — knit two stitches together

Pattern Note — Woven Chevrons:

  • right leaning row: knit 2, slip 3 stitches with yarn in front until end of the row minus one stitch — beginning of round now moved one stitch to the right
  • left leaning row: knit 2, slip 3 stitches with yarn in front until end of the row, knit 1 — beginning of round now moved one stitch to the left
  • Woven Chevrons right: 6 right leaning rows followed by 5 left leaning rows
  • Woven Chevrons left: 6 left leaning rows followed by 5 right leaning rows

2016-05-05_21.03.00_medium2

Steps:

  1. Cast on 72 stitches with your preferred cast on method and join in round. Be careful not to twist.
  2. (k2tbl, p2) — repeat over the round for 10 rounds
  3. (k2tog, k34) x2
  4. Woven Chevrons right
  5. knit for 6 rounds
  6. Woven Chevrons left
  7. (k1, m1, k34) x2
  8. (k2tbl, p2) — repeat over the round for 9 rounds
  9. Bind of loosely in ribbing pattern
  10. Weave in ends and block lightly.

Enjoy!