Interdisciplinary Centre for Narrative Studies
Report on NarCS Workshop 2, York 10th - 12th April 2013
Participants:
Richard Walsh (York)
Susan Stepney (York)
Leo Caves (York)
Paul Andrews (York)
Claire Westall (York)
Jim Bown (Abertay)
Lynn Parker (Abertay)
Maria Poulaki (Amsterdam)
Merja Polvinen (Helsinki)
Marthe-Sophie Zeevenhooven (Impact Partner – documentary researcher)
James Dyke (Southampton)
Marina Grishakova (Tartu)
Alan Winfield (UWE)
Outline of Programme:
10th: Introduction
Presentations from Paul Andrews, Merja Polvinen
11th: Development of project themes:
Communication
Culture
Conceptualization
Cognition
12th: Development of funding opportunities
AHRC, COST, ESF, Leverhulme, RAE Ingenious Awards, EPSRC
Summary
Day One:
We began with a brief review of the AHRC Science in Culture bid, focussing upon developments since the last workshop and upon the structural conception of the project that lay behind the proposal, based upon the four areas defined by the research questions: communication, culture, conceptualization and cognition. These were then used to structure the discussion on day two [see separate attachments for the presentation and schematic outline]. The presentation was followed by a general discussion serving as a post-mortem on the AHRC bid and broad discussion of the way forward. The idea of a volume of essays from group members, scoping out the dimensions of the project, was first mooted by Marina; Susan raised the possibility of publication in the Springer Complexity series. We returned to this idea on day two. In the context of this discussion, Marthe first suggested a group wiki as an appropriate vehicle for exchanging and developing ideas, and this too was taken up in several ways in subsequent discussions. Another prominent topic in this discussion was the idea of a case study approach; suggested topics included public attitudes to robots in care for the elderly (Alan); and Fukushima (Claire). In this connection Marina noted the relevance of the narratological perspective on the event as something that crosses the divide within the group: the “event” is something that complexity scientists are trying to model and narratologists are trying to explain. Merja noted that the original meta-project on interdisciplinary methodology had receded from view in the AHRC bid, and might be brought forward again. In relation to this, and the question of appropriate case studies, Jim emphasized the importance of keeping in view the reciprocity of the dialogue and mutual feedback between the perspectives of complexity theory and narrative theory.
The discussion session was followed by presentations from Paul and Merja [attached], both of whom bring new perspectives to the project since the last workshop (Paul from a complex systems background, Merja from a narrative background). Paul’s talk offered an engineering perspective upon narrative and complex systems under four headings—visualization, multiple perspectives, narrating emergence, and implementation. Merja sketched out her interest in the analysis of cognitive science texts and their representations of the mind as an emergent system. Both presentations initiated stimulating discussions.
Day Two:
The day was structured around the four quadrants of the project’s schematic outline. However we also took some time to develop the idea of the volume of essays raised on day one. We agreed the following brief: the volume will be titled simply Narrating Complexity, and Susan will inquire about publication in the Springer Complexity series; contributions will be 5-8k words (or 20 pages); abstracts will be presented and discussed at the next workshop; drafts will be submitted by October; final versions by the end of year. We shall establish a project wiki and use it for preliminary dialogue on the drafts online; we’ll also incorporate one layer of responses to each other’s work within the book, and investigate the possibilities of an associated website with ancillary material (visual or interactive, for example). The volume will also include an introduction setting out the foundations of the topic, and an afterword (or two) providing analysis of some of the essays at a meta-level and relating them to the project structure. The essays should be written with the whole range of the group membership in mind as readers.
Communication: the first topic of the day, and the one that led the AHRC bid. We discussed the potential of multimedia communication (taking our cue from Marthe’s example of the Catholic Church), and the merits of multi-sensory understanding, given the complexity of our own minds (Leo); but also the likely limits of such approaches (e.g. Maria’s observations on the limited extent to which multiple strands of narrative can be understood to comprise a narrative). We considered the relation between understanding and wonder, noting the prominence of the latter among contemporary “science evangelists” (Alan). We discussed Mark Turner’s notion of story as compression (Merja), and the relation between that, abstraction, and simplification. We also considered the merits of an emphasis upon narration as process rather than narrative as a final product (Maria), and the usefulness of the Deleuzian metaphor of the rhizome (Marthe). Alan wondered whether we are confronting a limitation of kind (i.e. the inherited limits of our cognitive, embodied faculties of understanding) or of scope (i.e. whether technological or conceptual sophistication can extend those limits). Here we touched upon questions of scale and of autopoiesis (Susan), and their bearing upon the nature of knowledge.
Culture: the discussion of cultural forms of narrative accommodation to complexity (or the failures of such) focussed primarily upon old media. We considered thematic and formal manifestations of such an engagement with complexity, the concessions of narrative to spectacle (in film), the open-endedness of serial form, and efforts to articulate network-like models of (e.g.) technological development, as in the James Burke Connections series (James). We discussed the enactment of feedback processes and we ventured into the perspectival displacements of theory of mind, and the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis (Alan). Leo offered the suggestive analogy of Takens’ Theorem as a way of extrapolating a higher-dimensional space from a lower one (using time-lagged copies of a single co-ordinate).
Conceptualization: our discussion began with the extent to which emergence is a perspectival phenomenon, and moved through temporal and spatial scales of emergence (Jim), Hierarchy Theory (Susan), the contentious and/or commonsensical notion of downward causation, the relation between agents and environments (Alan), the iterative, semi-intelligent function of genetic algorithms and their limitations—at least the vanilla ones, with their tendency to climb the nearest hill (James). Susan recalled the idea of gardening as a metaphor for engineering emergence, and we discussed its strengths—emphasis upon process, continual intervention, participation; and its limitations—lack of an obvious equivalence for sensitive dependence on initial conditions and “systems judo” (James).
Cognition: we focussed upon narrative creativity in our discussion of the cognitive quadrant of the project schema, and especially narrative creativity in relation to new media. We covered the classic tension between narrative and gameplay in videogame design, the difficulties of cultivating narrative in simulations, and the re-purposing of videogame engines for storytelling in machinima (Lynn). We explored the role of generative constraints in interactive narrative creativity, and as a feature of all narrative creativity. We discussed multi-channel narratives and returned to Merja’s topic of ekphrasis in the context of narrative interpretation—as the engagement of visual imagination in response to verbal narrative. This discussion emphasised the ongoing process of interpretation, and touched upon the role of confabulation (Susan) and “liminal plotting” (Marina, citing Hilary Dannenberg).
Day Three:
Friday morning was spent considering a range of possible funding opportunities for the project. An outline of the specifications for each of these is attached, but briefly itemized, they are:
AHRC research network. We noted that the public policy highlight notice would require specific engagement with public policy partners, and was beyond our current scope, but that a rhetoric of aspiration towards such engagement would be appropriate.
COST actions network (trans-domain proposal). Jim suggested a three-stage structure, 1) mapping/slicing the project; 2) synthesis; 3) push to stakeholders—tangible outcomes. The goal might be small scale prototype/ demonstrations/ primers for interventions/ tools for bridging narrative complex systems gap; and getting partners for follow-on bids. It should be in tune with Horizon 2020’s strong industry focus. The final phase workshops would map onto funding streams. The project might even engage directly with EU stakeholders themselves, and propose a new “future and emerging technologies” stream. Jim agreed to lead the development of this proposal (but not the project itself, due to limitations of capacity at Abertay).
European Science Foundation workshop. We considered the merits of pursuing this smaller-scale opportunity, possibly holding the workshop in Amsterdam, on the condition that it could be held in time to inform the development of larger bids. However, on checking the specifications, it turns out that we would not be able to hold such a workshop before February 2014. On that basis, it would not serve a timely function and so is not worth pursuing.
Leverhulme Research Programme grants. The “innovation for sustainable living” topic might reward our emphasis upon science communication, and also the complex systems gardening idea. The project might be conceived as a way of responding to the helpless “what can we do?” attitude. One concern would be how to provide scope for the narrative side of the project schema, in particular how to strengthen the communication-culture link. The project should mediate between critical analysis and implementation, perhaps emphasising the potential of new and interactive media; or the private-public nexus and narrative as a means to translate complex knowledge into the public sphere. We discussed the appropriate domain for a case study with reference to previous bids, including the Resilient Futures project (Paul), and the issue of systems in combination. The gap between practical (tacit) knowledge within systems and the communication of knowledge might be a productive theme.
Leverhulme Research network. We discussed the possibility of developing connections with Durham, on both the complex systems and narrative sides, and referred specifically to the Leverhulme-funded “tipping points” project (history of ideas).
RAE “Ingenious” awards. Since Alan had departed at the end of day two, and this opportunity clearly requires his lead, we deferred any discussion of it on this occasion, beyond recalling the robots and care for the elderly topic Alan had suggested on day one.
EPSRC. This bid would be led by Susan, who suggested that the best approach would be to have a preliminary discussion with EPSRC about what we have in mind, and to build in time at the July workshop with the aim of producing a concept note as the basis for the bid. We noted that EPSRC emphasises the existence of mechanisms for co-funding with other research councils in the case of radically interdisciplinary projects such as ours; and that the AHRC were likely to be more open to our proposal if it came to them via EPSRC.
Action Points
- Initiate discussion with Springer about the possibility of an edited volume on Narrating Complexity for their complexity series [Susan]
- Produce abstracts of essays for the Narrating Complexity volume in time for discussion at the July workshop [all project members]
- Set up NarCS project wiki for exchange of ideas, posting of interesting materials and feedback on drafts of essays [Susan]
- Develop AHRC research network bid [Richard]
- Develop COST network bid [Jim]
- Develop Leverhulme research programme grant bid [Richard]
- Develop Leverhulme international network bid [Richard]
- Discuss RAE “Ingenious” Awards bid [Alan, Richard, others interested]
- Make preliminary inquiries regarding EPSRC bid [Susan]
- Draw up programme and make arrangements for July workshop [Richard]
Richard Walsh
17/04/2013