today, a new idea for a data source "emerged": one could make kind of qualitative content analysis of interviews of scientists, designers etc - to cut short, people who are steadily confronted with creating ideas [but not the usual suspects like google, apple and the like]. such interviews might be found in magazines, journals, newspapers etc. - have to think about that

the first face2face meeting in the whole seminar-group showed one thing: that our observation approach was quite "conservative". or, but differently, stayed very much in line with what we have heard in the first theory part (maybe that was the "problem"?)

really astonishing what observation methods the nature-culture group used - high tech (gps tracking) and "low-tech" (flour-steps) at the sam time, very creative! I guess this has shown our group in which respect we can also think (as they say: "outside the box"). don't know yet which aspects of idea will change on the outdoor session, but we will see..

as our next meeting approaches, some work had to be done - in particular, sorting and abstracting the first results.

first fazit: some things might sound obvious, others not. i think the world cafe on monday might be a good sooruce to letsome new insights emerge... maybe something that is not "obvious"

having conducted my first qualititive interview for this seminar as well as checked the quantitative survery, I came to the following preliminary conclusions for our topic (one might label as "success factor"):

way to get started #1: Involvement in research projects of institute/chair
+ provides structure, steady point of reference (“sparing partner”, positive irritations), leads/concretises interest (“gemachtes Nest”)
- steady boundary work necessary, not enough time to deepen personal interest due to project obligations
way to get started #2: align initial interest to research interests of Prof./chair/institute
- “hot spot”: if there are many open questions on a certain subject -> new, step in there
- “ultimate test”: imagine yourself deepen your knowledge on this topic for at least 5 months

next to this two identified starting points, the following factors seem to be very useful to to concretise the initial research interest:
- initial interest needs to be enriched from theories from ALL disciplines (1. Define phenomenon 2. Search for theories on this phenomenon from all disciplines’ 3. Develop ideas out of this – but still keep it simple!) -> end of this first major process: concept
- social environment: should irritate you in positive way (dialectic), ie good dialogues must be possible
- further development of MA thesis

based on the coaching session, we agreed on using "mixed methods" in approaching our slightly changed subject matter (now topics in business and science). basically, we want to find out how one gets to an interesting topic of a final thesis (may it be phd or master) that also turns out to be beneficiary for your career.

I think using quantiative as well as qualitative surveys should bring up some interesting ideas - altough so far I cannot picture what prototype will come up... wait and see

our yesterday formed kct sticks out in terms the prefix "inter-" - 4 members, 4 nations, 3 disciplines - suggests to be an interesting journey, in particular in terms of method.

it will also be interesting in which direction our topic, ASK (application of scientific knowledge) in busienss and science will develop. it is really not easy to find the "right" or appropriate dimensions for the field

having formed a question that matters to me (Why is scientific knowledge regarded as superior to other forms [types] of knowledge?), some further thinking was "initiated".

first, what is "the other type" of knowledge? what are the analyitical dimensions of non-scientific knowledge? for instance: knowledge based on individual experience, passed knowledge ("tradiert" in german, I don't know an english term that bears the same meaning) anything else?

second, can there be such thing as an "individual knowledge" (may it scientific or not)? the philosopher in me (in particular the epistemologist) shouts "of course", the sociologist shakes his head - still, I favor the later (in particular after having enjoyed some lectures and seminars from the science studies department...)

third, and this concerns the next session, what topics will the other participants (in particular the boys and girls from very different departments like business studies) bring up?

questions over questions...

as the first "real" (in terms of content) session ended, a summarizing reflection might be of great (personal) use. the key term of today's threefolded session for me is definitely awareness.

as scientists, you should be open to new things, may it be variables you did not consider so far, relations between them or the like. such ability presumes awareness: allowing that "your mind" is confronted with new things (I once heard the nice german expression "Spontanität des Geistes" - might be similar)