We have been processing the critique we got at the mid-crit. We got a lot of good things but not as much as we had hoped. The critics focused a little too much on details rather than the big picture, we feel. Still, we got some good takeaways, like that we should focus on the narrative of how the people involved in our scenario interacts with it. We really expected to get written comments, especially since we saw the critics writing stuff on papers and computers. Perhaps they were updating their blogs?
However, this week we have begun writing the book chapter. We decided to focus on this as the deadline is quite soon. Still, we will keep the presentation in mind. We like reading and writing though, so this fits us well for now. We started by making an outline/disposition for the chapter and then divided different topics/headings amongst the group. This, we hope, allows us to work efficiently together but at different physical locations.
At this point, the restriction of only eleven references seems like a bottleneck for the number of ideas we can discuss. We already have seven references in the first two paragraphs. How strict is this? Of course, more references don't necessary make a better text, but it still seems as a bottleneck. We will probably manage to satisfy this criteria though.
Things that we have been discussing, researching and writing about this week is mostly background stuff. We have continued our discussion on what labour and work is and why we do it. Now we have a good distinction between the two. We have also been discussing the social stigma of unemployment and how this can be eased or even cancelled. Another topic is non-sense work, on which Roland Paulsen is the main figure in Sweden. We decided not to interview him though, because his texts give us enough substance. We have contacted Mattias Jägerskog to ask him for his views on sharing work (which he briefly mentioned in a newspaper article). We hope to interview him.
Next week we will focus on the formalisation of the sharing of work in a local community. This could or even should be investigated outside the traditional employer-employee relation. It is our endeavour to turn the formalisation of sharing into a platform which can be integrated into the so-called third space connected to housing, i.e. the foyers of apartment buildings. For this, we need to look at some architectural works like the one Milad talked about on his lecture (The land of scattered seeds). This is somewhat similar to our idea, though not formalised in the same manner.
We will also delve deeper into how (un)employment, work, labour will work in the sharing economy. The appraised value of different skills and education will also be taken into account. Is for example plumbing more, less or equally worth as say medical skills? Is this even a relevant question?
Over and out.
Sounds like you are doing good. Reading is fine, but it is also important to start producing stuff, at this point in time. Time is running fast at the end of a project. Wishing you good luck!
ReplyDelete