all actions by sead white paper authors

Exploring a model of inter-disciplinary research collaboration based on Collective Action Theories
Cristina Miranda de Almeida [CA]

Actions for increase of resources

1) Action a.1- Interdiscipli-nary funding research programmes
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders:, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To channel more access to funding, human and technological resources to interdisciplinary research and collaboration across disciplinary borders.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:
Resistance from funding institutions that still do not accept inter-disciplinary approaches in research.
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL Funding institutions at all levels (from international to local); Education and Research institutions at all levels. [CA]

2) Action a.2- Funding grant actions for interdisciplinary research
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: Promote annual research grants for researcher groups with the requirement of the participation of at least 2 fields collaborating
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:
Resistance from funding institutions that still do not accept inter-disciplinary approaches in research.
Stake-holders: Actions scope:  IG, ERS, IPL
Different institutions [CA]

3) Action a.3-  Funding prize actions for interdisciplinary research
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: Promote periodical research prizes for researcher groups with the requirement of the participation of at least 2 fields collaborating. Create the space for a Nobel prize section or Principe de Asturias section, for interdisciplinary collaboration)
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:
Resistance from IPL
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL
Nobel Prize related institutions, Prince of Asturias related institutions [CA]

4) Action c.3- Creation of politically corrected Minimum Quotas for Interdisciplinary Research
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To guaranty that a particular part of public budgets to research (at International, National, Regional and European levels), are oriented to funding of SEAD interdisciplinar research in the framework of networked knowledge. The effectiveness and real implementation of these minimum quotas should be checked and followed-up by the SEAD Observatory.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:
Resistance from IPL
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL
Funding institutions
Controlled by SEAD Observatory and Network [CA]

5) Action c.4- Visibility actions
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To make visible the results of inter -disciplinary collaborations.
This can be achieved by using social network and social media platforms (trans-media approach), developing on line and onsite workshops and conferences.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:
Lack of support from institutions with resistance to fund inter-disciplinary
research
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FF, IG, ERS, IPL
SEAD
Network-Observatory [CA]

6) Action c.5- Integration actions
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To inscribe interdisciplinary research in all phases of decision-making process of funding allotments.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder: Lack of support from scientific politics at national, regional and local levels    
Stake-holders: SEAD
Network-Observatory [CA]

Actions to support networking: engagement, participation and networking actions

7) Action b.1- Technical support
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global
access
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: Sustained by networked institutions. To develop an online platform and system to support networking activities, as an innovation ecosystem, an environment for social innovation, making full use of the Web 2.0, hybrid ontologies and the Internet of Things. Offer online support and visibility to interdisciplinary projects.
Networks knowledge.
Contacts between peers.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder: Sustainability of the maintaining. Who pays for the service
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FF, IG, ERS, IPL
Education and research institutions
Public institutions of research support (Ministries) [CA]

8) Action b.2- Creation of synergies with external partners and among observatories
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: Creation of synergies with existing projects for the sustainability of the SEAD Network and Observatory and to intensify the networking processes with other initiative such as Living Labs. Possible examples are (1) Innocentive (http://www.innocentive.com/), a platform for interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation; Fundation Garum (http://garumfundatio.org/redes/), an institution in the Basque Country that supports the creation of networks for business projects. Sharing of best practices; Formation of partnerships; sharing of human and technological resources. To create synergies between SEAD and a network of Observatories. Particularly in areas like education, government, funding and administration structures. Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:  Lack of trust; lack of a common language
Stake-holders: Actions scope: IG, ERS
Education and research institutions
Public institutions of research support (Ministries)
Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL [CA]

9) Action b.3- Integration and fostering of knowledge sharing
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To sustain the use of the platform as a networking ecosystem, as an environment for social involvement, placing researchers and society in the role of co-producers and consumers of content and services by making full use of the Web 2.0 and hybrid ontologies and the Internet of Things. This can be enhanced by opening new channels of communication in the platform, like a blog.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:
Data protection from peers; lack of confidence
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL
Education and research institutions [CA]

10) Action b.4- Creation of Research HotSpots:
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To expand the opportunity for researchers to interact with Research problems from other disciplines, other researchers and institutions. Research HotSpots would be the core around which researcher gather to search and offer collaboration.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:  Lack of support from funding institutions
Stake-holders: Actions scope:  IG, ERS
Education and research institutions [CA]

11) Action b.5- Matching around research problems
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To open a system in the network to match interests around complex research problems (that need the contribution from different disciplines). SEAD Observatory would offer a service from the researchers' point of view. That means to offer a tool for interactivity and a bottom-up approach to information (inclusiveness) that can help researchers to plan their activities and participate in knowledge creation in the net. Develop the network with extensive training and interdisciplinary seminars, forums and conferences.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder: Lack of a common language to be able to dialog; lack of interdisciplinary protocols for sharing; lack of trust
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL
Education and research institutions and Public institutions of research support (Ministries) [CA]

Education actions to prepare researchers to manage interdisciplinary collaboration

12) c1.) Transformation of relations of power complementary actions
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To enable agents that support interdisciplinary approaches to be in positions of power in decision-making processes.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:
Lack of political support or interest; lack of funding; lack of peer-to-peer support
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL
Funding, Education and research institutions [CA]

13) c.2) Complemen-tation of the network of SEAD (The Network for Science, Engineering, Art and Design) with an International Observatory
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To fully protect interdisciplinar collaboration. The objectives of the SEAD Network Observatory can be to: (1) situate SEAD interdisciplinar into the main political objectives and institutional guideless of research at any level to accelerate the development of sustainable, innovative and inclusive interdisciplinary Knowledge in society; and  (2) foster, implement and look for funding to network knowledge and collaboration in the SEAD interdisciplinary field. The SEAD Observatory can be supported in a network of observatories such as European SEAD Observatory, National SEAD Observatories. These observatories can be created also at lower levels, more linked; 3) To overcome the hurdles hindering the development of an inter-disciplinary knowledge Society; 4) To foster interoperability of solutions across countries; to treat interdisciplinary Knowledge in the global and local scales; 5) To generate awareness in different stakeholders in the research and knowledge sector to mobilise the needed financial and human resources to carry out actions.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:
At the level of institutional paradigm, if there is not a change in the old paradigm there is going to be a resistance to organise a network on the part of institutions
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL
Education and research institutions [CA]

14) Action c.3- Education actions
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To prepare researchers to manage interdisciplinary collaboration (development of academic and research methodologies to integrate different fields in research work, guidelines for best practices).  This can be achieved by using social network and social media tools and (transmedia approach), by developing on line and onsite preparation workshops.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder: Lack of interest on the part of researchers to change methodology; stress due to lack of a common language
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL
Education and research institutions [CA]

Feed back and sensibilization actions

15) Action d.1-Listening / answering follow up
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To maintain a system of tracking opinion from researchers in the network.
To update the cartography of researchers on the network and the results of their collaborations. Preparation of a blog, social media based follow-ups
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder: Lack of participation (need to stimulate participation)
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL
Education and research institutions [CA]

16) Action d.2- Best practices Database: SEAD Network- Observatory
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To develop a database of interdisciplinary experiences for reflexion on results of networking knowledge and to extract serial synthesis of best practices.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:  Lack of participation on the side of peers for lack of trust
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL
SEAD Network and Observa-tory [CA]

17) Action d.3- Awareness increase
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To increase awareness about interdisciplinary collaboration. This can be achieved by using social network and social media tools and (trans-media approach) and by developing on line and onsite preparation workshops and campaigns.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:
Lack of interest
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL
SEAD Network and Observato-ry [CA]

18) Action d.4- Diffusion actions
Temporal and Spatial Scale of the action according to the scale of stakeholders: Global, European, Regional and local; Continuous
Opportunity being addressed According to stakeholder: To increase awareness about interdisciplinary collaboration by publications, on paper, on Internet, in video. Preparation of documental films to show how science and art have been collaborating for a long time.
Obstacle to implement the action According to stakeholder:
Lack of funding to support the costs of publications, video production, documental films, etc.
Stake-holders: Actions scope: FFI, IG, ERS, IPL
SEAD Network and Observatory [CA]
(Re)Structuring Innovation: Community-Based Wet Labs for Art-Science Collaborations
Steven J. Barnes [SB]

1) For All Stakeholders
1. Support the creation of semiautonomous institutions--community-based wet labs- that provide support for artistscientist collaborations and permit academic researchers to work outside their comfort zone, while free from significant worries about career advancement.  Such institutions should ideally be situated in a neutral space and be outfitted with the equipment necessary for the artist and scientist collaborators to be able to draw from their  disciplines and associated technologies.  We propose that current hacker space organizations are a suitable  model, but that there should be comparable organizations to support collaboration with all the scientific  disciplines.  For example, wet-lab hacker spaces for artist-biological scientist collaborations.
2. Pursuant to the above suggestion, limit as much as possible bureaucratic and institutional barriers to the founding  and continued development of these institutions. Support decentralized, horizontal and community-focused organizational models. [SB]

2) For The Artist and Scientist Collaborators
1. Realize that your impression of your partner's discipline is probably incorrect, and enter the relationship as free  of opinions and preconceptions as possible.
2. Realize that, although there may currently be career-advancement conflicts in many artist-scientist  collaborations, such collaborations have historically been a great source of innovation.  Innovations that you  can  carry you through their subsequent research career.
3. If you are engaged in an artist-scientist collaboration, take it upon yourself to educate your partner about your  discipline and sub-discipline through readings and discussions.  Educating your partner in the collaboration is  critical to furthering the general goals of collaboration. [SB]

3) For Educators and Academic Administrators
1. Treat time spent within an artist-scientist collaboration as a criterion for career advancement in academic settings--both for artists and for scientists.  Reward such risk taking, so that eventually it will no longer be risky and will be a standard element in career advancement schemes.   
2. Universities should set up residency programs with established and to-be-established community-based wet labs, so that participants are given a clear record of their participation in the program (e.g., 'artist-in-residence' and 'scientist-in-residence' programs).
3. Acknowledge that much current innovation is occurring outside traditional laboratories, in (for example) community-based hacker spaces.  Such existent organizations should be targeted as partner organizations, and new organizations should be founded to further innovation in those scientific fields where innovation is seen to  be languishing.
4. Rework the assessment of academic accomplishment so that career advancement is not solely based upon numbers of publications in one's chosen field.  Current career advancement mechanisms seem to favour noninnovative approaches (i.e., those approaches that yield higher publication numbers). Risk taking, exploration and innovation, in the form of artist-scientist collaborations or other activities, should be rewarded and not  punished.
5. Support the creation of new academic journals (or the expansion of existing ones), based on the Leonardo model and the PLoS online publishing model (see www.plos.org/).  Given that Leonardo (www.leonardo.info/) is already an excellent venue for general new media and art/science work, those new journals should be targeted at specific types of artist-scientist collaborative research.
6. Reward time spent in art-science collaborations with reduced teaching loads or comparable rewards, as is already done in certain universities to reward research productivity (usually measured by numbers of publications). [SB]

4)  For Foundations, Government Agencies, and Other Funders
1. Support the creation of new academic journals, as described above.
2. Allocate funds for the development of innovation through the support of specific art-science collaborations as well as the infrastructure to support those collaborations (e.g., community-based wet labs, new journals)
3. Institute granting programs that specifically call for artist-scientist collaborations--both at early and late stages of their careers.  These grants could be used to fund residency programs in community-based wet labs, as described above.
4. Institute granting programs that reward time spent in art-science collaborations with reduced teaching loads or comparable rewards, as is already done in some current granting schemes.
5. Many grants are currently restricted to tenure-track University faculty.  This restriction makes sense if one believes the tenure system to be an accurate means of assessing research ability.  However, since the tenure system is biased against riskier forms of research that might not generate larger numbers of publications, this approach needs to be questioned.  Accordingly, grants should be opened up to individuals and non-profit societies.
6. Review any current regulations and laws that might be restricting or hindering wet-lab experimentation outside of the traditional University laboratory to determine if those rules still have any merit or are justified.  It is quite likely that these restrictions and laws are slowing innovation. [SB]

5) For Industry
1. Provide funding, in the form of grants, for artist-scientist collaborations, and for the the formation of communitybased wet labs.  Understand that such funding will lead to innovative approaches to problems that you, as an organization, can set forth as the topics of grants. Also realize that your specified "problem space" has not been fully explored and that new problems (or the re-casting of old problems) may sometimes be the results of these endeavors.
2. Engage with the semi-autonomous institutions we are proposing.  For example, by allocating time for employees to participate in the management of these institution or as a members of an art-science collaboration. [SB]

6) For the National Academies, Scientific and Artistic Societies
1. Undertake or fund a comprehensive review of the works created through art-science collaborations and evaluate the outcomes of those works.  It would be good for those involved in art-science collaborations to be able to provide evidence to support any claims that such collaborations serve as a significant source of innovation.  As discussed earlier in this paper, it is our suspicion that collaborations that we have labelled as "true" collaborations  are more likely to be the source of innovative outcomes; this assertion needs to evaluated.
2. Undertake or fund initiatives (e.g. conferences, community events, etc) that foster further discussions and knowledge sharing between artists, scientist and local communities.
3. Fund resources that provide information to aspiring wet-lab hackers about alternate and cheaper sources of wetlab equipment, and alternate forms of items commonly used in wet labs (e.g., many chemicals that are expensive when obtained from chemical suppliers can be obtained quite cheaply through garden and home centers). [SB]
Ex-Scribing The Choroegraphic Mind "" Dance & Neuroscience In Collaboration
Glenna Batson [GB]

1) Action 1 "" Feasibility
A.    Establish focus group(s) for dance-cognitive science within the university consortium, generated, organized and implemented by students with the major purpose of brainstorming on relevant topics, locating, collating and exploiting resources. The focus groups will take several forms:
"    First, as networking 'artscience cafes' to take place at Krankie's Café in Winston-Salem and Open Eye in Durham, NC. Here, professionals from the neuroscience and dance world in the associated academies in the larger North Carolina Triangle area will be invited to lead and participate in roundtable discussions.
"    Offering Live webcasts and web-forums, which could also be connected to existing Dance-Science podcasting sites, such as DanceTech.Net.  
"    Formal research conference for dancers, scientists, other academicians and the lay public to provide the scope and benefits of choreographic cognition. The conference will highlight current examples of research dance as a live laboratory where dance making has been explored through digital technologies.
B. Pursue Intra- and extra-mural grants to support sustain initial educational seminars, research training, and interdisciplinary courses; Further, identify funding sources that would provide initial seed money for pilot research, and research training, substantive applied dance-science projects, and provide adequate media publicity; access to related educational seminars and conferences; and Recruiting and offering stipends to a cadre of graduate/undergraduate and community workers to help with mechanics of implementing projects as they materialize. [GB]

2) Action 2 "" Visibility
A.    Initiate and manage an interactive website (including weblog) that has several tiers "" regional, national and international;
B.    Ground Level Networking and Publicity;
C.    Organize local versions of TED;
D.    Search out, contribute to, and participate regularly in, dance/science websites that already routinely provide podcasts and other interactive forums "" chiefly, Dance-Tech.Net  http://www.dance-tech.net/ [GB]

3) Action 3 "" Measurable Impact
A.    Community engagement - Interactive seminars with artists, scientists and lay public to find niches outside of choreography that would benefit by dancers' physicalized form of cognition (examples)
a.    Business/Community Partnerships  (e.g., of topics: Problem-Solving in Business Through Dance; Improving Learning through Training Attention "" High School; Dance and Health; Memory and Movement in Aging; Dancing with Challenges (Parkinson Disease);
b.    Bring together choreographers and dancers, cognitive scientists, neuroscientists, and other academicians, scientists, and those in digital media and other technologies, for short, intensive, outcomes-based workshop series. The first workshop would address the needs specified above and emphasize strategizing to solve the problems. Outcomes would be targeted towards the feasibility and realization of select projects to be implemented within a 1-year period.
B.    Organize and implement outcomes-based interdisciplinary courses for under/graduate students. Courses would be designed to help students gain fluency in areas of intersection between disciplines, breaking through initial conceptual prejudices about their differences. These courses would be offered as single electives or as part of cross-campus visions for artscience trans-disciplinarity;
a.    Developing, honing and validating tools and methodologies through piloting research and providing structured feedback and evaluation;
b.    Build a student-faculty consortium of researchers dedicated to short, succinct, time-limited, measurable pilot research on dance and cognition;
c.    Transmission and dissemination of results "" both scholarly and practical "" through formal and informal publications, documentaries, web submissions, conference presentations, sustainable community initiatives, etc. [GB]


 
Transdisciplinarity: Challenges, Approaches And Opportunities At The Cusp Of History
Martha Blassnigg [MB]

1) Proposed Action: Universities should consider themselves less as bastions of established bodies  of knowledge and more as enablers with an emphasis on networks and collaborations and a locus  for criteria in relation to methodological practices. [MB]

2) Proposed Action: If funding regimes wish to pay more than lip-service to transdisciplinarity they  will need to consider radical changes to their review processes in order to include equal weighting  for transdisciplinarity. For this they may need to consider the value of the network beyond its  immediate results and raise the threshold of risk in funding research. [MB]

3) Proposed Action: There should be investment in research network developments that regard  transdisciplinarity as a pathway to new topics and concerns, liberating research questions  currently locked within high-grade research in traditional silos. Hybrid public/private speculative  funding of research and development should be encouraged. [MB]

4) Proposed Action: The full acknowledgement of transdisciplinarity's bottom-up spirit (both  popular and data driven) should be regarded as both a methodological and social intervention. It  gives voice to the intellectually disenfranchised who have a stake in the outcomes and as such  mirrors many of the issues that have reshaped the Humanities (especially History, Art-History  and Literature Studies) in the last three decades. Consequently it demands the vigilance and ) positive commitment that have been applied elsewhere when oversight and occlusion have  become acknowledged. [MB]

5) Proposed Action: There should be investment in soliciting meta-approaches to transdisciplinarity  informed by grounded research in the Sciences, Humanities and Arts. Greater attention to dealing  with the issues exposed by transdiciplinarity (if not in the concept itself) should be explored  openly. [MB]

6) Proposed Action: To learn from the contingencies and expediencies currently applied in dealing  with these problems and responses to new forms of funding and dissemination and research  practices in the Humanities (digital Humanities) and to see them as a mode of inquiry for example to conceptualize the big data problem as one coextensive with work in the Humanities on representation and archiving rather than as an exclusive domain of datasets. [MB]

 
Reative Artificially-Intelligent Agents For The Arts: An Interdisciplinary Science-And-Arts Approach
Jonas Braasch [JB]

1) Complex Systems with Modular Architecture and Interchangeable Data Format
Roadblock: A lot of specialized software exists to simulate certain aspects of intelligence from computational auditory scene analysis algorithms to logic prover. In general, it is still very difficult to combine these specialized systems to complex systems simulating multiple parts of the central nervous system.
Opportunity: Enable a dialog to find better ways to standardize communication protocols between different systems and to port algorithms to a unified platform for creative intelligent systems
Proposed Action: conference or symposium to start dialogue
Stakeholders: university-based groups, gaming and entertainment industry [JB]
2) Agents that can handle abstract media and techniques
Roadblock: In engineering and science related disciplines a common approach is to copy the human body in both form and functionality. Honda's Asimo robot and Kaist's Hubo are good examples for this approach. Sometimes abstract solutions provide a better functionality, for example robots from children and science fiction movies are often more sociable, but artists and designers often lack the technical expertise of engineers
Opportunity: bring both groups together to build on each others' strength to build highly functional, powerful but abstract systems.
Proposed Action: conference or symposium to start dialogue
Stakeholders: university-based groups, gaming and entertainment industry [JB]
3) Need of creative synthetic characters that can develop new concepts
Roadblock: Over the last 40 years we have develop artificially intelligent agents that can produce creative work within a given context (e.g., compose music in the style of J.S. Bach), but system that go beyond this and develop their own concepts (e.g., a new composition style) do not exist yet (at least not in the sense that they can reflect and justify their actions).
Opportunity: bring together transdisciplinary groups of artists, psychologists, and engineers to elicit how humans complete these tasks and find ways to implement this knowledge to artificially intelligent systems.
Proposed Action: conference or symposium to start dialogue
Stakeholders: university-based groups, gaming and entertainment industry [JB]
 
Using 'Processing' As A Stimulus For Producing Steam
Ron Brown [RB]
1) Suggested Action #1: Finding 'Qualified' Programming Instructors
Barrier: Too few secondary teachers have any substantial computer programming experience "" no matter what subject(s) they are 'certified' to teach. Unfortunately, there are many experienced programmers who know different computer languages but they are not allowed to teach because they do not have a teaching 'certificate' to do so as required by the educational establishment.
Stake Holders: School administrators, federal and/or state legislators, Departments of Education, teachers who want to make their classes more exciting, teachers' unions, unemployed/retired computer programmers
Suggested Actions: During the last decade, many software projects were outsourced to developing countries, leaving many American computer programmers jobless. A large number of these former computer programmers could be recruited and learn Processing in a relatively short period of time "" compared with someone with no previous programming experience "" perhaps within one month or less. With appropriate incentives, these 'new' senior recruits could teach either younger teachers or teachers-to-be enrolled in colleges/universities/community colleges or teach within the secondary-school system itself. Educational instutions should be encouraged to offer computer programming courses in their STEM or STEM to STEAM programs.
Opportunities: Employing qualified senior citizens would be a win-win situation for those invited back to the workforce and for those who would benefit from their expertise. Current teachers will have the opportunity to learn skills they may have never experienced before. [RB]
2) Suggested Action #2: Eliminating standardized testing for STEM to STEAM endeavors.
Barrier: Standardized testing is so engrained in the educational psyche/system and is overly encouraged by testing services as well as textbook publishers and the Federal Government implementing laws such as 'No Child Left Behind'. Standardized testing does not measure/encourage 'creativity'. As Sir Ken Robinson has stated, 'creativity' is destroyed as a student progresses through the educational system.Stake Holders: School administrators, federal and/or state legislators, Departments of Education, teachers' unions, textbook publishers, testing services, art galleries
Suggested Actions: The only prerequisite for taking any computer programming course should be the desire to learn computer programming. A student's 'grade' should not be based on any post-course test or battery of tests given throughout the course. Rather, a student's grade should be based on the student's completion of programs (calledsketches in Processing) and/or one's effort in completing the assigned tasks (Example: one of my students had severe dyslexia but I have never seen anyone work/concentrate so hard to complete a sketch.). One goal of the course could be to show the students' art in an art gallery setting and use the proceeds of any sales to support STEM to STEAM projects.
Opportunities: Implementing a 'testless' course utililzing up-to-date technology would be an ideal case for one of Sir Ken Robinson's desires which is to eliminate standardized testing. [RB]
3) Suggested Action #3: Developing curricula spanning multiple grade levels.
Barrier: Knowledgeable curriculum developers may be few and far between. A related barrier is preventing the unintended consequence of institutionalizing computer programming as a mandatory subject. Just as Processing is 'open'-source, school administrators should be 'open'-minded when implementing such courses/programs. The only prerequisite should be the desire to learn a programming language.
Stake Holders: School administrators, teachers, curriculum developers, private grant foundations, Educational Departments
Suggested Actions: Instead of local districts being burdened with the task of developing their own curricula districts should utilize world resources. Agencies such as NASA and the NSF, along with private donor organizations, should take active roles in such development efforts.
Teaching Processing would allow those interested in robotics to learn the mechanics of motion/control using Arduino hardware. Those interested in the performing arts could expand their horizons by using Processing to interface with the Kinect camera for interactive performance utilizing music and/or other devices. To minimize costs, the use of textbooks should be minimized or possibly eliminated "" internet resources are abundant and should be maximized to the fullest extent. Programs such as those being implemented in Estonia should be followed closely.
Opportunities: Networking with other like-minded individuals/organizations around the world would be very rewarding for all involved. [RB]
4) Suggested Action #4: Providing each student with access to a computer for programming.
Barrier: Many school systems do not have the monetary resources to provide individual access to a computer for programing purposes.
Stake Holders: School administrators, private grant foundations, parents, community groups, corporations
Suggested Actions: Many students have their own computers that have plenty of 'computer power' for programming purposes. Students who have their own computers should be encouraged to use them. Also, many companies upgrade their computer networks periodically and dispose of their computers en mass "" companies should be encouraged to donate their used computers to their local school districts. Computers used for programming need not be connected to the internet permanently so the need for more net-working expertise would be minimal. Grants from private foundations should be sought.
Opportunities: Community involvement of parents, students, administrators, teachers and businesses would create a more caring community. [RB]
5) Suggested Action #5: Evaluating the proposed Processing course/curriculum.
Barrier: Many school systems do not have the monetary resources to monitor/evaluate the success/failure of new educational programs.
Stake Holders: School administrators, state Education Departments, program evaluators, graduate students, teachers' unions, parents, students
Suggested Actions: One or more graduate students in the near vacinity could be encouraged to write a thesis evaluting the proposed course/program and/or the State's Department of Education would have the task of evaluting the program.
Opportunities: Knowing the outcome of early courses/programs would lead to improved courses/programs that would grow as technology changes. [RB]
6) Suggested Action #6: Providing resources to small independent schools and the home schooling movement.
Barrier: Small independent schools lack funds for such 'esoteric' courses/programs and would only be able to offer one if one of their limited staff had the skills/knowledge to teach the course. When I asked about teaching another 'Programming with Processing' course the following semester I was told that there was no funding available. I am quite sure that, had the school had adequate funds, I would have been able to offer the course again.
Stake Holders: Independent schools, parents, students, teachers, private grant foundations, corporations
Suggested Actions: Parents who send their children to private/independent schools, or, those that choose to home school, still pay federal and state taxes targeted toward educational programs "" there is no reason their child should not have the same opportunity to share in STEM to STEAM endeavors as those attending public schools. Because of the current economic downturn it would be worthwhile for all school environments to share their expertise/resources with others.
Opportunities: Acts of kindness lead to acts of kindness. And, it's the right thing to do for our children and our future. [RB]
 
A New Ecology Of Learning: Ecological Systems As Pedagogical Models
Pavel Cenkl [PC]
1) Ecological Learning and the Liberal Arts
Premise
An ecological model of thinking can provide a model for a more intentional and dynamic liberal arts pedagogy.
Actions
Academic Administrators should recognize that biological design processes can follow a model that spirals from (1) discovering natural models to (2) abstracting design principles to (3) brainstorming potential applications, (4) emulating nature's strategies and finally (5) evaluation. The process continually repeats itself as successive curricular iterations are discovered, employed, and assessed.
Faculty and administrators alike can embrace an ecological framework can underscore the resilient, decentralized, and distributed, and integrative pedagogy of a liberal arts curriculum, thereby empowering more intentional and organically developed student-centered learning experiences. [PC]
2) Digital Technologies and Ecological learning
Premise
Digital technologies can help institutions to develop more ecologically focused learning environments and curricula.
Actions
For Administrators: Technologies should help us redefine how we use learning spaces—both virtual and actual. Online tools should resonate with organic structure of information flow, and classes should be inherently embracing such flow of information and knowledge.
For Faculty and Administrators: Introduce technologies that enable real-time connection between student experience and classroom reflection and provide information and access that can help classes become self-organizing and less hierarchical. The ecosystem has become as much a metaphor for collaborative technologies as it presents a framework within which to contemplate its development; however, as much as ecology may be an apt metaphor for digital community "" in its dynamic development and organic integration of ideas in (often serendipitous) boundary objects, there continues to be a tension between the ubiquity of software and the reality of experience, a tension which is ignored by many.
Faculty, administrators, and students can recognize that getting one's hands dirty in the performance of literal, actual, meaningful work can be the scaffold for community, collaboration, and engagement that technology can potentially help facilitate. [PC]
3) Integrating Ecological Thinking
Premise
Ecological thinking can be integrated into both new and existing courses, units, and overall curriculum designs.
Actions
Academic Administrators and Department Chairs should champion a comprehensive revisioning of course offerings from the perspective of outcomes-based assessment to emphasize a systemic and integrative—rather than disciplinary and course-based—curriculum. They must similarly engage in meaningful revision of workload and workflow in order to achieve more robust support for the integrative student learning that is the core of liberal arts pedagogy.
Academic Administrators can integrate curricula of earth and biological science courses to foster a deeper understanding of the interrelationships of methods, products, projects, and initiatives across the different disciplines. Course can also be block scheduled in order to empower integrative learning communities.
Individual Faculty should use the flexibility within workload guidelines to explore further collaborative and cooperative teaching opportunities that empower students and faculty alike in integrative systems thinking. Truly organic development of curriculum necessitates a ground-up process that involves faculty and students in co-creation of integrative courses, coursework, and programs. [PC]
 

Science-Art Interactions In Asia With Particular Reference To India
Krishna Kumari Challa (KC]


1) Media in Asia: Media in Asia has a huge role to play in creating awareness amongst scientists, artists and general public about the benefits of science art interactions. Promoting aggressively these interactions in the region by the media is highly recommended to make the people in Asia consider, accept, follow and reap the benefits they bring. If some people start creating science-art in this region, the mimetic desire catches up with others too if they come to know about it and they too start doing it! If somebody values it, others too start valuing it [90,91]. And it's pretty easy to transmit the value and use it positively. This is happening in the West right now, as several artists and scientists there are into science art. Why, I even think this mimetic desire was responsible for the overwhelming response got for the call given by the Leonardo network for submitting the white papers!
Using the influence of the number of cumulative adoptions "" the number of people who already did science art or bought sci-art will have on the probability that there would be a new adoption of sci-art in that area as the phenomena are contagious "" to promote science based art both for creating and marketing it [94] can only be done with the help of media. [KC]

 2) Artists: (a) Scientists take cues from the art world "" especially from the artists during the collaborative work "" while deciding what art part of their sci-art work should be like. Therefore providing the right values and standards of art to the scientists by the artists is important for the scientists to properly co-relate science and art to create good science related art. (b) Artists should develop deep interest and jump on the bandwagon of sci-art with creative work instead of trying to just cling to it by changing the names from landscape art to geo-art and wild life art to eco-art![96] They should also stop doing 'sensational stuff' and concentrate on real 'developmental work'. (c) Instead of complaining that the world of science is trying to exploit them through collaborations [97], artists should use their creativity to do "marketable sci-art" and not just 'science-illustration type of work' so that the collaborations can benefit them too. [KC]

3). Art critics: There are various categories in science related art [98]. Critics should first learn all about them, try to distinguish one from the other and judge the works accordingly. They should not criticize sci-art works using the parameters of 'standard art' which would severely demoralize the artists who are trying to venture into the world of science. [KC]

4) Scientists: Scientists should not try to take science-illustrations, lab specimens and models directly into art galleries without first turning them into 'art' pieces because this is attracting severe criticism from art critics and curators [99]. Science can be brought into the domain of art only after co-relating both the subjects. Science and art are like oil and water and you need special skills to mix them. If scientists don't develop these skills they will fail to do justice to their subject and worse of it all they will have to face the music from the art critics and refusal from the art world like it is happening in several parts of the world. People of science should also convince the art world that they would take the artistic values and standards seriously and try to protect them while creating science based art. Scientists should concentrate more on inventing innovative art science based technologies to help societies in developing countries. Mere creation of science based art doesn't suit present day conditions and the developing world [101]. [KC]

5) Educators: Science art interactions cannot survive for long in a confused and unorganized state. There should be a methodical and knowledgeable atmosphere for it to grow and flourish. Educators must help in creating such an atmosphere.  Educators can also help by starting useful and viable courses on the 'creation of science related art' and art science related technologies. [KC]

6) Industry: Industry in Asia should thoroughly encourage and support science-art interactive research dealing with science and tech based creative technologies as these might help in cutting costs and boosting the production in the developing countries. [KC]

7) Scientific organizations/ organizers of international science conferences/symposiums: Scientific organizations in Asia should include science-art exhibitions and talks on benefits of science""art interactions in their itinerary to promote it along with traditional art. In order to do this they should have healthy deals with the cultural bodies. [KC]

8) Organizers of Art and science shows, fairs, Biennials should encourage sci-artists from the developing countries by giving concessions and fee waivers to them. [KC]

9) Funding agencies: If the amount of money available is very less, funding bodies can still provide money to science artists and get it back too! This is how it is possible: They should collect works from the artists after providing assistance to create marketable science based art, sell the works and get their money back. Trade "" not 'only aid' "" helps in creating good quality work. This also helps both in the promotion of and creating market for this form of art. [KC]

10) People who are venturing into science-art : (a) In their eagerness to promote science-art interactions, people are trying to equate science with art which is not correct according to several critics who are averse to the idea of these interactions "" alienating these skeptics more. This is not the right way to develop science-art interactions.  Science and art are separate subjects[100] and we need different ways to deal with each one. The processes of scientific thinking and artistic thinking resemble each other at basic levels where the lines are somewhat blurred but go their distinguished ways as you proceed further. If the approaches are similar, science and art would have evolved into a single subject and wouldn't have become two special subjects they are. We must realize we can only bring these two subjects and people working in them together, build bridges, learn from each others knowledge and reap all the benefits the interactions bring. Any other approach will give more ammunition to the critics of these interactions. (b) Clarity is needed with regard to the direction science-art and science based art movement (if it is one) should take in the future. Do we want to integrate this form of art with the mainstream art or do we want to keep it as a separate entity? If we want to integrate our work with the main stream art, we should be able to convince the art world about the artistic values and the significance of our work. If we want to keep it as a separate entity using it only as a communication tool, artists may lose their interest very soon and science-art will have to limit itself to science-illustration, lab models and technology assisted art which may stunt its growth severely. Science-art interactions should be able to facilitate real progress of the human kind. (c) Both scientists and artists should check the parameters especially- the depths- fully before venturing into each others' fields. Balancing science and art is very important in science based art without compromising science communication and artistic values which should be acceptable to both the communities as the right approach. [KC]

11) International bodies working in the sphere of sci-art: International bodies can help (1) by creating a market for science-art (there is scope for sci-art market promotion with regard to museums, educational institutions, scientific institutions and auction houses; one can even sell appropriate work to private collectors too like I do; auctioneers can be requested to consider sci-art too), (2) by rewarding the sci-artists with  prizes for creating good sci-art and new technologies especially in regions like Asia, international bodies can generate interest in science among the art communities  here, (3) by arranging large scale collaborations between art-science bodies from the most happening parts of the world and the scientific and artistic ones in Asia (they should not forget to advertise vigorously about these collaborative projects so that everybody in this region comes to know about them), (4) by thoroughly encouraging people and the bodies who are daring to venture into this arena in Asia despite all the odds, and promoting the work done here by mentioning it in their articles/books/talks etc. (for this to happen the international bodies should treat the sci-artists in Asia as only collaborators and not as competitors "" how can the latter group compete with the former one anyway?!) (5) by asking  prominent and well established art science bodies to erase the indifferent attitude towards the less developed science-art interaction areas,(6) by helping in developing funding mechanisms that can come to the aid of  the people who are dealing with science-art interactions in Asia, (7) by organizing science-art specific global shows and fairs in Asia, (8) by promoting development-oriented sci-art projects in Asia, (9) by creating a true international body representing all the countries to oversee all these activities [95]. [KC]
 
Bridging The Divide: Collaboration, Communication And Education In Art And Science
Nathan Cohen [NC]

1)    Funding streams for the sciences and arts and humanities may be quite distinct and do not necessarily embrace or encourage an interdisciplinary approach to innovation and investigation.
Suggested Action #1:
Public research funding should be inclusive of, and make provision for, interdisciplinary research across the arts and sciences. Initially, where relevant, publically funded research grant proposals could be requested to address interdisciplinary research potential.
Stakeholders: Foundations, Government Agencies, And Other Funders; Universities and Educational Institutions; Administrators In Educational Institutions; Educators; Scientists; Artists; Designers; Industry. [NC]

2)    Art and Science research is international in scope and could benefit from a comprehensive and accessible published and peer reviewed knowledge base.
Suggested Action #2:
An international web-based network and database could be established pooling expertise and innovation among educational institutions internationally, that could host an accessible database of historical and current research projects, publications, exhibitions and other manifestations relating to art and science research.
Stakeholders: Universities; Libraries; National Academies; Educators; Students; Researchers; Public; Artists; Scientists; Designers; Engineers. [NC]

3)    Art and Science researchers and graduates have the ability to contribute innovatively to industry.
Suggested Action #3:
Establish an international network of research placements with companies that could benefit from professional exchange (i.e. with appropriate safeguards for commercial, patent and copyright) with arts and science researchers, graduate and doctoral students.
Stakeholders: Students; Graduates; University Research Innovation Centres; Industry; Educators; Administrators in Educational Institutions. [NC]
 
A Case Study in IP arising in Art/Science Performance Research and Transdisciplinary Collaboration
Josie E. Davis [JED]

1) Obstacle #1:  As shown above, communication in transdisciplinary collaborations can suffer from a failure to establish common ground (shared interest), particularly when working between long distances over time.  Suggested Action:  Invite DESIGNERS to create mobile apps and interactive workshops in e-communication and conflict resolution.  
2) Obstacle #2:  Many SE-AD participants are unaware of their rights to an image as author, owner, or subject, and are therefore subject to trademark violation.  
Suggested Action:  Prevent intellectual property and trademark violation against ARTISTS, SCIENTISTS, DESIGNERS, EDUCATORS, HUMANITIES SCHOLARS, and ENGINEERS by reviewing current work (if violated) with an IP attorney to determine a course of action.  Develop written agreements between ARTISTS, SCIENTISTS, and HUMANITIES SCHOLARS outlining the goals and objectives of ongoing collaboration and research.  
Suggested Action:  Provide contract templates to EDUCATORS and DESIGNERS for publication and download on opens source websites and integration into core curriculum.  
Suggested Action:  That NATIONAL ACADEMIES and EDUCATORS create a network of transcontinental conferences addressing the rights and prevention of IP.  
Suggested Action: Maintain archives of work produced by ARTISTS, DESIGNERS, ENGINEERS, STUDENTS, EDUCATORS regardless of "quality."  Make use of available documentation, contacts and resources, and knowledge to help you and your project move ahead.  [JED]
3)Obstacle #3:  Funders often return to SE-AD professionals looking to validate the nature and ethics behind transdisciplinary practices.     
3a.  Suggested Action:  Help FOUNDATIONS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND OTHER FUNDERS develop new funding categories with regard to cross-disciplinary methods.  Also FOUNDATIONS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND OTHER FUNDERS should establish new criteria for peer-panels, review, and commissions supporting these kinds of forward thinking practices.  [JED]
4) Obstacle #4:  A transparent user experience can backfire if all members of a collaboration are not actively involved.  
Suggested Action:  Encourage DESIGNERS, ARTISTS, and INDUSTRY to discuss the reasons behind expanding your practice/project to a more transparent platform.  Is it necessary and why, and who will be responsible?  Assign clear administrative roles to each member of the team.  Educate ARTISTS on open share design platforms (i.e. "open ideo").  [JED]
5) Obstacle #5:  Many professionals are not exposed to trans-disciplinary practices until later in their careers.  
Suggested Action:  Place calls for STUDENTS and EDUCATORS to attend transcontinental residency, conferences, and programs.  Encourage a core SEAD curriculum in secondary tier education.  [JED]
6) Obstacle #6:  SEAD professionals are often confronted with new and unfamiliar territory and methods of investigation, creating tension when flushing out new concept and vocabularies.
Suggested Action:   STUDENTS, ARTISTS, DESIGNERS, HUMANITIES SCHOLARS, ENGINEERS be confident and mindful in the work methods you are creating.  Develop simple solutions and agendas when presented with an unfamiliar area of expertise. Showcase your work for an outsider perspective.  Set meeting points in your agenda to address the work as it progresses and to consider how these expectations are or are not being met. [JED]
7) Obstacle #8:  Building and sustaining trust is a difficult task and can make or break a collaboration.
Suggested Action:  That SEAD professionals and additional STUDENTS, EDUCATORS, and ADMINISTRATORS IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS review associated methods for building trust in a collaborative environment with particular attention paid to integrity, internal confidence, and fairness. [JED]
 
From Workshop To Academic Laboratory, An Artistic Experience Of Transdisciplinarity
Jean Delsaux [JD]

1) Suggested action 1
Universities should open sections devoted to the transdisciplinary training organizing a link between the artistic culture, humanities, and scientific and technological culture. The so trained students could then perform the synthesis betwween the modusses operandi, different cultures and thus enable a cultural confrontation.
The purpose is not to train absolutely only people able to be performative in both fields but people who specialise themselves in a discipline and are able to collaborate with other specialists.
These sections have of course to be provided with spaces (workshops) and technical equipment, technical support and maintainance, artistic and scientific environment.
The second phase of our experiment, which involved artists aware of digital technologies and scientific culture, reached also a difficulty : one person cannot master the complete set of abilities and knowledges required in an art process concerned by science and techniques.
The various projects we developed involved the participation of various participants, each one mastering a particuliar know how.
The problem then was to be able to build the appropriate crew for the concerned project. [JD]

2) Suggested action 2 :
In a structure devoted to the development of SEAD projects, there should be a person whose ability would be to analyse the project and determine the appropriate crew to fulfil the project.
The second difficulty we had to overcome was then to enable everyone in the crew to understand the language of the other participants. Speaking about spaciality for example is really different whether you are a visual artist, a musician, a physician, a mathematician, an engineer, an architect etc. [JD]

3) Suggested action 3 :
The development in universities, art schools and engineering schools of transdisciplinary subjects involving this aspect of mutual understanding. This point is different from suggested action 1 as it emphathize the language problem, the theoritical aspect, the understanding, and not necessarily the development of procedures, projects, realizations.
LEEE (Laboratory for Aesthetics and Space Experimentations) and Institut Pascal (Laboratory of robotics and artificial vision).
Colleagues with whom I developped other initiatives more precisely involved in this field suggested also a convergent approach of the matter:
Pascale Weber, Multimedia artist and Senior Lecturer in visual arts (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) developped in a book we directed accordingly : De l'Espace virtuel, du corps en présence[1]. (Presses Universitaires de Nancy Ed.) an interesting experiment concerning the development of a collaborative platform devoted to SEAD projects and the reasons of its failure.
The artists we were needed a collaborative platform devoted to our crossed projects, so we decided to develop it along with colleagues computer scientists.
The point was that artists are trained to metaphorical language, developping projects by experimenting the results of the trial-and-essay method. And we wanted to conceive the platform alternating an experimental and a more theoritical  approach.
That is :
Experimental : creation of spaces, templates, simulated digital functionings, for the projection of the artist taking part, from the development of the tool to a well tried praxis of the platform. The artist is used to work through sensitive equivalents so as to widen futhermore its metalanguage.
Theoritical approach : definition of the technical specifications of the platform.
This way of doing is far from what developpers we worked with were used to : they usualy start with specifications, in order to face a clearly defined request. The question is then to decide wether the artist/user should describe his needs in technological and « rational » terms for the developper or if the developper should analyse himself the request and translate it in his own language .
Another way of doing would be to let the user describe his needs progressively and continuously, avoiding permanent redirectings (in a flexible and not fixed way).
Very often the request is perfectly defined but doesnt suit the technological procedures. [JD]

4) Suggested action 4 :
The solution would probably consist in organizing, all along the project development, systematic meeting times during which would be defined the constraints for the artist and instructions for the computer scientist
The difficulty is obvious and leads usualy developpers to conceive generic models one has later on to adapt to the needs of the user. Which implies a predominance and primacy of the computing models and a definition of the digital products not in term of of specific needs, but in term of qualifying options.
This has to be connected by the increasing power of hardware and software companies who impose their standards, their monopolistic domination over systems and software packages.
The open source philosphy is in that purpose a good answer, but we know also that it requires yet a sophisticated know-how as well. And above all, no matter the models can be, technology seems allways to be set first, needs and specific expectations being considered as seconds, functionality creating the need.
So even if this situation is specific and not exclusive of other configurations, it is widely represented. [JD]

5) Suggested action 5 :
Build teams that would elaborate new procedures, new relationships between members, whatever would be the expertise of each member. These teams should have time and ressources to fulfil their goals : developping tools, situations, procedures involving artists, computer scientists, ergonomists, neurocogniticians, engineers, "
This implies budget, long term research, hability of defining the program in complete autonomy.
The development of a project can also work out its own tools, a projet can exist as a drawing, a draft, an animation, a métaphor, a choreography, a picture book, a textual description.
Thierry Château, Professor of robotics and computer vision leads the ComSee research team at Pascal Institute (Ex. Lasmea). Main research interests : Visual Tracking, Pattern Recognition and machine learning, within the field of Computer Vision.
For Thierry Château, the problematics raised by the artists allow almost to be early of phase with the Industry. The experience the lab had with dancers raised with an unsual accuracy the problem of latency. Artist are really sensitive to the delay due to latency (response time of interactive devices). A practicle application was that after working with dancers who had particuliar requisits about latency, the developpers could propose an interresting tool to EDF (french company providing electicity) for the training of emmployees working inside nuclear stations.
So one can capitalise the acquired experience.
The other advantage for a researcher is the determination of new research fields due to the artists' expectations and requests. Artists says T. Château have a different approach and imply for the computer scientist to look at things under a new light.
The « Institut Pascal welcomes two artists and one ergonomist in its teams to develop projects embeded in its research program.
This opportunity values the suggested action n°3
I also had a very interesting collaboration with Delcom Company (Germany) in the eighties, this company producing dynamic digital videowall systems invited artists to perform on its product. They said that « artists are the Formula 1 of our system, they raise problems we have to solve, which leads us to improve our system. Artist imagine situations we didn't anticipate, they propose other ways of using the devices we produce. » [JD]

6) Suggested action 6
Organize meetings, seminars involving major or local industrials, in order to developp with the support of ministry, local administration, chamber of commerce, the commitments of the industrial and financial sectors to transdisciplinary projects.
In these sessions, each participant (provider, scientist, artist, engineer") could propose his own research project. Then these projects, specificaly defined by a person, would be in turn rephrased by others. So within this appropriation logic, the exchange could really begin. [JD]

 
Interdisciplinary Courses, Positions, Phd, In Italy
Michele Emmer [ME]


1) Action #1:  Web site and Visibility
 I agree with the proposed Action #1 of K. Evans [11] that cross-disciplinary art- science humanities researchers are isolated and have no knowledge of what is going on in the world. So the first thing is to create a well done website so to maximize the diffusion of all possible information's, on interdisciplinary courses, masters, degrees, on the curricula, on books (with possible reviews), articles, journals, conferences, meetings, novels, films, plays in theatre.
It will be essential to have a website where it is possible to exchange ideas, experiences. [ME]

2) Action #2: exchange of experience
To encourage the exchange of professors and students to participate in interdisciplinary experiences in different countries. It is clear that it is easier among European countries using the program ERASMUS, more complicated between Europe and non-European states for obvious reasons of cost. In the website an essential part must be dedicated to all possible opportunities of exchange of professors and students. [ME]

3) Action #3 promote new interdisciplinary researches
To use Leonardo and a new website for suggestions for new interdisciplinary courses and researches. I believe that the contact between different universities and research teams in order to obtain funds from ESF (European Science Foundation) and similar institutions in other countries is essential. A program of research to be presented by researchers and artists who are linked to the network of Leonardo for proposals for new research and exhibitions to be presented in conjunction with the European community, the NSF and other similar bodies.
Interdisciplinary projects that will lead to the realization of exhibitions, interdisciplinary conferences, screenings of films that have interdisciplinary interest to motivate younger students to learn in an interdisciplinary way.
Ask all researchers and artists involved in the SEAD to start a formal request to initiate exchanges of students and researchers for short periods. With regard to mathematics and art, there are various associations, various annual conferences, that can be contacted. [ME]

4) Action #4 new book series
Start creating interdisciplinary series of publications not only at a research level but also for graduate and undergraduate courses. Not only the Leonardo book series. For mathematics and art and architecture there are already the series by Springer verlag "Mathematics and Culture", "Imagine Math", and by Birkhäuser "Mathematics and architecture" [ME]
 
Between Barriers and Prospects: Merging Art Performance and Engineering in Mobile Music Education and Research
Georg Essl [GE]

1) Obstacle 1: Heterogeneity and closedness of commodity platforms that are suitable for open creative expression in the marketplace.
Suggested Action 1: Advocacy with mobile platform industry to offer openness and free content creation on their devices along with efforts to standardize or support crossplatform content exchange. [GE]
2) Obstacle 2: Lacking unified forum for open exchange and archival access of SEAD art and products.
Suggested Action 2: Efforts for creating open access archival platforms for SEAD mobile art products that may or may not be commodified. In particular library function should be extended to allow for the archiving and delivery of interactive and performative content, which could be in the form of apps or dynamic online content. [GE]
3) Obstacle 3: Academic participation in shaping the mobile platform space to allow open innovation for SEAD research and artistic engagement.
Suggested Action 3: Develop funding initiatives with NSF that target the mobile platform and foster research that create acceleration of SEAD in broad public use. [GE]
Breaking Down The Silos: Curriculum Development As A Tool For Crossing Disciplines In The Arts, Sciences And Humanities
Kathryn Evans [KE]

1) Suggested Action #1:  Networking and VisibilityTo date, no comprehensive inventory or study of cross-disciplinary course curriculum has been conducted.  The current website invites contributions in order to expand the listings.  A call for courses can be initiated through the College Art Association (http://www.collegeart.org/) and other networking organizations in the arts and sciences such as the Art & Science Collaborations, Inc.(http://www.asci.org/).  In order to attract submissions from Europe, international organizations like YASMIN (http://www2.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/) could be contacted.  A new call for courses should be initiated through SEAD (Network for Sciences, Engineering, Arts and Design, http://sead.viz.tamu.edu/).  A proper and extensive survey of such curriculum would encourage faculty members in art and science disciplines to offer such courses and collaborate with other faculty in complementary areas.
Barrier:  Cross-disciplinary art-science-humanities instructors are isolated and often work with no knowledge of best practices, other instructors and courses, and possible collaborations.
Target:  Instructors of cross-disciplinary curricula
Solution:  Networking and Visibility
Suggested actions:  A dedicated website, designed to assist instructors with information about other curricula, including a cloud-based syllabi resource, a blog for communication, links to best practices in interdisciplinary curriculum; and announcements of international conferences in art-science-humanities efforts and conferences. The CDASH website could be expanded to include these areas.  This could lead to heightened presence of the website in academic journals and websites. [KE]

2) Suggested Action #2:  Geographical Study of Cross-Disciplinary Art-Science-Humanities Curricula
While many "art-science" papers and studies call for "big" solutions, the "small" solution of art-science-humanities cross-disciplinary coursework at the undergraduate and graduate level could be an important part of a student's education, creating a generation of artists and scientists that will see these collaborations as natural and necessary. Students already live in a highly technological world where they move seamlessly across science, technology and the arts and humanities.  However, we have not yet used current available technology to study where these courses are being offered and in what context.  A study of "informal" art-science-humanities education, with an emphasis on community engagement would add to the overall knowledge of current offerings.
Barrier:  Lack of information about where art-science-humanities cross-disciplinary curriculum are currently being offered and their impact on the educational environment
Target:  Instructors, administrators and funding agencies for higher education
Solution:  Asset mapping efforts of art-science-humanities cross-disciplinary courses and workshops, both formal and informal
Suggestion actions:  An international study that uses asset mapping tools as a way of defining the current "state-of-the-state" and identify geographical nodes and centers of learning.  This could include both formal, for-credit courses, on-line educational sites and local informal courses. [KE]

3) Suggested Action #3:  Integration Through Research
Cross-disciplinary art-science-humanities courses are still rare in most university degree plans and are still not a part of standard curriculum at the tertiary level in both the undergraduate and graduate programs.   Administrators and curriculum designers are focused more on limiting the number of electives to increase graduation rates with minimal time to graduation and hence a reduction in cost to the student.  The requirements for tenure and promotion, course credit, and funding are distinctly disciplinary in most universities.  Cross-disciplinary teaching and research is not rewarded in the current evaluative process. The most effective way to do so would be to foster an environment where cross-disciplinary courses are offered and resources are made available to instructors who wish to teach them.  Further, we must foster research that helps justify the inclusion of such courses into standard university degree plans. This requires substantial evidence that cross-disciplinary curriculum is a valuable part of every student's education.
Barrier:  Cross-disciplinary art-science-humanities curriculum is not seen as valuable in degree plans
Target:  Administrators and curriculum designers in higher education
Solution:  Research and Integration
Suggested action:  A nationally funded research effort to investigate the usefulness of cross-disciplinary art-science-humanities education with an eye towards answering the following questions:  Are students who have taken cross-disciplinary art-science-humanities courses more accepting or interested or explorative of areas outside their majors? Are they more innovative? Can they think "outside the box'? Can they become members of the "Creative Class"?  More specifically, students who are currently taking cross-disciplinary courses should be evaluated before and after their curricular experience to study the effects of this kind of education.  These students are the future generation of scientists, artists and scholars. Until we can demonstrate the clear usefulness of this kind of curricula, it will be difficult to convince administrators and curriculum designers that this kind of curriculum has a clear value and should be included in existing degree plans. [KE]
Learning Computing Through Game Experiences
P. Fishwick [PF]

1)Stakeholders: Educational Institutions (at all levels including K-12), Agencies promoting computing education (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, National Science Foundation).
Opportunity:  Learning computing concepts
Challenge: To teach computing, which has been identified as a national priority given the emphasis in STEM.
Suggested Action: Study the employment of games and game engines for teaching basic concepts in computing such as iteration, branching, recursion, and object orientation. By using games, we are leveraging popular game culture, which is common in the "millennial" population who grew up with console and mobile games. Often the learning of computing within games involves new representational forms for computing concepts. One approach has been explored by Fishwick (University of Texas at Dallas) in a field he pioneered called aesthetic computing. The aspect of this field related to computing in game experiences is called virtual analog computing (ref. http://www.utdallas.edu/atec/docs/virtual-analog-computing.pdf). The use of games naturally leads to interdisciplinary skills required to develop game environments, including areas within the arts and humanities as well as STEM subjects—a manifold direction captured by the STEAM initiative. [PF]

2) Stakeholders: Educational Institutions (at all levels including K-12). Agencies promoting interdisciplinary and trandisciplinary activities (National Science Foundation).
Opportunity: Bridging diverse disciplines.
Challenge: To provide an approach to bridge science and engineering (STEM) with the arts and humanities (i.e., STEAM emphasis).
Suggested Action: Use games as shared virtual infrastructures in which to combine, integrate, and connect different disciplines across the academy from the arts and humanities to science and engineering. Often, disciplines involve research in topics that are distinct and separated from other areas; however, as illustrated by the multi-decade successes of the cinematic special effects and  computer gaming industries, teams based on diverse talents and knowledge areas can work effectively together. Some game environments, especially those that are multi-user shared spaces, can be catalysts for this convergence, and a promotion of the STEAM concept. For example, computer scientists can work on algorithms and automation, humanists can identify and create narratives and critiques, and artists can create new sensory experiences. [PF]

3) Stakeholders: National Science Foundation.
Opportunity: Enhanced study of the embodied mind.
Challenge: To leverage the UT Dallas transdiciplinary ATEC center hub, and its new 160,000 sq. ft. space to better understand the relevance of the body to areas of cognition such as language in general, and formal languages (such as those in computing such as data and code), specifically.
Suggested Action: Through the use of experiments and formal methods in social and behavioral science, strengthen current knowledge for embodied cognition (Varela et al. 1992) and "simulation" theories of cognition. To what extent do metaphors involving gestures and body sensations (movement, orientation, tactile sensation, sound) embed themselves in the artificial artifacts found in computing? What are the thought processes underlying modular coding, conditional branching, and understanding of large-scale, complex, data structures? To answer these questions will require scientifically grounded research and human subjects. Where embodiment does play a role in cognition connected with these software artifacts, new forms of representation will be required to leverage, and capitalize upon, the embodiment hypotheses. Game environments provide an excellent breeding ground for the human subject experiments as well as constructing the highly sensory embodied experiences. [PF]
 
CoRE Challenges: the artist in residence programme at the British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence, Queens Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh.
Chris Fremantle [CF]

1) Those managing the residency programme need to engage the biomedical researchers more effectively in the artists in residence programme.  A number of the artists indicated that there could be more dialogue between artists and biomedical researchers.  
One challenge in the current configuration is that the residencies are relatively short and occur once per year.  This may indicate a wider challenge in terms of building up a depth of work in across the disciplines which engages researchers and practitioners in both fields more effectively.
Suggested action: the team delivering the residency programme is exploring the possibility of introducing a collaborative PhD programme which could result in one or two artists working between the BHF CoRE and the ASN programme over a three to four year period.  The existing structure of mutual introduction, open selection and hosting would then be supported.  More generally it may be relevant to think in terms of multi-layered programmes and overlapping projects, rather than stand-alone initiatives.  
The second challenge in the current configuration is focused on perceived value.  The artist in residence programme has been funded as part of the BHF CoRE ambition "to bring cardiovascular research to life".  The value articulated by the artists on the ASN programme is perhaps slightly different, being an opportunity to engage with researchers in a distinctly different field.
The arts certainly have communicative skills and potential (one of the artists ran graphic design workshops for the biomedical researchers to aid them with conference poster design).  
The work of the artists in residence has contributed to changing the environment of QMRI.  The installed artworks contribute to the environment of the building, which is otherwise highly institutional.  
Suggested action: the articulation of the value of activities between artists and research scientists needs to grow a greater level of shared values, or mutually recognised values.  There have been discussions around presenting both the artworks and the biomedical research, each in their own formats, rather than just presenting the artworks in exhibitions and installations.  Perhaps greater solidarity, as suggested by Kester, could be important. [CF]

2)  The institutions needs to unpack the idea of collaboration as a mode of practice.  The current construction of collaboration within the arts is challenging within the context of interdisciplinary work, and there is a need to articulate more clearly a range of different forms of interaction between artists and, in this case, biomedical researchers.  The biomedical researchers also use the terminology of collaborations.
Suggested action: examples and case studies of different forms of interdisciplinary practices need to be developed and be made available to broaden the understanding of forms of collaboration.  Modes of collaboration in other disciplines need to be included within this process.
Note: ASN has secured internal University Challenge Funding for a programme of seminars
involving key examples of durational and collaborative art-science projects.  The seminars will further contextualise the BHF CoRE residency programme as well as explore the modalities of introducing a PhD thread into the programme.  They will be documented to provide a resource for learning and teaching.  This process of building networks will expand the idea of what constitutes art science practices. [CF]
Data Sonification; An Emerging Opportunity For Graduate Music/Sound Design Departments To Expand Research In An Art And Science Collaboration
Scot Gresham-Lancaster [SG]    

1) Phase One:
The specific discipline puts forward a set of data or enables access to a specific real time data flow that the researcher wants to examine. This will require an interview process from the sonification team to more fully understand the needs of the researcher and the very specific areas of understanding that is being investigated. For example: A Geoscientist has a volumetric data set representing a transitional area of geological significance. This can be rendered in 2-d slices or to a 3-d goggle set visually, but sonically the area can be represented as a sound mass where specific sounds represent specific rock types localized in 3-d acoustic space. The Geoscientist in this case would be tasked with supplying access to the volumetric data that  represents the geographical layers in general with the coordinates in three dimensions relative for the specific site in question. This information in many cases can be provided via Excel
sheets as CSV (comma separated value) tables. In other cases, with real time data streams, for example, specific information can take the form of dynamic XML or Json data flows over the Internet in the form of UDP or TCP/IP packets. All these sorts of technical details need to be communicated and coordinated and access to the information must be provided. This requires  the assistance of Computer Science expertise as well.  
Phase One includes these specific collaborators
1 Researcher in Specific Science under examination (GeoScience in the example above)
2 Project Sonifier (Composer-Sound Designer)
3 Computer Science specialist (data transfer and message protocol formatting) [SG]

1) Phase One:
The specific discipline puts forward a set of data or enables access to a specific real time data flow that the researcher wants to examine. This will require an interview process from the sonification team to more fully understand the needs of the researcher and the very specific areas of understanding that is being investigated. For example: A Geoscientist has a volumetric data set representing a transitional area of geological significance. This can be rendered in 2-d slices or to a 3-d goggle set visually, but sonically the area can be represented as a sound mass where specific sounds represent specific rock types localized in 3-d acoustic space. The Geoscientist in this case would be tasked with supplying access to the volumetric data that  represents the geographical layers in general with the coordinates in three dimensions relative for the specific site in question. This information in many cases can be provided via Excel
sheets as CSV (comma separated value) tables. In other cases, with real time data streams, for example, specific information can take the form of dynamic XML or Json data flows over the Internet in the form of UDP or TCP/IP packets. All these sorts of technical details need to be communicated and coordinated and access to the information must be provided. This requires  the assistance of Computer Science expertise as well.  
Phase One includes these specific collaborators
1 Researcher in Specific Science under examination (GeoScience in the example above)
2 Project Sonifier (Composer-Sound Designer)
3 Computer Science specialist (data transfer and message protocol formatting) [SG]


3) Phase Three:
Once the OSC parameters have been set this has the distinct advantage of being fairly selfdocumenting. A typical OSC message may look something like this: /freq 440.032. This is pretty clearly requesting an oscillator to sound at a frequency of 440.032 HZ. Locational information would be express in terms of Cartesian coordinates /x /y /z " /amp for amplitude or what ever was decided on in the design of Phase Two. The real craft and subtlety of this portion of the design work is to take these data flows and working in interaction with the recently codified User Interface, create a palatable if not masterful new acoustic environment that is directly reflecting the data that is under investigation. It is at this point that the real opportunity to fully engage  graduate level student sound designers/composers to create and push forward this new discipline. The opportunity expands as an area where Psycho-Acousticians and well as
Acousticians can become involved in refining and redefining the sound output formats and
interface interactions to make a specific and functional, quite possibly reusable new resource for  each of the participating scientific disciplines. At this point user testing will yield results regarding the efficacy of the specific sound design approach.
Phase Three includes these specific collaborators
1 Project Sonifier (Composer-Sound Designer)
2 Acousticians
3 Psycho-Acousticians (Music cognition specialist)
4 Human Interface Design Evaluators [SG]
 

Diwo (Do-It-With-Others): Artistic Co-Creation As A Decentralized Method Of Peer Empowerment In Today's Multitude.Diwo (Do-It-With-Others): Artistic Co-Creation As A Decentralized Method Of Peer Empowerment In Today's Multitude
Marc Garrett [MG]

1) Suggested Action:
Art organizations, museums and art magazines should promote contemporary media art culture. Inivite emerging artists, art groups to talk about their work. Invite media arts practioners, theorists, organizations and communities to share their skills, knowledge and expertise. This includes national arts institutions, regional arts venues, mainstream art magazines and critical art magazines.
Barrier: Mainstream art world culture is currently biased towards the values of the powerful, whether it is institutional power or economic power. It's evidenced through the tight networks of media, international art markets and corporate sponsorship, and national insitutions. These act as constraints on the resources, ideas, platforms, ethics, aesthetics and technological engagements of a wider and contemporary culture, and also restricts 'possible' connections and exchanges between artists and audiences.
Target (stakeholders): Art organizations, Museums, Galleries, Funding groups, Sponsers, Applied Research Funders, Universities.
Solution: Go and see the work created by contemporary media artists and look at the different sets of values found in their works, tools and processes and allow their artworks to define current trends, ideas and values, and contemporary art contexts. Look at web sites and on-line portals where these art communities are sharing dialogue around their works and the theories being discussed. Visit sites where critics and artists write on the subject of media art and related practices. [MG]

2) Extra Suggested Action:
Art organizations, museums and art magazines, and art institutions should engage in open investigations into grass root initiatives by D.I.Y, DIWO (Do It With Others), and Peer 2 Peer groups. Study their works, support and promote them as part of their artistic programs. They should also invest in the development of these projects (commissions, residencies, conferences, exhibitions and work shops etc). This will decentralize art culture and meet diverse audiences and communties on their own ground. It will also help them to learn about and appreciate the values and benefits of this important work being produced. [MG]

3) Extra Suggested Action:
Make available for distribution at gallery bookshops and art and design colleges, works currently being explored and written by theorists and artists writing about Media Art, this includes software art, art and hacktivism, psychogeography, net art, networked art, game art, glitch art, grassroots artistic innovation, interdisciplinary practices and contemporary forms of art dealing with technology, ecology, and free and open source technology. [MG]

4) Extra Suggested Action:
Government funding agencies, development agencies and policy makers, local and national cultural policy makers, should give their support to ideas around alternative and mixed economies. And connect with artists and arts groups who are working with D.I.Y, DIWO (Do It With Others), and Peer 2 Peer projects. These are dedicated and informed groups creating new forms of shared commons as innovation, concerning climate change and the current economic crisis. Many of these groups are successfully exploiting the technological resources of alternative hardware and software, as part of a growing free and open source movement. Code and art are both international languages, where much of the most exciting and imaginative projects are being explored collaboratively. Jobs, funding and research into these areas will provide a more sustainable culture where groups involved in these practices can produce accessable and inclusive resources for artists, designers, ecologists, students and the public. They can also provide data and case studies for academic research. [MG]
 
Environmental Equity: Enabling Excellence In Media Art And Science In Under-Served Communities
Molly Hankwitz [MH]

1) Suggested action: It is suggested that funding bodies, governing research foundations, and creative institutions such as the NEA, National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Foundation work together with federal technology programs and organizations such as Zero/Divide or the Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program (FCC) and with individual stakeholders such as artists, scientists and researchers (from within developed collaborative proposals) towards the inclusion of robust funding for projects where permanent installation of digital communications technologies and their ongoing support and implementation in the arts and sciences, through software development and research, is a significant criteria for the expression of the artwork, development of scientific study, and ongoing media literacy. [MH]

2) Suggested action: It is suggested that national funding bodies, federal technology agencies, state public art granting foundations, research institutes, and international organizations such as UNESCO"" because impediments to career paths start young, gender imbalances in engineering and science persist, and lowered general participation and performance among poorer or minority communities abound ""be drawn upon to devise funded projects to stimulate solutions to social inequalities "digital divides" and in areas of media literacy and media arts, where minority communities have been shown to require information, skills, and technology for their sustained participation in these fields. In this context, projects in support of gender equality or which close an "age-gap" can be supported. [MH]

3) Suggested action: It is suggested that specifically designed funding and support for action-based and curriculum-centered public projects be targeted to under-served communities where designing for accessible data visualization, understanding locative and sentient media, critical media literacy and other higher level strategies for coping with information will assist in producing and distributing relevant information across communities. Stakeholders might be National Endowment for the Arts, Foundation for the Alliance of Community Media, Centers and Institutes for Digital Literacy, and the National Foundation for Educational Research, or National Research Foundation might all be stakeholders. [MH]
 
And Comparison Of Their Features With Those Of A Longer Established One
Christian Jacquemin [CJ]


1) Opportunity to develop: Cross-disciplinary encounters in an art-science doctoral program  
a) Stakeholders: Universities, Art schools
b) Suggested actions: Promote encounters between students of different disciplines by registering them in a single art-science doctoral program that can accept both artist and scientist students. Organize events for hands-on/minds-on activities involving these two types of students simultaneously. Promote interactions between supervisors in art and-science PhDs by encouraging shared supervision. [CJ]

2) Obstacle: Difficulty in France to create a thesis in art and design based on the Anglo-Saxon model of "practice-based Doctorate"
Opportunity to develop: research and creation activities for cross-cultural PhD support
a) Stakeholders: Universities, Art schools
b) Suggested actions: Widen the scope of the scientific research to encompass issues such as social, gender, minority, disability, aging issues that can build a better common ground for such research than theoretical scientific issues. Define cross-cultural research program in which both artistic and scientific students can find interesting topics to develop. Teach art student scientific research methodology. [CJ]

3) Opportunity to develop: Industrial, scientific, or artistic events around an art-science prize and residency program for diffusion purposes
a) Stakeholders: Any institution hosting art-science residencies and research
b) Suggested actions: Since art-science artistic and scientific productions are often non-standard and difficult to disseminate in their respective communities, it is valuable to develop events specifically dedicated to the diffusion of such works: art-science fairs, art-science festivals, art-science seminars and workshops... [CJ]

4) Opportunity to develop: New public uses around art-science activities
a) Stakeholders: Museums, Universities, Art Schools, Culture centers
b) Suggested actions: Presenting art-science productions to a wide audience can offer a new vision of science to the public and improve the attractiveness of scientific curricula. Art-science productions can be employed to propose and develop new and unique uses by public of recent technoscientific advances. [CJ]

5) Obstacle: art-science development suffers from the compartmentalization of research, the separation between industrial and academic world, from the very selective mode of funding research
a) Stakeholders: Universities, Industries, Governmental funding agencies
b) Suggested actions: Promote support for cross-disciplinary research, consider art as a valid companion for scientific research (for raising new issues, offering new domains of application, and as a user test-bed), develop "creative" industries such as entertainment and cultural industries, or stimulate industrial creativity through art-based management systems. [CJ]

6) Opportunity to develop: Promote scientific education and practice to artists
a) Stakeholders: Scientific laboratories, Industrial laboratories, Universities, Art Schools, Culture centers, Culture Ministry
b) Suggested actions: Offer artists the temporary status of scientific researchers so that they can be immersed in a scientific environment and involved in research projects in collaboration with professional scientists. [CJ]

7)  Opportunity: New Innovative fields of research and creation are arising from boundary fields between many different fields of science with the arts not just information technology.
a. Stakeholders: Universities, Governments, Businesses
b. Suggested Action: There should be a deliberate plan of investment in art-science collaborations emphasizing the very diverse areas of science and engineering, not just computer science and information technology but also biology and life sciences, the physical sciences and social sciences. [CJ]

8) Obstacle: There are many asymmetries in art science collaborations. Artists and Designers are Often Treated as Second Class Participants in Art-Science Collaborations
a. Stakeholders: Art-Science Institutions, Participants in Art Science Collaborations
b. Suggested Action: Artists in art-science collaborations should be hosted and compensated in equivalent conditions to those that scientists have (for instance in sabbatical years, or in scientific collaborations).
c. Suggested Action: Art Science Institutions should seek to weaken asymmetries that interfere with productive collaboration. One mechanism is to have both scientists in residence and artists in residence in the same context and in similar propositions so neither are a small minority. [CJ]

9) Obstacle: There are no established accepted criteria for evaluating Art-Science Collaborations.
a. Stakeholders: Funding Agencies, Artist and Scientists in ArtScience Collaborations
b. Suggested Action: There should be a concerted effort by all those involved in art science collaborations to develop rigorous ways of evaluating art science collaborations keeping in mind that different stakeholders may have differing criteria (eg the filing of patents and protection of IP is important to research engineers, while public audience numbers are important to performing artists). [CJ]

10) Opportunity to develop: Good art-science research has two important features: the technoscientific developments do not conceal the artistic purpose, and the artist is not burdened by technological issues and can instead focus on his creation
a) Stakeholders: Any institution producing artistic events supported by technoscientific research
b) Suggested action: Since the technology should be at the service of the artistic purpose, it must be fully mastered and integrated, possibly up to its complete disappearing to the audience, with the potential difficulty of eliciting its role and justifying its cost.
c) Suggested action: The environment offered at IRCAM for the creation of technological artworks is such that the artists can focus their energy on the development of strong artistic ideas because the technological issues are taken in charge by high potential technicians attached to their project. [CJ]

11) Opportunity to develop: Attracting high skilled scientists and artists
a) Stakeholders: Research and cultural institutions involved in Art-Science collaborations
b) Suggested action: instead of looking for rare experts in both domains, organize working groups made of high-level artists and scientists in projects providing artists with the broadest possible exposure in the cultural scene and scientists in recognized research environments with strong expectations on scientific publications and transfer to the industry. [CJ]

12) Opportunity to develop: Towards a better recognition of the role of artistic creation in society
a) Stakeholders: Research program committees, Research funding agencies, Innovation agencies, Industrial fair organizers, Ministry of industry and commerce
b) Suggested action: Since it is shown in many examples that early artistic experiments in digital media have often been a source of technological innovation usages that have later broadly developed in activity fields such as games, simulation and virtual reality, multimodal human-computer interfaces, multimedia search engines, etc., the role of artistic creation in society should be better and better recognized and supported in particular by academic institutions and research funding programs at national and international levels as an efficient factor of innovation. [CJ]

13) Obstacle: In academic careers, art-science collaborations are difficult to valorize (and also to disseminate in the scientific community). In artistic careers, scientific collaborations are not necessarily considered as positive
a) Stakeholders: Universities, Scientists in charge of evaluation, Funding Agencies, Art institutions, Art critiques
b) Suggested action in science: Take into consideration a wider variety of dissemination vectors than A-ranked journals or international peer-reviewed conferences:  exhibitions in art galleries, art fairs, or museums, non-academic publications (public outreach, art books), live performances in well-renown festivals, etc. Promote art-science curricula for students or cross-disciplinary courses between Engineering Sciences and Humanities.
c) Suggested action in art: Take into consideration the capacity of artists to collaborate with scientists for a better promotion of their work, not through corporate funding or sponsoring, but through the presentation of the unique features of the collaboration together with the artwork. [CJ]

14) Obstacle: it is very difficult to achieve a good art-science collaboration without an infrastructure that supports it
a) Stakeholders: Universities, Museums, Municipalities, Mediatheques...
b) Suggested action: Set-up program for art-science residencies by providing institutions with funding for artists and scientists. Arrange a place for hosting these residencies: a private housing for families and work places such as black boxes, workshops, or specific places inside a laboratory. [CJ]

15) Opportunity to develop: Scientific funding programs, Scientific journals, Scientific conferences, Research groups can accept art-science propositions even though it is not necessarily explicitly mentioned in their scope
a) Stakeholders: Program committees, Funding agencies, Academic staff
b) Suggested action: extend and consolidate the scope of calls (for papers, for projects, for special issues, for research projects...) towards explicit art-science propositions. Propose lists of possible topics in this area. Possibly facilitate the consolidation of such hybrid proposals by offering networking facilities to connect art and science communities. [CJ]
 
Mapping Space: Introducing Geographical Information Systems In Indian School Classrooms
Anu Joy [AJ]

1) Restructuring organization of school classrooms and curricular time
An instructional method that guides children through the authentic inquiry mode of learning calls for a fundamental restructuring of the school classroom in terms of its organization, teacher-student ratio, processes, time allotment, activities, resources, tool use, and also reconceptualization of the roles of teacher and children. It requires design and development of pedagogic activities, content and new teaching-learning materials, professionally equipping and empowering teachers, evaluation of the effectiveness of the teaching-learning strategies and devising methods of implementation of the different components of the curriculum in the classroom. [AJ]

2) Building and sustaining academic support to schools
Developing curricular and learning experiences for school children based on the framework of authentic inquiry practices can find its purpose only when they are embedded in collaborative practices and authentic team work of teachers, educationalists, disciplinary experts, and children. In India, the schools, teacher training centres and university systems are three isolated distinct worlds and the formal organization, policies and practices of these systems reinforce this separation. Improving learning and fostering creative pedagogic practices in schools requires new ways of working in extensive and meaningful collaborative partnerships between universities, research institutes, teachers, educationalists, and children and creating a community of experts to conceptualize and implement a curriculum. A curricular project of introducing GIS in schools requires collaboration for creating resource, evolving content and pedagogy, evaluating of its effectiveness, hardware and software support, supporting teachers and children at different phases of the project and envisioning new possibilities.
What is important is building and sustaining an academic culture and a structured space around schools to interact and engage with teachers and children and creating linkages for dialogue between higher learning centres and school education. [AJ]

3) Establishing a platform that foster linkages between various stakeholders of school education
It is important to develop mechanisms, systems and procedures within a university system that will bring together multiple stakeholders of education to a common forum in supporting school education. One of the ways to achieve this is establishing school resource centres, with supported libraries, at university centres. This will also be a space that coordinates various activities for teachers and children, where teachers can come together to design teaching-learning materials, can access updates on research in education to inform their practices, share knowledge and experiences of classroom teaching and emerge as a community of practitioners. Such centres will design, exhibit and hold exemplary teaching-learning materials and expertise on curricular research. In addition to the above, one of the aims of this program is coordinating summer workshops, monthly programs and vacation internship programs for school children in research institutes with the help of PhD student volunteers to communicate and introduce children to the practices of knowledge creation and culture of research. Such programs for schools and children can be coordinated and conducted on a regular basis by such school resource centres. [AJ]

4) Collaborative content creation
The proposed program envisages a group of likeminded researchers from different disciplines working together to innovate on the Indian school curriculum and pedagogy and guide children through authentic inquiry practices. The expected outcome of the pilot phase of this program is evolving content and framework for introducing GIS in school, guidelines for using software that teachers can innovate and use in their own classrooms, creating local databases of a region working along with children, and trial running the implementation of such a program in schools. This can be achieved through collaborative work and content creation by a team of disciplinary experts working with teachers and children. What is needed is a synergized and concerted effort with research centres pooling their resources and expertise for creating content that provides ample scope for the teacher to be creative and innovate on the basic framework that can be adapted to the specific needs of a local environment and school. [AJ]

5) For SEAD community
A collaborative partnership across SEAD network is proposed in the following areas
a)      Creating local, national and international partnership across SEAD to foster peer to peer research and collaboration to share and exchange best practices, knowledge; also building a shared understanding of what technology enabled teaching-learning means for different countries and regions.
b)      Sharing of experiences of authentic inquiry based teaching-learning practices in schools and learning from exemplary programs aimed at engaging students with real data on research problems that are approached creatively and collaboratively.
c)      To facilitate the sharing of experiences of successful technology-enabled and GIS-based teaching-learning practices that are already in place in the US and other countries, to learn and build on ways of implementation, resource development, etc. Taking examples from successful exercises in the use of GIS elsewhere in order to show Indian schools the impact of this method; also share experiences of teacher training and preparation methods in previously envisioned and implemented approaches.
d)     Connecting higher secondary children across different regions and nations: Creating a virtual space for higher secondary school children to use media to communicate effectively and interact with their counterparts in other countries and regions to know each other, to share and learn from each other about their physical and social world (update weather, climate, etc.)  to solve problems in real time, to share databases/maps created and experiences of collecting and making them, to work together on interesting projects, and to take learning beyond the boundaries of the nations and classrooms.
e)      Supporting usage of FOSS based tools and open educational resources: Since software is the foundation for digital technologies-based learning, we believe in using and promoting Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) that will make use of GIS affordable for schools. Through SEAD we like to network with like-minded researchers and open-source communities, who use FOSS based tools in school projects, enrich, document, and maintain them; also form a forum to share and collaboratively create open educational resources.
f)       Insights on collaboration: Learning from earlier collaborative experiences of networked learning communities. One of the important issues in the Indian context is how ready educators are to collaborate, develop partnerships and make effective use of technology. Teachers are traditionally trained for closed, autonomous classrooms in physical schools. Linking the practice of teaching and learning in schools to a larger collaborative network is, therefore, a major challenge
g)      Creating Information systems and databases: Networking with researchers who are a part of citizen science projects to learn and share experience of creating information systems and databases together with school children. This is a very recent initiative attempt in India. Moreover there are numerous free online data repositories which provide data on topography (DEM), rainfall, temperature, vegetation, population, socio-economic details etc. which can be directly linked to GIS platform and can be explored for the purpose in school classrooms.
h)      Device to measure weather data: One of the main areas of this project that does not have complete technology support is about setting up a model weather station (to measure rainfall, wind, temperature, humidity etc.) in a school and identify appropriate instruments that can be used by children at school level. The long term plan is to work with climatologists to gather information on the climate of a region with the help school children to create information systems on important climate variables. The difficulty faced on this front has to do with developing rain gauge and other instruments that can be interfaced to a computer and that can be handled by school children, to give accurate measurements. We seek support and insights from researchers working in this area towards innovating solutions and developing devices that are affordable for schools.
i)        Working with Government agencies, sustainability, scalability and funds: For any project of this nature to succeed beyond the pilot stages and to extend it to large number of schools, it is important to formulate partnerships with Government agencies involved in school education. We seek insight towards defining a replicable, scalable, and sustainable GIS project model for school children. Finally, sustaining such an endeavor requires funds and budget allocations. We need to explore financial and support arrangements and hence seek suggestions into means for securing funds. [AJ]

6) For private sector
Leveraging Private Partnerships
There are multiple stakeholders who share the responsibility of children's school education, including the private sector. It is important to facilitate a systematic cooperation between school systems and the private sector. One of the proposals towards this is encouraging the private sector companies to adopt schools as part of their corporate social responsibility not only to bring about infrastructure changes; but also supporting curricular improvement and intervention programs. [AJ]

7) For Universities and Researchers
Fostering a climate of curricular research and innovation in India
Incorporating a program of innovative curricular and pedagogic interventions in Indian schools requires advancing avenues for educational research and empowering the role of teacher as a researcher and a guide to children in the classroom. What is needed is a curricular and pedagogic framework developed on the basis of research, that equips the child to acquire meaningful understanding of disciplinary concepts, thinking and skills. The prerequisite for incorporating GIS, digital technologies and innovative pedagogic programs into Indian school education is establishing the right kind of institutions, expertise and positions in university systems for conceptualizing, designing and implementing curricular projects in schools.
Currently we recognize a major gap in these areas and see our work as providing a beginning towards this. [AJ]
 

Hackteria.Org: Nomadic Science And Democratized Labs
Denisa Kera [DK]

1) Suggested Action 1.
Support open science and citizen science initiatives, such as co-working spaces and community labs as well as novel forms of public engagement in science and technology through workshops involving scientists, designers, artists and any other profession.
Barrier: The unclear status of many community labs and initiatives and the perceived tension between grassroots (independent and free) activity and institutionalized and monitored spaces.   
Target (stakeholders):  Grant agencies, Applied Research Funders, City councils, University management   
Solution:  Create a board of advisors representing different stakeholders (citizens, communities, faculty and professional researchers, galleries and artist collectives, grant bodies, city councils), which will take care of the economic, legal and other issues related to the management of such open space supporting interdisciplinary and inter-actors collaboration (Fablab, Citizen science, DIYbio lab or Hackerspace).
Suggested Action: Grant agencies can support cooperation between universities and existing informal, grassroots R&D centres (community labs, Hackerspaces) by dedicating part of the budget to support the infrastructure and the workshops in citizen science labs as a form of "dissemination of research results". Universities could support their faculty in volunteering in the citizen science labs teaching local communities various protocols and supporting citizen science initiatives and workshops. City councils could provide spaces and support related to legal and other issues, which the use of public space in citizen science projects brings (for example when installing sensors), but also in making such initiatives more visible in the public space and connecting them with other publically funded actors (galleries, museums, public libraries). General support of decentralized, open science and open access paradigms. [DK]

2) Suggested Action 2.
Support grassroots innovation and participatory design related to local communities when facing various local and global challenges.
Barrier:  Interdisciplinary activities in the Hackerspaces, Fablabs and citizen labs are often perceived as something geeky, not really useful and without any impact.
Target (stakeholders): Local businesses, Employers, Government agencies, City councils
Solution:  The support of cooperation between research and commercial organisations should also involve the alternative R&D centres and support participatory design strategies in finding solution and developing socially and environmentally sensitive, grassroots innovation.
Suggested Action:  We need to enableinnovation and research outside the academia and industry walls by involving new actors often described as makers, tinkerers, and hackers, but also Do-It-Yourself (DIY) or Do-It-With-Others (DIWO) research subcultures.  One simple way of doing this is to provide access and formulate calls, contracts and bids, job opportunities, which are suited for these alternative R&D spaces: projects supporting resilience, disaster management, or some form of civic engagement in ecological issues, "smart cities" projects, or when deliberation on ethical issues related to some emergent technology is needed. Citizen and alternative R&D labs can literally serve as incubation centres for local communities, where prototype testing goes hand in hand with deliberation and gathering of user feedback and requirements from variety of actors. We need to create opportunities for decentralized and nonlinear value chains and interactions between research, design (innovation), and policy. [DK]

3) Suggested Action 3.
Support research in developing countries, bridging science and technology divides, and formulating more inclusive and interdisciplinary research agenda based on global networks around low tech and DIY protocols and tools.
Barrier: Missing infrastructure, difficult access to information, stereotypes of where research and science is happening.
Target (stakeholders): UNESCO, intra-government institutions, non-profit organizations
Solution: Support exchanges between scientists, artists and designers across the world, connecting them with various local communities in developing countries  (for example a network for graduate students visiting developing countries to teach short workshops or  help local researchers in developing countries. Supporting open source hardware, open data, and open access platforms and approaches.
Suggested Action:
The open source model supports interdisciplinary cooperation across disciplines, but also continents and it creates an alternative network of knowledge transfer, which benefits various communities.  We need to bridge the divide in science equipment and access to scientific publications and knowledge and to enable cooperation by supporting exchanges but also work on open source hardware tools and open access.  We see research in developing countries as more embedded in the local communities and more engaged with the needs of concrete people rather than large scale stakeholders and actors. In this respect the agenda behind the research in developing countries in similar to citizen labs in any other country and there is a natural synergy. Support a network of science graduates and amateur scientists, who travel, share, and exchange knowledge with their peers and science enthusiasts in universities and labs across developing countries.  Support science and art ambassadors who use low tech solutions and citizen science kits to build ad hoc lab techniques and equipment in order to teach and share science protocols with various communities around the world. By connecting communities and labs, oral and indigenous knowledge with scientific know-how, we hope to achieve a disruptive knowledge transfer between various cultures and create infrastructure for a truly global research efforts, which will tackle various issues more creatively but also efficiently. [DK]
 
 Artistic Research Collaboratives in Science, Engineering and Technology (ARCiSET)
Kanta Kochhar-Lindgren [KK]

1) A set of think tanks, or cross-disciplinary research laboratories, housed in a range of US academic institutions that focus on the development of science-art research in the context of international collaborations across geographical sites. (The more ideal approach would be to create the think tanks as an international partnership between 2-3 institutions of higher education.)
The primary relevant stakeholders are university administrators (with related community partners) with a vested interest in new program and curricular development that can take the arts and sciences to its next stage.
The obstacle is the lack of both understanding of the potential and the buy-in for investing in new directions in the science-arts in terms of university-community collaborations in an international context.
The second obstacle is the lack of a language or vocabulary and related set of practices that works across locations.
Co-development of new science-art research can lead to the building of common cause around this type of work. [KK]

2) The advocacy for new funding opportunities with the NSF and various Foundations already committed to interdisciplinary work in the sciences, engineering, and technology but with, currently underserved focus on the role that the arts and culture can play in finding new solutions to the problems that currently face us in a global context.
The relevant stakeholders are the funders as they gain new information about what can be done with their available funds in ways that reaches a larger population.
The obstacle is lack of innovation in funding opportunities. [KK]
      
 
Thinking With Things: Feeling Your Way Into Stem
Sarah Kuhn [SK]

For Faculty and Higher Education

1) Select and create "Things to Think With"
Barrier: In most fields there is no classroom culture of inquiry with objects. "Concrete" thinking is stigmatized because college is supposed to be about ideas and "the life of the mind."
Action: Create great, field-specific examples of object-based inquiry in the classroom. Through research and practice, develop a counter-narrative that demonstrates the benefits to students. [SK]

2) Create on-campus spaces that are ecosystems for learning
Barrier: Most college classrooms are barren spaces, often with only whiteboards, chairs, and computer technology. Faculty move from classroom to classroom and may therefore have a hard time customizing a room.
Action: Create resource-rich lab/studios for learning, perhaps tailored to the needs of a particular discipline or disciplines. At a minimum, equip each classroom with a cabinet so that physical materials can be stored and easily retrieved by faculty. [SK]

3) Create excellent professional development experiences for faculty
Barrier: Faculty generally teach as they were taught.
Action: Create PD experiences that are offer new and revelatory learning experiences organized around engaged and inquiry-driven interaction with objects. Support the development of new curriculum. [SK]

4) Do careful research and evaluation of the learning effects of thinking with things
Barrier: We infrequently evaluate teaching methods and effectiveness, or do research on what works in college.
Action: Create a culture of research and evaluation, of metacognitive discussion of teaching and learning, through on campus teaching centers, classroom assessment, and funding paired with technical support that allows more research and evaluation to take place. [SK]

For K-12 Schools and Teachers

5) Support "arts integration" in academic subjects
Barrier: The arts are being driven out of K-12 by the stress on academic subjects. Students who do not respond well to current teaching methods are discouraged from pursuing STEM.
Action: Leveraging embodied knowing by using aesthetically informed pedagogy can improve learning of STEM subject matter and include more underrepresented students in STEM engagement. [SK]

6) Create great curriculum for integrating arts inquiry
Barrier: Teachers do not have the time to develop whole new curricula and approaches.
Action: Develop curricula and exemplars of inquiry with objects to guide and inspire teachers. [SK]

7) Support teacher professional development, planning, and collaboration
Barrier: Teachers do not know how to integrate the arts with STEM and other subjects.
Action: Provide engaging and effective professional development opportunities for teachers. "Sound Thinking" workshops are one example. http://teaching.cs.uml.edu/~heines/TUES/WorkshopInformation.jsp [SK]

For Informal Educators

8) Create "labs" in art institutions and "studios" in science centers
Barrier: Narrow view of the institution's mission; lack of financial resources for space creation and staffing.
Action: Develop a list of precedents and create a community of practice for informal ArtScience learning. [SK]

9) Create and support "Maker Spaces"
Barrier: Informal STEM education is sometimes quite structured and "hands off." Makers lack resources to create their own spaces.
Action: Maker spaces support self-directed and synthetic interaction with materials, STEM content, and the arts. Promote the creation of maker spaces, a culture of tinkering and STEM inquiry, and validation of the sorts of learning that takes place in such spaces. [SK]

10) Workshops to reduce math anxiety in teachers, parents, and students
Barrier: Math anxiety is pervasive in the US. Teachers with math anxiety may create anxiety in their students.
Action: Workshops that use hyperbolic crochet, fiber arts, creative craft, and other engaging and non-threatening activities can open an effective and supportive pathway into math learning. [SK]

For Funders, and State and National Policymakers

11) Legitimize object-based learning and Maker Spaces by creating funding programs in this area
Barrier: In many fields, a Thinking With Things approach to learning is unusual and therefore hard to find funding for.
Action: Create solicitations that explicitly validate and offer to fund concrete, object-based approaches. [SK]

12) Enforce best practices in program evaluation, and provide funding and technical assistance to grantees so they can achieve excellence in evaluation research
Barrier: Many experiments in new learning approaches are not well studied, which makes dissemination and improvement difficult.
Action: Fund and require excellent education research and assessment. Provide technical assistance so that investigators inexperienced in education research can be successful, or develop a funder-specific evaluation team to conduct the research. [SK]

 
How I Became An Art[Scient]Ist: A Tale Of Paradisciplinarity
François-Joseph Lapointe [FL]

1) Suggested action # 1: Define novel metrics for artscience contributions
Barriers: The quantitative metrics of scientific research are quite different from the qualitative metric of artistic creativity.
Benefits: Develop objective measures of success for artscience projects (interdisciplinary or paradisciplinary).
Stakeholders: Funding agencies; University administrators.
Actions: Find similarities and differences in the metrics used by different funding agencies to determine the performance of scientists/artists. Develop hybrid measures that take into account significant contributions to both fields at once, not just the sum of scientific and artistic contributions taken separately. This may help funding agencies and university administrators making decisions in the evaluation of artscience projects. [FL]

2) Suggested action #2: Assess the relative performance of artscience curricula
Barriers: Impossible to compare different curricula, and assess when is the best time to learn artscience (high school level, undergraduate level, graduate level).
Benefits: Determine if it is best to learn how to do science before making art, how to make art before doing science, or learning both at the same time.
Stakeholders: University administrators.
Actions: Interdisciplinary curricula already focus on training individuals in the arts and the sciences. It is not clear that learning artscience in a simultaneous fashion is better than learning art and science (or science and art) in a successive (and cumulative) curriculum. Using the metrics defined in action #1, the relative success of art[scient]ists trained using different scenarios will be compared. [FL]

3) Suggested action #3: Advocate the role of mediators in artscience
Barriers: artistic mediators have no formal training in science; scientific mediators have no formal training in art.
Benefits: Create a new type of bicultural mediators for artscience practices.
Stakeholders: Funding agencies; Art institutions: Administrators; Artscience journals.
Actions: The paradisciplinary training of art[scient]ists will produce a new type of mediator for artscience projects. It is suggested to engage such intercessors in every project involving a group of artists and scientists working together. These mediators may also sit on search committees for joint artscience positions, on editorial boards of artscience journals, on the jury of artscience exhibitions, on review committees of funding agencies, as well as on the board of art institutions (galleries, museums). [FL]

4) Suggested action #4: Promote experimentation as a common tool for artscience practice
Barriers: artists have no (or little) experimental training in scientific methods; scientists have no experimental (or little) training in artistic practices.
Benefits: Enhance the knowledge of artscience experimentation in a large fraction of the population; improve the general public understanding of art and science.
Stakeholders: Instructors of art for scientists; Instructors of science for artists.
Actions: New courses should be added to science (respectively art) curricula to foster paradisciplinary training of art (respectively science). *I personally was interested in dance while taking a contemporary dance class for non-dancers; that lead me to doing a PhD in dance*. Science classes for non-scientists and art classes for non-artists should focus on the experimental process of making science and art, not only the theoretical aspects; that is, train artists to design and make scientific experiments; conversely, train scientist to experiment with some artistic media. [FL]

5) Suggested action #5: Create residence for scientists in art institutions
Barriers: Lack of funding sources; lack of interest.
Benefits: Better understanding of the art world by the scientists; better understanding of science by the art institutions.
Stakeholders: Art institutions; Art funding agencies.
Actions: There are quite a few programs already in place to host artists in scientific labs (e.g. Symbiotica), but fewer options are currently available for scientists. Funding agencies should create specific "scientist-in-residence" programs to promote artscience integration. Art institutions should be more open to hosting scientists for developing long-term relationships between art and science. [FL]
 
Interactions Among Scientists/Engineers And Artists/Designers In Developing A Common Language And Unique Perspectives On Today's Challenges
D.L. Marrin [DM]

Environmental Activist/Conservation Groups

 1) Approach the natural world (e.g., water, air, land) not only as problematic issues, but also as a model for solutions that can assist in balancing relationships among human interests.  Messages incorporating an underlying pattern or rhythm that appeals to everyone are unifying, rather than divisive.  Explore using the subtle messages of art or music, as well as the more overt messages of statistics and scientific predictions, in reaching a wider range of audiences. [DM]

2) Organize environmental cleanups such that participants observe the spatial distribution and temporal appearance of debris as a means of interpreting where it may have originated, how and when it may have been transported, and how the environment has altered it.  When appealing to audiences, experiment with ways in which pollution or ecosystem degradation can be identified with patterns or rhythms that are different from those of more pristine environments. [DM]

Educators and Educational Institutions

3) Utilize the tools of rhythm and pattern to teach elementary and high school subjects such as mathematics and science, rendering these subjects less abstract to students.  Devise college-level courses that emphasize underlying patterns, rhythms, and fractal-like relationships from both the science/engineering and art/design fields as a means of encouraging students to identify common themes or components and to express those commonalities as a balanced view of nature. [DM]

4) Establish cross-disciplinary courses that examine and compare methodologies employed by artists and scientists in investigating, portraying, and experimenting with the natural world.  Emphasize how the tools and intentions of scientists/engineers can assist artists/designers in their work, and vice-versa.  An example of this type of cross-disciplinary course may be found at the website http//:gsuart.pbworks.com/w/page/7011421/FrontPage. [DM]

Professional Organizations and Organizers

5) Arrange formal links among organizations representing SEAD professionals in order to plan joint meetings and to sponsor virtual or face-to-face forums where the focus is interdisciplinary communication and development of a common language leading to permanent relationships.  Recognize that seemingly unrelated viewpoints on various topics, as well as understandings drawn from different fields, when communicated through a common language such as pattern and rhythm, can yield transformational insights or perceptual shifts in science, art, and design. [DM]

Government Planning/Regulatory Agencies

6) Consult a range of professionals early in decision-making processes and consider the use of mediators who are conversant in the languages of SEAD participants, as well as regulations or planning requirements. Seek out professionals from relevant fields and institutions interested in forging a relationship between scientists/engineers and artists/designers.  Suggest the use of pattern, rhythm, and hierarchical relationships as a way to enhance the communication among SEAD professionals and to demonstrate how understanding processes or devising solutions at one level of management may be scaled up or down to other levels. [DM]

Public and Private Funding Institutions

7) Support projects that present or reanalyze scientific results and engineering specifications in terms of pattern, rhythm, fractal-like structures, hierarchies, or other common elements that can be more easily translated into or from artistic and design works.  Add a funding category to support artists who produce designs that are based on their interpretation of natural structures or cycles and that are directly applicable to scientific or engineering projects in addressing real-world challenges.  Support the expansion of media and technologies that foster communication among professionals via a common language and offer didactic perceptions of the natural world and our challenges with it. [DM]
 
The Cross-Disciplinary Challenges Of Visualizing Data
Isabel Meirelles [IM]

1) Establishing channels of cross-domain communication
The suggestion and ambition of creating a common platform for knowledge exchange is aimed at a diverse data visualization community, including data producers, data designers, graphic designers, computer scientists, analysts, illustrators, etc.
Most of us use visual methods and tools to synthesize information and data. We do that to analyze and reason about our questions and subjects, to discover patterns, to understand structural features, and to communicate ideas and results effectively, etc. However, current methods for data visualization and information design are dispersed and rarely subject to cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange. Individually, all disciplines involved in data visualization advances the research and practice of visualizing data by devising new visual methods, new algorithms, and new design features, etc. Individual research communities share their best practices in domain specific conferences, meetings and journals. Researchers only join other parties out of sheer curiosity or by coincident, and their knowledge rarely overlaps without self-motivated pursuit and communication. For data visualization to advance as a distinct research field we need more immediate interaction and direct knowledge sharing. A common platform for knowledge exchange and sharing of best practices would provide that. Such a platform would not only strengthen research interaction, tool development, and design ideas for data visualization, but also provide valuable knowledge of design initiatives and methods that failed to perform as expected.
            To encourage cross-domain and interdisciplinary exchange we suggest creating platforms including cross-disciplinary meetings, research conferences and workshops, and online open repositories for sharing knowledge of ongoing and concluded research projects, published papers, current tools and method databases, call for papers, etc. allowing documentation, storage, search, evaluation and retrieval of research and knowledge related to data visualization and information design. It will be advantageous if strategies, methods and tools created in a particular field are accessible to other domains. We are a growing community of practitioners in the field of data visualization. Having a common ground and means to share experiences can help advance the field, and further encourage interdisciplinary cooperation and collaboration. [IM]

2) Developing an interdisciplinary common ground
The suggestion of creating a necessary interdisciplinary common ground encourages and emphasizes the desire and need of a common visualization ground at university level. This common ground for discussion and collaboration is aimed at members of the diverse data visualization community in academia.
Currently, few strategies defending or describing a common ground in data visualization and information design exist. New developments of tools and methods tend to be subject to casual and individual demands, subjective design ideas, visual consensus in the particular field, and lack of visual training for the information designer or data analyst. As pointed out in the previous section, the education of young researchers is also constrained to domain specific techniques and students are rarely exposed to or encouraged to use visual analysis methods from other fields. The curriculum, and hence the education of students working with any kind of data visualization, tend to be narrow in focus, leaving any use of untried ways or reasoning up to the individual student. There are several initiatives that promote numerical literacy across all ages and gender: from incentives toward strong mathematical and scientific foundation in K-12 education, to encouraging women to embrace STEM education. But there is hardly any initiative that universally addresses the need for spatial and visual thinking along with analytical and numerical reasoning. The challenges posed by big data and the burgeoning practice of data visualization require us to rethink educating of the next generation of data visualizers at university level.
            With the objective of bridging engineering and design aspects of data visualization, and thereby advance educational settings and curricula, we suggest forming taskforces to trace and outline a common pedagogical approach incorporating visual and analytical, statistical and computational core values and techniques. A proposed common ground and educational basis would include the analytical and data oriented models and methods from computer science, allowing a common language for structure and complexity of visualization systems. From the arts and design, we would suggest  including the perceptual and human centered methods and strategies, allowing for a discussion of form, perspective, and usability. We believe that the basics of these two areas of enquiries and two ways of reasoning can be brought together, enriching the way we communicate in collaborative groups as well as adding skills that can benefit the way we work in either one of these groups. The effort will encourage disciplines to adopt curricula that are domain specific while attending to interdisciplinary pedagogical needs. [IM]

3) Funding cross-domain initiatives
Recognizing the importance of diverse skills for developing effective visualizations means providing resources for researchers and practitioners to come together to reach a common goal, while also pushing the boundaries of their individual domains. Funding agencies need to financially support a holistic solution to dealing with big data, which includes funding a broad range of research areas that approach the problem from different perspectives
There are funding opportunities in place for visualization research that we consider fundamental and that should continue as they help advance the visualization field in general. However, there seems to be a lack of funding for tackling visualization research (broadly construed) in the context of driving, real-world problems. For example, in tackling a specific biological question, the need for, and difficulty of, developing appropriate techniques and tools for making sense of the data should be accounted for in funding proposals. Proposals that include (equal) partnerships between application experts and visualization researchers should be encouraged, with appropriate resources for both fields to advance.
            Furthermore, we suggest providing additional funding for encouraging cross-disciplinary initiatives as those described in suggestions #1 and #2.  We believe that supporting the study of interdisciplinary teams across domains will be needed if we are to define and promote a common visualization platform and educational system. Funding could support, for example, launching selected pilot pedagogical projects to pioneer suggestion #2, as well as for archiving and retrieving research from diverse domains as described in suggestion #1. [IM]
 
Towards A Taxonomy Of The Challenges Within Typologies Of Collaborations Between Art "" Design "" Engineering "" Science "" Humanities "" A Practical Guide
Jennifer Nikolov(a) [JN]

1) Create a comprehensive practical guide that builds towards a taxonomy of the challenges within typologies of collaborations between Art - Design - Engineering - Science "" Humanities starting from and adding to the issues touched upon in this paper in order to facilitate successful collaboration:  Motivations, Method and Methodology, Knowledge Transfer and Dissemination, Definitions and Generalizations, Types of Collaborators and Collaborations. Dealing with issues such as structure, location, funding, planning, communication, commitment, time, ethics and attitudes.
Obstacle/opportunity: centralized practical knowledge about multi-, inter, and trans- disciplinary  collaboration, in particular with Art - Design - Engineering - Science "" Humanities collaborations, is insufficiently documented and or collected. Many individual projects have made reports of their findings. This is an opportunity to create a collection of guidelines that in a low threshold practical formation, may function as an international handbook that can be used as a tool for future  collaboration projects.
Stakeholders: for all (new) collaborators and educators of multi, inter, and transdisciplinary  collaborations, as well for those who initiate, facilitate and or fund such projects.  [JN]
 


Building An Interdisciplinary Research Team
Sile O'Modhrain [SO]


1) Hiring
Suggested action "" Look for deep skills in an area of expertise that is required, but broad interests that reflect the nature of the work to be carried out. [SO]

2) Developing an interdisciplinary team
Suggested action: Develop an appreciation for multiple perspectives and multiple approaches to problem solving within a team. Provide a forum where constructive critique within an interdisciplinary team is encouraged so that other approaches and methods for problem solving can be evaluated and adopted where appropriate.  Focus, particularly at the start of a project, on the development of a shared language that will facilitate communication of ideas between team members from different disciplines.
To allow time for these processes to evolve. [SO]

3) Advising Interdisciplinary Researchers
Suggestion "" To evolve, with each team member, a path or plan for their development as an interdisciplinary researcher.  Discuss with researchers the challenges involved with pursuing interdisciplinary work so that they can make informed choices about how and where to publish and how to approach applying for jobs and gaining tenure.
To encourage senior faculty members who are involved in hiring and promotion committees for interdisciplinary researchers to be informed about work that represents best practice of integrating knowledge from other disciplines. [SO]
 
The Nanoart 21 Project
Cris Orfescu
[CO]

A. Board Members
B. Shareholders
C. General Public
D. External Academic institutions, groups, universities, etc
E. External Commercial businesses, corporations, etc.
F.  Partner / Similar NPO's
G. Artists
H. Scientists

1) Capital Campaign:
1.  Establish financial goals of capital campaign and possible budget (A)
2.  Establish fundraising plans (ie: who to contact and when, fundraisers to hold, etc) (A)
3. Possible fundraising possibilities to pursue:
        a. Local and Federal Governments (A)
    b. Similar NPO's (A)
        c. Universities and other academic institutions.  (A)
    d. Shareholders (A, B)
        e. General Public (A,C)
    f. Commercial businesses, corporations, etc (A, E)
4.  Brainstorm further / alternative sources of funds (A). [CO]
    
2) Content:
1.  Establish bylaws of NanoArt 21 (A)
2.  Determine board members [ie: Director, President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, etc.] and their respective roles. (A)
3.  Identify long and short term goals for NanoArt 21 (A, B)
4.  Determine physical needs [ie: materials, building, studio space, etc] (A) [CO]

3) Curricular / Studio:
1.  Define residential programs and studio opportunities (A)
2.  Pursue art / science collaborations (G, H)
3.  Organize on-line competitions and educational events for k12 students (A, C)
[CO]

4) Exhibitions:
1.  Plan online exhibitions and invite participants (A, D, E, F, G, H)
2.  Plan brick and mortar exhibitions and invite participants (A, D, E, F, G, H) [CO]

5) Space / Equipment / Materials / Supplies:
1. Build studio and exhibition space (A "" H)
2. Secure scientific equipment and contact universities, corporations or the general public for physical donations.  (A, C, E, F)
            3. Secure traditional art supplies [ie:  paint, paper, markers, pastels, etc] and contact universities, corporations or the general public for physical donations.  (A, C, E, F) [CO]
 
Sarc (Scientists/Artists Research Collaborations)
Jack Ox [JO]



1) There are numerous obstacles, but also many yet untapped opportunities inherent to SEAD efforts. Some are general to almost all involvements, while some are specific to the many variations of SEAD collaborations, whether led by universities, corporations, government agencies, foundations, research institutions or individuals. For instance, adequate and appropriate funding or financing is a general problem, while issues such as security restrictions are specific to SARC and its collaborations with the National Laboratories (LANL/Sandia).
Addressing the issues, obstacles, difficulties, opportunities and suggested actions requires detailed assessment, specific to each potential players and sector (SEAD / SARC / artists and designers / scientists and engineers / research institutions / companies / educational institutions / funders and underwriters / communities and society / and other partners and participants). ArtSciLab/SARC's efforts are informed by years of lessons learned, best-practice
experiences, humane insights and creative responses to the obstacles and opportunities of the moment.
Ultimately, it is experience and intent to achieve highest quality, intelligent, creative and
mutually benefiting outcomes of the process and the work that will make a necessary difference.
SARC intentions, experience and fundamental understandings include requirements for:
" Personal rapport and mutual respect among potential collaborators.
" Creative open-mindedness, with complementary skills and understandings.
" Valuation of processes and outcomes with benefits for SEAD partners and for society.
" Ability to undertake necessary long-term, collaborative, cross-disciplinary R&D.
" Innovative funding and investment strategies with: .gov, .mil, .com, .edu, .org and .art.
" Artful example-setting in all aspects of SEAD programs. [JO]

 
The coming of age of a PhD program in digital and experimental arts practice: lessons learned and challenges for the future
Juan Pampin [JP]


1) Roadblock: no access to funding for DXARTS faculty, PhD students and post docs to work in science and engineering labs.
Opportunity: there has been a lot of "abstract" talk about how important it is for STEM researchers to interact with artists (the famous "A" missing in STEM), but for the most part there is a huge misconception of what the role of the artist should be in this exchange. In our experience most of the times science and engineering PIs consider artists as content providers or illustrators of their research rather than peer researchers with a different research methodology which could provide a radically different vantage point to their own work. Therefore its very hard for our faculty to become grant co-PIs for NSF grants or for our graduate students and postdocs to have access to science and engineering labs. Fixing this funding gap could be a major turning point and have a strong impact for interdisciplinary research.
Proposed Action: National funding organizations such as NSF should consider creating special incentives for PIs to include artists as co-PIs in their grant proposals. Perhaps a new "Artist in the Lab" funding program should be created to address this issue. Universities should also consider having internal funding sources for interdisciplinary projects that could allow DXARTS graduate students and postdocs to have access to science and engineering labs. DXARTS has already created an important network of connections with science and engineering labs at the UW to secure access for its PhD students, but for the most part access is restricted and depends on the goodwill of the lab directors or PIs. Having university policy in place that would encourage this kind of access or even fund it, could help make these connections official and access to labs more universal for our students.
Stakeholders: NSF and other national agencies founding science and engineering research, university deans and provost. [JP]

2) Roadblock: no access to funding for science and engineering faculty, PhD students and postdocs to work in DXARTS.
Opportunity: this presents the flip side of roadblock #1. We consider science and engineering research an essential part of what our center does and while our faculty and graduate students are "polymaths", their artistic research methodology differs from the scientific method needed to foster new discoveries in technical areas which are crucial to advance the field of media arts. While DXARTS has enough funding to support its own faculty and graduate students our current budget wouldn't allow us to pay salaries for science and engineering faculty, graduate students and postdocs. Having access to funding for "hybrid" positions could be a major turning point for DXARTS and have a strong impact on interdisciplinary research at the university.
Proposed Action: National funding organizations such as NSF should consider creating special funding programs for scientists and engineers to work in art research centers as DXARTS. A "Science in the Studio" funding program could address this issue providing funding for release time for faculty to join art research centers at least part time and for graduate students and postdocs to have their research hosted in these centers. To mitigate this issue DXARTS has recently created a postdoc position for a computer scientist to work on machine vision in collaboration with our faculty and staff. While this model could certainly lead to some interesting results, it presents multiple challenges including mentoring and supervision for our computer science postdoc, as well as an uncertain career path for him, as usually postdocs in science and engineering are expected to host their publications and grants in research labs within their disciplines rather than in art units as DXARTS.  One possible way to mitigate this problem would be to have our postdocs be co-hosted by DXARTS and a lab at the CSE department, allowing him to have access to CSE faculty supervision and potentially catalyzing collaborative projects between our labs. Realistically, it is hard to imagine creating this kind of hybrid positions with the current university structure which is highly compartmentalized, in particular between colleges (Arts & Sciences, Engineering, etc.).
Stakeholders: NSF and other national agencies founding science and engineering research, university deans, provost and president. [JP]

3) Roadblock: tenure track lines at the university are created within departments and not across departments, and even less across colleges and this represents a major barrier for interdisciplinarity.
Opportunity: it is clear that the university would benefit from more interdisciplinary research, in fact in the last decade the university has formed many committees to address interdisciplinarity but has never implemented any of their recommendations except for some projects within college silos. This could also be a more sustainable hiring model that could reduce duplicate lines in different areas of the university.
Proposed Action: the university should consider tearing down their current silo structures and promote the creation of interdisciplinary tenure track positions in arts, science and engineering. DXARTS could be a great testbed for this kind of new lines as it is already a successful model of interdisciplinarity within the arts (all tenure track positions in DXARTS are joint appointments with other art units). New guidelines would need to be created for merit evaluation and promotion for these new positions, DXARTS could again be a good model for future policy as our tenure cases are already evaluated by an interdisciplinary committee within the arts.
Stakeholders: university deans, provost and president. [JP]

4) Roadblock: funding organizations like NSF are highly compartmentalized into small narrow programs making it quite hard or even impossible to submit applications for interdisciplinary projects.
Opportunity: this roadblock it somewhat similar to the previous one (#3) except that it targets national funding organizations instead of the university. Organizations like NSF have distinct divisions, each of them with its own fairly narrowly targeted funding programs representing the division's goals. The panel review structure within NSF divisions discourages widely interdisciplinary proposals, as the panels that are formed to review the proposals only look at proposals within the narrow discipline of the division. As a result of this narrow structure, researchers don't even bother writing interdisciplinary proposals for NSF until there is agency acknowledgment of the value of interdisciplinary research, and well-established ways of submitting and evaluating interdisciplinary proposals. DXARTS tenure review process might serve as an abstract model for evaluation of broadly interdisciplinary proposals at an agency like NSF. Creating ad-hoc panels for evaluation of interdisciplinary proposals could not only help fund SEAD projects but also change the silo culture of the organization which seriously affects interdisciplinarity in all fields of research.
Proposed Action: national funding organizations like NSF should create special programs for interdisciplinary research with ad-hoc evaluation panels from across divisions of the agency and with external experts with experience in interdisciplinarity. It should be noted that other countries already have this kind of model in place, for instance the FQRSC from Quebec, Canada, puts together panels with international experts from different disciplines to evaluate interdisciplinary applications to their founding programs in arts, science and technology.
Stakeholders: NSF and other national funding organizations.

4) Roadblock: internal funding at the university level for research in the arts is very limited and insufficient.
Opportunity:  the Royalty Research Fund grants (RRF) are currently the only source of internal research funds for faculty at the UW. While this program can be quite helpful for junior faculty to develop their first large research projects, access to these grants is very limited (all the arts compete for a small number of grants) and is usually reduced to a once in a lifetime opportunity. Creating new funding opportunities with emphasis in interdisciplinary projects could be a great catalyzer for new ways of doing collaborative research and help tearing down current silo structures at the university.
Proposed Action: the university should create more internal funding mechanisms for interdisciplinary projects. These funds could come from a shared pool of money created between the different colleges or academic units. Again, DXARTS could be a great success story for this kind of model in the arts, as it was created by a University Initiatives Fund grant (UIF). This grant ""which only existed for a few years"" was created by taxing academic units 1% of their budgets to create a large pool of money for new initiatives. DXARTS, the Center for Nanotechnology and a few other young research centers were created with UIF funds.
Stakeholders: university chairs, deans, provost and president. [JP]

5) Roadblock: permanent space is not available for new SEAD units.
Opportunity:  when DXARTS was created a very limited amount of on campus space was assigned to it. It was soon clear for us that for the program to succeed we needed a large space where we could host our research and fabrication labs so we decided to rent a warehouse off campus. This unit ""called the Fremont Fab Lab"" became the core of our PhD program and we couldn't function without it, but the cost of renting and keeping the the place running represents a huge toll on our operations budget (a cost that larger academic units don't have to pay as they have their own buildings). The university could benefit from having a facility like our Fab Lab on campus, as many more students from other art units would have access to them and the reduced yearly expenses could go to fund research projects rather than paying rent.
Proposed Action: the university should consider moving facilities like the Fremont Fab Lab to permanent spaces on campus. Capital campaigns for the development of new buildings on campus should include square footage for spaces like this.
Stakeholders: university deans, provost and president. [JP]

6) Roadblock: new funding models at the university favor teaching and not research, putting at risk the sustainability of small research centers as DXARTS.
Opportunity: in the midst of the latest economic crisis the UW decided to change the way they fund departments. The new funding model ""called Activity Based Budgets (ABB)"" favors units teaching more students and promotes quantitative rather than qualitative results. Attaching funding to tuition income can be a very dangerous model for research universities, it can generate distorted utilitarian perspectives of small media arts centers like DXARTS as being expensive for the school and not efficient at generating revenue. DXARTS operates on a radically different wavelength, based on a model of education that favors excellence, in which research is the main catalyzer for discovery. Having small, dynamic and path blazing research units like DXARTS should be considered an asset by the administrators, as they are the units that can propel change and attract better students to the university.
Proposed Action: gradually leave austerity funding models behind as the economy recovers rather than keeping them forever. Secure funding for small research units and promote their role of academic game changers.
Stakeholders: university deans, provost and president. [JP]
The Openlab Network Facilitates Innovative, Creative And Collaborative Research With Art, Community, Design, Technology, And Science At The University Of California Santa Cruz
Jennifer Parker [JP2]

1) That National Academies, Administrators at Educational Institutions, and Funders prioritize support for Art/Science centers like OpenLab, as interest and demand by faculty and students across campus is increasing and shows enormous potential both for new discoveries and significantly improved public outreach. [JP2]

 2) That Universities provide larger permanent spaces on campus to foster STEAM learning opportunities through project-based initiatives that are developed and supported. [JP2]

3) That Universities and Funders support creation of Art and Science Studio Research Associate positions to manage facilities and support STEAM research projects. [JP2]

4) That Universities and Funders support increased administrative and outreach support for art/science collaborations to manage the demand for participation and public engagement. [JP2]

5) That these same groups develop professional ways to support cross-disciplinary research, which is currently verbally encouraged but not supported; faculty and graduate students can be penalized if they step too far out of their research foci.  This needs to reworked to support research that includes hybrid practices, co-teaching, and opportunities for migrating and sharing resources with arts and sciences majors that are inclusive, to create meaningful intersections between all the other disciplines on campus. [JP2]

6) That Funders prioritize grants for STEAM case studies to better understand, define, and assess the collaborations of artists and scientists, and that permit arts-based researchers to be PI's alongside their science counterparts. [JP2]

7) That Artists, Scientists, Designers, Scholars, Engineers, and their Professional Associations, as well as Universities, Industry, and Funders develop guidelines to value and prioritize collaborative research as crucial to future innovations. [JP2]
 
FRAGMENTS /EXAMPLES ON SCIENCE / ART / COLLABORATIONS AND THE LOCAL / SOCIAL / PERSONAL CONTEXT
Miklos Paternak [MP]

1) Semantic Proposal
Renewal of existing structures and classification: the structure and scientific classification of the academy goes back worldwide mainly to the XVII-XIX centuries, with some artistic roots. Due to the swift development and proliferation of scientific disciplines the scientific component of these bodies became ever stronger, while art almost disappeared. There were several attempts to (re)integrate art into these societies, but without success. Either it was only symbolic or, as recently in Hungary, it led to a creation of a certain "Art Academy" as a representational body "" with no discernible sense. Academies should revise their existing division systems overall, and create a new division, not for art in general, but specifically for experimental art and artistic research. [MP]


2) Funding
Applied scientific research can turn to any number of sophisticated funding bodies and resources. Artistic research has no established and publicly accessible funding structures. In recent decades several universities have established doctoral schools in the arts offering the PhD/DLA degree. The experiences and effects of these schools could probably provide guidance regarding why and how to create permanent funding for experimental art and artistic research. [MP]

3) Institutions
The first half of the 1990s was a time of new media institutions, with several innovative types of interdisciplinary media center established worldwide. During the last ten years these institutions, using diverse survival strategies, have transformed themselves either towards sizable "industries" of festival- and exhibition-making, or became small-scale NGOs and sometimes disappeared from lack of resources. In any case the innovative, creative character of the initial period was lost or survives only at the applied, profit-oriented level. All the same, contemporary technical developments in all fields allow for a certain reestablishment of such centers, most effectively as a joint institute of universities or other institutions of higher education. [MP]

4) Education
With the computer a new type of literacy arose. This fact is not reflected in education systems (or insufficiently so). [MP]


5) Survey
International, comparative, transdisciplinary research is called for, to explore the production and results of experimental art practices over the last 100 years, as well as the rapid and radical changes in technology from the invention of the first technical image — photography — and the first telecommunications tool, the telegraph. [MP]
 
Fueling the Innovation Economy: Increasing K-12 Student STEM Engagement, Learning, and Career Interest through Integrating Mandated Content with the Arts and Creative Thinking Skills
Lucinda Presley [LP]

1) Suggested Action #1: K-12 Policy Changes
Stakeholders: Education policymakers (national and state legislative bodies, state and regional education agencies)
The Need: Classroom curriculum and mandated tests don't address vital innovation thinking skills needed for national and global economic success.
The Opportunity: Become a primary catalyst that fuels the national and global economies while increasing student content engagement and learning.
Suggested Actions:  Enact policies that place equal emphasis on innovation thinking skills and content learning. Promote and fund the cross-disciplinary integration of arts and design thinking skills, mandated science, math, and language arts standards, and problem-based learning with global outreach to partner with students in other nations. This can be accomplished through teacher education, workshops, grants, research, and the development of a national K-12 Innovation Thinking Center.  This Center would direct, promote, and assess the delivery of these skills. [LP]

2) Suggested Action #2: K-12 Curriculum Changes
Stakeholders: State education agencies and school districts
The Need: K-12 curriculum does not include vital innovation thinking skills.
The Opportunity: Develop and evaluate K-12 curriculum that provides the next generation of innovation thinkers.
Suggested Actions:  Design curriculum that promotes innovation thinking skills while delivering mandated content. Important components of this curriculum are: knowledge transfer among all fine arts and core disciplines, problem-finding /problem-solving, collaboration, persistence, learning from failure, arts thinking, thinking flexibly, inventing, tinkering, and emotional engagement. Engage experts in these fields to assist in the curriculum development. Research and evaluate the most effective strategies as they are developed. [LP]

3) Suggested Action #3: Research
Stakeholders: Federal and state agencies, private funders
The Need: There is a great lack of quality research documenting the impact of arts and innovation thinking skills on science and math engagement, learning, and pipeline attitudes. There are proof-of-concepts models that need to be explored, scaled, and evaluated to determine effectiveness.
Opportunity:
Suggested Actions:  Provide funding to comprehensively evaluate proof-of-concept and best practices models to determine the most effective arts/science strategies that promote innovation thinking, in addition to STEM engagement and learning. There should be additional funding for further development of assessments of these skills within the mandated testing cycles. [LP]

4) Suggested Action #4: Funding for Innovation Thinking in K-12
Stakeholders: Governmental and private funders
The Need: Innovation thinking skills in the US are on the decline, affecting business and the US economy. There are funding opportunities for innovative approaches, but there is a need for funding that directly addresses delivering innovation thinking skills within the public K-12 mandated curriculum.
The Opportunity: Become the driver behind the innovation thinking surge in K-12 education.
Suggested Actions:  Work individually and in partnerships to provide funding and incentives to increase innovation thinking skills in K-12 students. This includes funding for: curriculum development and evaluation, program development that partners formal and informal education, business, and higher education, and strong assessments. [LP]

 
How SEAD Network Can Advance Experimental Economics: A Case Study Of Innovation And Entrepreneurship In Support Of Rural Community And Economic Development
Joan Quintana [JQ]

1) Suggested Action #1: Employ independent private sector company to direct and manage business incubation efforts.
Stakeholder(s): Local Governments, Economic Development Organizations, Economic Development Administration
Obstacle/Opportunity Addressed: Maximize entrepreneurship at the local level. Avoid injecting politics into start-up landscape. [JQ]

2) Suggested Action #2: Fund faculty in residence to work alongside entrepreneurs in rural business incubators like the Innovation Underground.
Stakeholder: National Science Foundation, Economic Development Administration, Academia, Economic Development Organizations
Obstacle/Opportunity Addressed: Overcome barriers to meaningful academic engagement in the local community. Take advantage of opportunities for applied research; foster interdisciplinary collaboration. [JQ]

3) Suggested Action #3: Fund the expansion of the Innovation Underground model to rural communities, creating a growing network of small businesses supporting rural innovation and economic vitality.
Stakeholder: Kauffman Foundation, Economic Development Administration
Obstacle/Opportunity Addressed: Overcome financial barriers to establishing Innovation Underground locations in rural communities that are most in need of entrepreneurial support and yet lacking resources to seed initiatives. Employ proven systems in use by Advent GX and build a supportive network of start-ups, all benefiting from private sector expertise. [JQ]

4) Suggested Action #4: Establish Collaboration Lab at the Innovation Underground showcasing the latest technology tools and making them available for innovators seeking to build new skill sets and engage technology in the marketplace.
Stakeholders: Private industry; manufacturers of disruptive technologies, new software, developer kits, etc.
Obstacle/Opportunity Addressed: Overcome financial barriers that limit start-ups' access to new technology; provide a showcase opportunity for manufacturers who will also gain advocates/sales people in the process. Membership in the Innovation Underground network takes on a new level of value. [JQ]

5) Suggested Action #5: Establish an exchange program to bring urban artists and entrepreneurs to rural communities and facilitate international cultural exchange.
Stakeholders: National Endowment for the Arts, Economic Development Administration, Department of State
Obstacle/Opportunity Addressed: Cultural exchange has long been recognized as an effective means to foster understanding and promote economic activity. By bringing international and urban artists and entrepreneurs to rural communities, the rural community will gain access to expertise and cultural resources that are otherwise out of reach. The exchange will develop networks for symposiums and events in unique locations, such as historic venues, creating intellectually engaging experiences and resulting in economic vitality. [JQ]

6) Suggested Action #6: Establish an apprenticeship program at the Innovation Underground that funds high school student workers who provide technical design and development support to start-up companies under the direction of a qualified professional.
Stakeholders: Department of Labor, National Science Foundation, Private Industry
Obstacle/Opportunity Addressed: High school vocational programs are often effective but lack the resources to provide students with access to the latest technology tools; likewise, project work is approached as homework and thus lacks the intensity and rigor of real work products. Still, many high school students have both the aptitude and the interest in working with technology tools. In rural communities in particular, there is a lack of qualified technical workforce. An apprenticeship program at the Innovation Underground will contribute the development of well trained workforce while creating advocates for technology among students. Furthermore, student labor will provide affordable services to Innovation Underground start-up companies. [JQ]
 
The Importance Of Early And Persistent Arts And Crafts Education For Future Scientists And Engineers
Robert Root-Bernstein [RR]


1) All stakeholders, including legislators, school boards, educators, parents and students, should be informed of the value of arts/crafts to STEM education.
The scientific and technological value of arts and crafts education must be made evident through educational initiatives directed at the voting public, legislatures, school boards, educators, schools of education, parents and students. Each of these stakeholders requires a different type of information delivered in an appropriate medium and formulation (PBS special; editorials; white papers; curriculum revisions; etc.) [RR]

2) An organization should be established to lobby for arts/crafts in STEM education.
An organization that can act as a lobbyist for the scientific and technological value of arts and crafts can educate and influence legislators, school boards, etc. This organization must produce clear position statements embodied in appropriate educational literature and supported by adequate research. [RR]

3) Arts and crafts education must begin early and progress well beyond introductory levels if it is to promote STEM learning.
The best correlate we have of positive impact on science and engineering innovation in later life is an early introduction to arts and crafts. Those people who do not receive early and intensive arts and crafts education are very unlikely to take up an art or craft later in life  (LaMore, et al, 2012; Root-Bernstein, et al., 2013). Moreover, those people who transfer their arts and crafts skills to science and engineering problem-solving are not those with a smattering of instruction, but those who have advanced in an art or craft over many years. [RR]

4) Arts and crafts education must be continuous and sustained from childhood through maturity if it is to have an impact STEM achievement.
Our data show that individuals with sustained participation in arts and crafts with some degree of mastery are much more likely to become innovative scientists and engineers than those who participate in an art or craft for only a few years, presumably at introductory levels (LaMore, et al., 2012; Root-Bernstein, et al., 2013). [RR]

5) Arts and crafts education must be widely available and easily accessible across the socio-economic board if it is to open STEM training and practice to historically disadvantaged groups such as women and minorities (Lownds, et al., 2010).
 Our data (Root-Bernstein, et al., 2013) and that of Catterall (2010) suggest that arts-and-crafts training levels the playing field for individuals from low socio-economic backgrounds, making them much more likely to succeed in science and engineering professions and to return the investment society makes in them by inventing patents and founding new companies. [RR]

6) Arts and crafts education designed to promote STEM education must be supported not only in schools but also through community programs, formal and informal mentoring, arts-related business initiatives and the out-reach programs of museums, symphonies and other public arts institutions.
Our data show that arts and crafts education occurs as frequently outside of school systems as in them and therefore must be viewed as a synergistic system. Such a system of mutually supportive organizations can provide exposure to a variety of arts in a variety of venues as well as access to training, materials, exhibition and performance spaces at near-professional levels for those sustaining avocational arts interests and practice (Root-Bernstein, et al., 2013). Everyone from business people to arts and crafts entrepreneurs and independent music and performance teachers have a stake in this system. [RR]

7) Arts and crafts must be placed on a par with language skills, mathematics and sciences in school and university curricula because the arts train equally important skills and convey equally important knowledge (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999 and references provided above).
          Everyone desiring to improve our student's capacity for creativity and innovation is a stakeholder in this change. [RR]

8) Arts and crafts teachers must be granted the same status as language, mathematics and science teachers, and equivalent amounts of time in the school day to work with their students (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999).
            Teachers are the main stakeholders in this suggested action. Without this change in the system, the changes in the curriculum necessary to promote arts-assisted STEM innovations cannot be implemented. [RR]

9) Arts and crafts education should emphasize the universal processes of invention in addition to the acquisition of specific disciplinary knowledge (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999).
Creative thinking partakes of both domain general and domain specific processes involving, respectively, generative and compositional stages of thought and action (Sternberg, et al., 2004). [RR]

10) Arts and crafts education should emphasize the intuitive and imaginative skills necessary to foster invention.
The current education system tends to confuse the means by which we communicate (languages, mathematics, pictures, sounds, movements) with the ways in which we think and create. Creative thinking actually begins for people in all disciplines with pre-verbal sensations, emotions, visions, body feelings and tensions that are explored and exploited by artists and craftspeople of all sorts (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999).  We must teach our students how to use these emotions, feelings and sensations if we wish to nurture their creative capacities. [RR]

11) Arts and crafts education should be integrated into the general curriculum by using a common descriptive language for creative and innovative processes.
The 13 "tools for thinking" as described by Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein (1999) provide a basic vocabulary that can be used by students, teachers and parents in an integrated and mutually reinforcing manner. [RR]

12) Arts and crafts education, while developing necessary disciplinary skills and knowledge, should emphasize the trans-disciplinary nature of those skills and knowledge in order to promote skill and knowledge transfer to science and engineering practices (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999).
It is a well-established pedagogical principle that knowledge transfer is promoted by teaching students that their knowledge CAN be transferred. Observing, for instance, can be taught in an art or dance class and explicitly transferred for use in a biology class. Patterning can be developed in a painting or music class and applied in a math class. In this way arts and crafts education can be integrated into existing educational curricula, improving them and making them more efficient (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999). [RR]

13) Arts and crafts education should focus on the experiences of individuals and institutions notably bridging disciplines as exemplars of the trans-disciplinary nature of innovation (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999).
Providing explicit examples of how polymathic individuals such as Leonardo da Vinci have managed skill and knowledge transfer is likely to be particularly effective. [RR]

14) Further research is necessary to establish that the hands-on practice of arts and crafts improves STEM education outcomes such as improved standardized test scores, graduation rates, enrollment in STEM majors in college, etc.
The National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts, as well as private philanthropic foundations, should be encouraged to fund such research. [RR]

15) Further research is necessary to establish that the value of arts and crafts for STEM education resides in the development and exercise of tools for thinking that encompass observing, imaging, abstracting, patterning, analogizing, empathizing, modeling, playing, dimensional thinking, etc. (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999).
While some studies exist in some STEM subjects for select age groups for each of these thinking tools, the generality of the findings has not been established across all STEM subjects or age groups, nor has the impact of training in more than one thinking tool at a time been investigated. Once again, the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts, as well as private philanthropic foundations, should be encouraged to fund such research. [RR]

16) Finally, there appears to be no information about the arts and crafts experiences of legislators, school board members, or education faculty, yet this information is necessary if we are to address effectively the prejudices these groups currently have against arts and crafts in education.
The National Endowment for the Arts and private foundations supporting arts education should be encouraged to establish research programs in this area. Informed outreach to these groups in ways that address their particular concerns may prove critical to the effective promotion of arts and crafts education, not only for the sake of the arts, but for the sake of science, technology, engineering and math—and the future of our society. [RR]

 
Cultivating Artscience Collaborations That Generate Innovations For Improving The State Of The World
Todd Siler [TS]

1) Understanding the collaborator's aspirations and expectations for the project.
Like many spontaneous collaborations, this one just leaped into our lives and rapidly grew—in a self-organizing process—into this relatively unstructured and freewheeling idea-generation fest. And there's a positive life lesson in that, too: It's not always possible to "plan the work and work the plan," to echo that anonymous, idealized directive in business strategic planning.
Our collaboration occurred without any initial planning. In fact, it grew from a series of informal conversations and Skype chats over a period of a few months, sparked by a most unusual awards ceremony at the University of Tartu, in Estonia, organized by the World Cultural Council (http://www.consejoculturalmundial.org).
Before attending this magical event, neither Geoffrey nor I had intended to experiment in merging our professional concentrations. That simply happened. Naturally. Organically. Effortlessly. This intention started to crystallize over breakfast, following an impromptu interview the evening before with Marju Unt, Director of Estonian Euromanagement Institute, and some of her colleagues who were scoping out a program on Art & Science (http://vimeo.com/32380137). We realized we share this mutual passion for advancing innovations that can benefit humankind by posing solutions to our global challenges. Where Geoffrey aspires to actualize the "NanoAdvantage" (Ozin et al., 2009), I aspire to create or develop new art-science-technological innovations to this end. [TS]

2) Understanding the collaborators' sense of what is possible or not in the area of concentration depends on the knowledge base of the collaborators.
When collaborators from diverse fields first come together to work on a project, there are some basic questions to entertain in an informal way that can help them quickly assess one's depth of knowledge and imagination. Given that I was a beginner student of Nanoscience, I had roughly forty years of knowledge to catch up on asap, before I could pose any original, thought-provoking question that was meaningful to my mentor.
Of course, the thrill of learning doesn't get any better than having one of the brilliant pioneers in the field of Nanochemistry teach you using his co-authored textbooks that detail his team's empirical research. This one-on-one guidance certainly sustained my enthusiasm, as I learned the key nanoconcepts that concern, in the parlance of Ozin and his colleagues, the "Materials Staircase" (Synthesis, Structure, Property, Function, Utility) leading to-and-from the "Nanomaterials Staircase" (Size, Shape, Surface, Defects, Self-Assembly, Nanotech).
Without laboring to learn the basics, I would not have been able to glean Geoffrey's challenges. Nor would I be able to offer any insightful questions that we could explore together. [TS]


3. Understanding your shared goal
From the beginning, Geoffrey's goal was to use the arts to help communicate his inspired vision of what he and his colleagues refer to as the "NanoAdvantage." By utilizing various arts-based mediums, including traditional fine arts, new media, art installations and performance art, Ozin aims to engage specific and general audiences worldwide in his thought-provoking public presentations that highlight the evolution and growth of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. We plan to make a selection of his lectures on the NanoWorld and the NanoAdvantage available.
"One can experience the NanoAdvantage for example over the entire platform of material energy systems, where they may be engineered for solar cells, fuel cells, batteries, supercapacitors, thermoelectrics, piezoelectrics; and where the enhanced performance relative to their macroscopic counterparts always goes to one-and-the-same 'heart of the matter,' the NanoAdvantage" (Ozin, 2011 & 2012).
My goal was to help Geoff accomplish his goal with the aid of the arts. Beyond that, I wanted to experiment with the various nanomaterials in my artworks—in particular, the photonic structural colors (Ozin et al., 2009).  I love experimenting with new materials as it often yields many "aesthetic accidents" and discoveries. Moreover, I wanted to work my deepest passion for human neuroscience into our project, because that was most important to me. Actually, it's the hallmark of my artwork and the center of my research for decades: connecting everything human-made to the hidden work of our minds and the brains that shape our creations.
It's important to me that our audiences do not have to immediately understand the science to embrace the art. That deeper understanding and appreciation comes naturally, as viewers learn to seek-and-see in the art the scientific concepts embedded in it. Here, science isn't explained or illustrated. Instead, it's experienced and interpreted as myriad forms of art. Anyone with an open-mind and curiosity can grasp the beauty of wonder and wonder of beauty expressed in the nature-inspired ArtNano innovations. Anyone can experience seeing these artworks beyond categories, and experiment with their countless everyday applications for enriching our lives. [TS]

4) Understanding what the Work of Art and Work of Science mean to you.
One process of innovation and creative inquiry I've been experimenting with since the mid-1970s involves playing with various interpretations of formal works of "Art" and works of "Science" that were characterized as such, I would either add scientific information to the artwork, or subtract information from the sciencework. The net effect was always aesthetically startling and refreshing! The art became science, and the science became art.
Some 36 years later, I find I'm still absorbed by that fundamental transformation of information (data, knowledge, ideas, concepts, events, etc.). It delights me to see how central this transformation is to the phenomena we call "aesthetic experience," in which all sorts of natural ambiguities arise that can't be explained away or described with words and numbers alone. As the mind gropes to grasp what it's experiencing, there are so many "simple pleasures" to enjoy. More often than not, these experiences inspire us to dream and imagine endless possibilities.
In my practice of art making, anything goes because imagination goes with everything! Art is not only what you make, it's what you make of it, too. That same truth holds for those who are open to experiencing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in this open-minded manner. When we allow our imagination to experience things without categories, compartments, and limits, we're able to discover how Art, or A.r.t., encompasses All representations of thought. It's the sum of human knowledge, endeavors and experiences. It embodies everything that human beings can and do connect with, as we link Art to the whole of Life-Reality-Nature.
ArtNano Innovations invites viewers to experience those unpredictable, "aesthetic accidents" that underscore most original discoveries. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, the 1937 Noble Prize-winner in Physiology or Medicine, once noted: "A discovery is said to be an accident meeting a prepared mind." The art here aims to prepare our minds for that unexpected encounter with discovery.
As I discussed with Geoffrey at the outset, I wasn't interested in making a show-and-tell style Science Fair out of our creations. We agreed to create unique "aesthetic experiences" that may not resemble the explicit scientific visualizations we're familiar with. Moreover, the art aims to integrate the compartmentalized worlds of Nanoscience and Neuroscience, among other areas of physical sciences It explores the possibilities of a unified field of knowledge that is quint-essential to human development and the advancement of science-technology-engineering-mathematics and civil society.
Many of my artworks consider unique perspectives on Nanoscientific challenges as seen in the broader context of human/nature relations. They evoke these natural linkages between the Nano-Neuro-World of interrelated forms and processes (Siler, 1990). ArtNano Innovations recognizes the connections between Neuroscience and Nanoscience, highlighting the hidden handiwork of the human brain that is often left out of our big picture interpretations of Nature. Expressed another way: The art embodies nature-inspired ideas, concepts, hypotheses and theories on the creative work of nature and the human imagination that ties everything together in new and purposeful ways. [TS]

5) Understanding the different "learning curves" of the collaborators.
There's always a learning curve in any collaboration, which affects the speed of development and realization of the project. Regardless of how knowledgeable, wise, intuitive, or experienced a collaborator is, it takes some time to learn new concepts and process their implications, and then act on this knowledge intelligently with strategic and tactical plans. I would extend this observation to our audiences, as well. This remains a huge obstacle to any casual viewer's appreciation of these ArtScience productions: grasping the "artistic" dimensions of science, and the "scientific" dimensions of art. Also, there are plenty of curves in the way we try to grasp things by surmising what they look-and-feel like or mean, judging from our limited interactions with them.
I found it was time well spent mulling over the core concepts and principles rendered in Geoffrey's textbooks, just as he delved into learning about my exploratory artwork. It took me awhile for this counterintuitive reality to really sink in: "There are no new nanomaterials. Rather, they are just reconstructed forms of known materials [from the Periodic Table of Elements], which can be sculpted at the nanoscale," as Geoff has written. "All the atomic compositions and atomic arrangements of the materials are known. But it is their physical size and shape and accessible surface properties plus their self-assembly into purposeful higher tier 'panomaterials' with structural features formed over multiple length scales, from nanometers to millimeters to centimeters to meters and beyond that creates, for example, the NanoAdvantage as intimated by this work of ArtNano Innovations" (Ozin, 2011). [TS]

 
Case Study: Cultivating Art And Science In The Petri Dish: The Culture At Work Project
Sherryl Ryan [SR]

1) Action 1:  Acknowledge and value the integrity of artist knowledge, creativity and embodied cognition in collaborative art science opportunities.
Problem: The value of the scientist and the scientific problem under investigation in collaborative research opportunities is weighted in favour of the 'preciousness' of the scientist or science researcher's time, financial and professional value above that of the artist, which can and does compromise true collaborative research. Potential significant value paradigm shifts need to take place across the education spectrum for art science innovation to flourish.
Stakeholders: Artists, Scientists, Universities and Science Institutions, Art Science Institutions.
Recommended solution: To acknowledge and value the artist and scientist as equal contributors in collaborative projects within a framework of financial, intellectual and creative equality.
Suggested Actions: New Art Science Collaborative contracts to be designed for art science collaborations that adhere to principles of equality for artists and scientists for financial, intellectual and creative contribution. A new paradigm shift on the value of the artist and scientist collaboration be introduced to the education system.  New tools should be designed for measuring collaborative and potential value in relation to creativity and intellectual contribution of both artist and scientist. Published work should acknowledge the contribution of the artist and scientists intellectual and creative contribution and the significance of the joint collaborative value. [SR]

2) Action 2: Recognition of the value of the experimental research process of artists working with science content and science collaborations and recognition of the longer working time frame that is required to build partnerships, collaborations and projects from 1-5 years. Financial support for the speculative time frame, collaborative time frame and output time frame and associated costs incurred by arts organisations engaging in art science collaborative projects needs to be acknowledged and. addressed.
Problem: Collaborative art science partnerships and projects require a range of timeframes for quality outcomes and the financial support required is not currently readily available to support the operational costs associated with projects. Annual grants advertised in national and state bodies funding rounds work on 6 month/12 month application and announcement cycles and require future planning that is not conducive to longer research process. Three year ARC research grants are better suited to art science collaborations however these are aligned to universities and are not readily accessible to arts art-science organisations.
 Stakeholders: National Government arts funding agencies, State Government arts funding agencies, City Councils, Philanthropists, Universities, Science Institutions, Art Science Institutions, Artists, Scientists.
Recommended solution: Government National and State agencies and Philathropists to identify and acknowledge the value of art science innovation in the future world problems. Prioritise long term funding specifically for art science collaborations acknowledging the need for experimental and developmental timeframes for true innovative collaboration and partnership building. Acknowledgement of the value of art science models developed through 3-5 year projects as catalysts and currency for art science education frameworks and art science curriculum development across the spectrum of education from elementary school to college. The value of the artist in society would increase through these initiatives and create role models for future Creative Industry and Innovation in the next quarter century.
Suggested Actions: National and State funding agencies set aside specific funding for long term art science collaborations for arts and art science organisations for the purpose of developing long term 2-5 years art science collaborations and projects with scientists and science organisations, universities. Funded art science models and partnership projects be linked across education from elementary schools to college and beyond with the purpose of introducing the artscience collaboration to the next generation of educators, students and policy makers. [SR]
 
Complexity Art: A Pattern Of Transdisciplinary Emergent Properties
Myriam Solar [MS]

1) Problem: Reformulating the artistic discipline and reconceptualizing the role of the Arts in the 21st for a third culture that doesn't exist yet where are integrated art, science and technology.
1.1 Action: Designate an academic transdisciplinary Committee responsible redefine discipline artistic in the field of the Sciences of complexity as art and aesthetic complexity, developing the nature of the object, its theoretical principles and its methodology as well as curricular programs for upper grades that include introductions to the history of science, philosophy of science, the scientific method, principles of the Sciences of complexity, frontiers scientific domains,etc.
1.2 Shakeholder: educational institutions, educators, academies, artist - scientific. [MS]

2) Problem: The current dispersion of knowledge that scientists artists have generated in its approach to transdisciplinary, and, in particular, in the field of the art of complexity, must meet somehow in a virtual centre as the basis for the advances of new initiatives.
2.1 Action: Designate a Virtual Committee which is responsible of reconstructing the prehistory of transdisciplinary labour made by scientists and artists, and especially in the art of complexity, through a specific agenda that incorporates emerging domains, lines of research, profiles of researchers artists with a view to the creation of a Centre of Transdisciplinary Research that should unite efforts, projects and activities in the new direction.
2.2 Shakeholder: New organization as a global platform SEAD or Virtual Global network or agency of new creation consisting of science educators, scientists, and artists. [MS]

3) Problem: Stress discipline between science and the arts generates mistrust and lack of acceptance of artistic work by the Community scientific or vice - versa, generally based on a mutual ignorance of such work where new thinking is how to bridge new strategies of interaction between the complex art and emerging fields with the sciences.
3.1 Action: Create a virtual database as well as a  permanent virtual curatorial space of diffusion on the explorations of borders in the transdisciplinary artistic practice corresponding to emerging fields.
3.3 Shakeholder: New organization as a SEAD global platform or Virtual Global network, or agency new creation integrated by educators, scientists, research centres and artists scientists in emerging areas, websites on the Internet. [MS]

4)  Problem: Characterize and define the new common transdisciplinary space emerging fields and their leaders to connect with scientific experts and centres of research in these fields,  identifying opportunities for the development of transdisciplinary collaborations.
4.1 Action: Creation of a global digital record that incorporates emerging fields, names, lines of research, calls for collaboration centres specialized or scientific, funds for projects, obtaining information from databases created with the objective of bringing together the best talent among artists and scientists in new domains.
4.2 Shakeholder: New organization as a global platform SEAD or Virtual Global network or agency of new creation where the members, educators, scientists, centres of scientific research and artists can incorporate their work, opportunities for collaboration, new ideas, activities, etc. [MS]

5) Problem: How to stimulate not sporadically developing transdisciplinary collaboration in established and emerging areas from art.
5.1 Action: Create support funds that stimulate collaboration continuously and projects opened in emerging areas.
5.2 Shakeholder: Foundations, government agencies, universities, research centres. [MS]

6) Problem: How to deal with the aspects critical to the advancement of the collaboration transdisciplinary art such as methods and tools work in dynamical systems, human-not human interaction, viewing and recording.
6.1 Action: Create pilot projects focused on new methodologies, development of forms of visualization and visual record.
6.2 Shakeholder: Universities, Center for transdisciplinary research of new creation, scientific artists. [MS]

7) Problem: The creation of new avenues and its maintenance need of institutional and financial supports that do not yet exist as the new platform of point 2.
7.1 Action: Provide the necessary institutional and financial support focused on new organization networks.
7.2 Shakeholder: Foundations, science academies, research centers. [MS]

8.- Problem: How to create opportunities for collaborative transdisciplinary development oriented to the creation of new products.
8.1 Action: Maintain a record of seeking opportunities in emerging fields for industrial purposes.
8.2 Shakeholder: Industry, engineers and philanthropy. [MS]
 
Creations of Many Minds: Contextualizing Intellectual Property Issues Arising from Collaborations Across the Disciplines of Science, Engineering, Arts, and Design
Robert Thill [RT]

1) Obstacle: Uneven knowledge of intellectual property rights among students, educators, professionals, and participants in cross-disciplinary collaborations in science, engineering, arts, and design, as well as the general public.
Suggested Actions: Organizations that develop and assess educational programs should take steps to encourage a more comprehensive and assertive approach to intellectual property that takes into account the varying standards and practices of science, engineering, arts, and design.
Also, international organizations and governments that provide educational materials about intellectual property should carefully consider the variety of goals of specific learners, and the diverse concerns they might have, through balanced presentations of the lawful protections of intellectual property rights, the integration of broad and inclusive points of reference in relation to intellectual property, and the neutral use of the subject of intellectual property as an educational tool to inspire creativity and discovery.
We also suggest the development of online resources that include a free tutorial on intellectual property rights. This could be modeled on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research's Protecting Human Research Participants Course, which offers a certification at the end as proof of completion. This course draws on historic and contemporary case studies to teach about risks in human-subject research and how to avoid them. The proposed course would teach learners about intellectual property and how it relates to a wide range of pursuits in a variety of traditional and emerging contexts, including cross-disciplinary collaborations in science, engineering, arts, and design. [RT]

2) Obstacles: Just as artists and designers might not very often consider working with scientists or engineers as an option, scientists and engineers can sometimes overlook the value of opportunities for working with artists and designers in cross-disciplinary collaborations. Science-based organizations are frequently unprepared to adequately accommodate such collaborations, and when they are initiated, there can be both unnecessary conflicts related to misconceptions of artistic research methodology on the organizations' side and a lack of understanding of regulations, privacy, safety, and formal scientific protocol on the artists and designers' side. All these factors can cause missed opportunities for consistent and sustained collaborations that could otherwise be mutually beneficial.
Suggested Actions: Science-based organizations that plan to advance their enterprises should promote awareness of the potential benefits of working with artists and designers in cross-disciplinary collaborations. To support this undertaking, human resources protocols that help ensure success should be developed. These would include enhancing clarity regarding intellectual property, health and indemnity insurance, public-relations benefits, and implementation of cross-disciplinary training for all collaborators to encourage mutual understanding, respect, and successful outcomes. [RT]

3) Obstacles: A conflict between protection and encouragement of developing intellectual property can arise as a result of increased awareness of academic honesty in text-based learning, which can lead to failing to cover technology, audio and visual subject matter, and other forms of expression adequately. A focus that is too narrow can mislead learners and narrow knowledge acquisition. A broader approach can create unexpected relationships and heighten distinctions between plagiarism, inspiration, fair use, authorship, and inventorship in intellectual property and in relation to rights and responsibilities among students, educators, and participants in collaborations in science, engineering, arts, and design, as well as the general public.
Suggested Actions:  Those who are developing intellectual property policies in government, private-sector, and university contexts should identify and integrate linkages that make it possible for science, engineering, arts, and design to be more closely aligned, so as to avoid conflict and exploit opportunities. This would help initiate conversations across disciplines, stimulate a cross-pollination of ideas, necessarily establish cross-disciplinary relationships, and begin to reveal commonalities and unique expertise while establishing more credibility and respect across disciplines.
Local and international governmental copyright and patent agencies should coordinate more actively and develop materials that speak to a range of topics and users' needs that overlap with citation conventions, taking into account not only aspects of property rights and academic honesty, but also proper credits, acknowledgements, and fair use. [RT]

4) Obstacle: Misunderstandings based on different ways of acknowledging authorship and credit in cross-disciplinary collaborations in science, engineering, arts, and design.
Suggested Action: Scientists, engineers, artists, and designers should enter into cross-disciplinary collaborations with an expectation of unique differences, and develop strategies to keep the focus on the collaboration and the learning experience. Participants should be sensitive to contexts and existing cultures, with special care when being primarily accommodated in a cross-disciplinary collaboration. Further, participants in cross-disciplinary collaborations of amateur practitioners with professional scientists, engineers, artists, and designers would be wise not only to share their intellectual property experiences and practices, but also to be perceptive about the impact of doing so, in order not to inadvertently impose their conventions without a clear understanding of their influence and impact on their collaborators' culture. From another perspective, if involved in a cross-disciplinary environment that has prescribed intellectual property conventions, artists and scientists should be able to adapt to circumstances, while also being generous in sharing their own experiences. Cross-disciplinary collaboration calls for flexibility, trust, and respect for the wide range of practices used in acknowledging authorship and credit, along with openness and receptivity to the challenges they might pose to one's values. [RT]

5)  Obstacle: The lack of professional and personal relationships both across and within professional disciplines limits opportunities to initiate and participate in cross-disciplinary collaborations in science, engineering, arts, and design.
Suggested actions: Since personal relationships and mutual trust seem to play a very important role in the success of collaborations, we suggest that scientists, engineers, artists, and designers increase opportunities for interactions between disciplines, and that individuals who are interested in cross-disciplinary collaborations make a concerted effort to enlarge and diversify their professional and personal networks to support their goals. [RT]
 
Sauti Ya Wakulima: Using Mobile Phones To Make The Voices Of Rural Farmers In Tanzania Heard
Eugenio Tisselli [ET]

1) Consider farmers as generators of knowledge. The design of most e-agriculture projects currently being developed does not encourage the integration of local farmer-held knowledge into a larger body of agricultural knowledge. This may affect farmers in a negative way by eroding their own systems of knowledge and traditional social structures. Agriculture is a complex field that requires much more than technical expertise. Thus, e-agriculture initiatives can be made more effective by embracing holistic values that also include social elements and traditional knowledge. [ET]

2) Fully exploit the interactive capacity of mobile media. Most e-agriculture initiatives do not contemplate a multi-directional model of communication, in which every node of the network can be both a consumer and producer of information. Generally, expert information is made accessible to farmers who, only in some cases, are allowed to get replies for specific questions. However, mobile networked communications media have the potential to break this hierarchical mode of transmission, and engage all involved parties in more equal terms. [ET]

3) Deploy highly experimental and innovative e-agriculture projects as small-scale initiatives. One of the key concerns in e-agriculture is the usage of so-called "realistic" technologies, meaning that high-end platforms such as smartphones or data networks should be avoided, because they are not available to the majority of farmers. Despite the fact that robust and reliable digital networks are still largely missing in Tanzania and other countries, and that the cost of devices and data connections can be prohibitive for most farmers, projects such as Sauti ya wakulima aim to explore new possibilities through the innovative and experimental usage of these relatively sophisticated tools. In contrast with other e-agriculture projects, which seek to impact large numbers of people, Sauti ya wakulima has engaged a small group of very focused farmers willing to test new communications technologies. [ET]

4) Encourage the appropriation of media tools and scientific research goals. As we have argued, the appropriation of communications media by a community can lead to its empowerment. Therefore, farmers should be encouraged to not only become users of mobile networks, but also to reshape their usage to best suit their needs. This effort requires adequate training and the design of platforms which embrace open-source values. As a parallel action, we suggest that research projects be designed in ways which allow farmers to lead their goals and share their outcomes together with scientists. [ET]

5) Technical difficulties.
We encountered a number of technical problems. On two different occasions, we had to replace a phone which had stopped working because of extreme weather and environmental conditions. The phone cameras do not focus on macro level and so details of insects and fungus were lost. However, the most important limitations of Sauti ya wakulima are achieving a stable financial sustainability and devising a scheme to scale up the project in order to involve other groups of farmers. [ET]
 

CORE CONCEPTS: A MODEL CURRICULUM FOR COLLABORATIVE CREATIVE RESEARCH IN ART, DESIGN, ENGINEERING, AND SCIENCE
Meredith Tromble [MT]

1) We suggest that a consortium of universities and art schools sponsor a year-long collaborative research project joining researchers knowledgeable in the "science of science" with scholars of art, science, and technology, and information designers, to undertake the scholarly and visual mapping of the themes and paradigms of collaborative art, science, and technology work over the past twenty years. (cf the "Map of Scientific Paradigms," Kevin W. Boyack and Richard Klavans, SciTech Strategies, Inc., from the "Atlas of Science," Visualizing What We Know, Katy Borner, MIT Press, 2010). [MT]

2) We suggest that the consortium present the resulting research and visual map professionally, targeting a cross-disciplinary academic audience by supporting the presentation of papers at the widest possible array of conferences, with the goal of reaching professional meetings in all four areas of creative research (art, design, engineering, and science). [MT]

3) We suggest that the consortium present the resulting research and visual map publicly, targeting widely-read science and art publications and sophisticated general interest publications with images and analysis written for an informed general public. [MT]

4) We suggest that a cross-disciplinary symposium, co-sponsored by institutions recognized to be leaders in each of the four areas of creative research, be organized with sessions patterned on the content guidelines set out in this paper. The proposed symposium is envisioned not as business-as-usual, but as a meeting with a degree of "art" (surprises and challenges) in the form of the meeting. In critical theory terms, the meeting would be conceptualized as a "text" synthesizing research that is also in and of itself, a form of creative work and not simply a "report" on work that has already taken place. The overt goal of of the meeting would be to test and develop the guidelines and address the field mapping research; while the subtext would be to create meaningful, exploratory cross-disciplinary encounters. [MT]
Chaos, computers, and cyborgs. Developing the art & technology practices in Taiwan
Yu-Chuan Tseng [YT]

1) There is now a third generation of Taiwan artists working with digital media. They are becoming increasingly sophisticated as well as diverse in their approach to Art & Technology practices. However, if the energy and innovation of Taiwan's media art practitioners is to be sustained, a consolidated cultural policy at government level needs to be developed and implemented. The current policy ecology of the art industry in Taiwan is not sufficient to support the digital arts move into the mainstream of contemporary culture. It is a chaotic environment with occasional outbursts of energy and big project outcomes visible to the public at various museums and venues.
Even though there are grants from different government departments and private foundations digital art is not consistently supported and the digital arts sector is not seen to be operating as an industry that should attract greater investment for further development. As of 2009 the Taiwanese government is focusing on the Cultural and Creative Industries as an area of economic development, with most of the investment going into manufacturing and design, and cultural recreation and tourism.
In the preface of the 'Transjourney, Future Media Festival' exhibition catalogue, the ministers from the Ministry of Education, Council for Cultural Affairs and National Science Council jointly state that the development of the Taiwanese Culture and Creative Industry is of a primary policy agenda. The integration of Art and Technology is seen as one of the drivers that can elevate Taiwan's economic development.
Museums do not proactively commission, exhibit, collect and provide public forums that encourage the appreciation and display of Taiwanese digital art. Most of the influential Taiwanese Fine Art curators overseeing museum programs maintain a skeptical view of digital art. Museums rarely engage expert curators who have the depth and breath of knowledge required to develop critical exhibitions and thematic discourse on a diverse range of new media art topics, and who can develop education programs for different sections of the public. There is also no sufficient curatorial understanding of the technological aspects concerning the installation and presentation of digital art. Media art exhibitions remain more as one-off showcase events than an on-going commitment on behalf of the Museum industry to introduce digital art to the public. At the tertiary level, increasingly digital art is becoming intertwined with design, which impoverishes the art industry as pure research and pure art-practice become subservient to commercial outcomes.
For the Taiwanese digital arts to become established as a legitimate contributor to contemporary culture the above, and other, issues are to be addressed through peer review, policy development, and the establishment of cohesive linkages between artists, academic institutions, research centres, private galleries, museums and civil services. These local challenges are not dissimilar to other parts of the world where this field of art practice is developing. [YT]
Process Driven Potentials For Interdisciplinary Learning: Ubeats, A Model For Science And Music Learning
Cynthia L. Wagoner [CW]


1) Challenge 1: Pre-service teacher education does not include interdisciplinary examples of multi-modal curriculum with learner dominant connections. (Stakeholders: University administrators, university faculty)
Suggested Action: Programs must be promoted at the university level to encourage tenure and promotion guidelines to encourage collaborative cross-curricular partnerships.  Administrators must be willing to make promotion and tenure guidelines include such cross-curricular partnerships to encourage educators across the university to collaborate. In turn, the artists, designers, humanities, scientists and educators at this level can be encouraged and rewarded for efforts to design new ways of addressing interdisciplinary studies. [CW]

2) Challenge Two: In-service training is sporadic at best and leaves teachers to implement new ideas without help. (Stakeholders: K-12 Administrators and school teachers)
Suggested Action:  In-service training for teachers generally starts at an administrative level, as school administrators are frequently in charge of both in-service workshops.  As such, administrators are in need of in-service workshops to focus on their role in selecting pedagogical ideas that might encourage change within their school's classrooms.  In-service efforts must begin with the administration at the same time as teachers and continue as a partnership effort to effect change.  In-service connections to the university should be forged as per challenge one. [CW]

3) Challenge Three: Without a paradigm shift, collaborative teaching for integrated multi-modal inquiry-based learning is lost. (Stakeholders: University faculty, K-12 administrators and faculty, Pre-service teachers.)
Suggested Action: Schools of Education and Arts Educators must support the suggested actions of the first two challenges by modeling collaborative teaching, encouraging collaborative teaching, and assisting in finding the ways collaborative teaching can exist within the brick and mortar of the public schools with administration.  A dialogue between administrators, teachers, and higher education specialists needs to begin on rethinking the silo mentality as it has seeped into the public school system. [CW]

4) Challenge Four: Research on multi-modal inquiry-based learning is limited. (Stakeholders: University Researchers, Educational Researchers, Foundations and Government Agencies)
Suggested Broad Action: Foundations and Government Agencies need to invest in research to inform the ways in which creativity and cognitive flexibility can be defined and investigated through multimodal inquiry-based curriculum in real time with children in a classroom.  Financial support for research speaking to long-range effects of interdisciplinary instruction and collaborative teaching is needed.  We need brain research and educational research to collaborate on how to promote effective educational reform for the sciences and arts.  In-service connections must be forged to research, and shared with practitioners and political stakeholders in challenges two and four. [CW]

5) Challenge Five: Political stalemates and punitive measures that tie educational funding to testing limit the ways in which needed reform measures can take place. (Stakeholders: Researchers across interested parties, Government and Educational Foundation/Agencies).
Suggested Action: Create a collaborative forum to allow collaboration of researchers in brain science, SEAD, STEM, and other educational outlets to share ideas and create a lobbying unit for educational change.  This is tied directly back to the first three challenges.  We have to address all these areas from every level at the same time to find the tipping point for change. [CW]  
A Study Of Art/ Science Collaboration In China And Hong Kong
Annie Wan [AW]

For Educators and Academic Administrators

1)    Support collaborations among scientists, artists, designers and also experts from the industries. More and more art/ science and media arts labs were established in recent 5 to 10 years, they are mostly linked with famous and traditional universities such as Tsinghua University and Beijing University in China. These labs focus on technologies such as augmented reality, high-end 3D animation, wearable technologies, etc. However, projects and artworks they developed are mainly based on technologies invented by western countries/ adopted by many artists before. As a 'world factory', China has a lot of industries, ranged from heavy industry to nanomaterial manufacturing. Artist Feng Mengbo's Eye Chart is a great example of this kind. He collaborated with Founder Electronics Co., Ltd. and created 2 new chinese fonts. As a consequence, universities are encouraged to work with industries and work as inventors of new technologies.  [AW]

2)    Allocating resources not only researches on technological development but also contextual and cultural development of technologies anticipated. Most of the labs focus on usage of new media technologies and development of courses that offer training on animations, virtual reality, such as Department of Digital Art and Design in Beijing University. While most of the arts/ science labs are developing new media projects, no other organizations is investigating cultural impacts of their projects and its contextual background. Hence, data, either quantitative or qualitative of these arts/ science projects should be analyzed. These researches may focus on issues of their cultural impacts, such as how these technologies affects modes of living especially in Chinese societies, etc. [AW]

3)    Work with the government funded organizations and other universities. China Art Science and Technology Institute (CASTI) is a government funded organization and it is a hub for arts/ science technological researches. Universities in China organize conferences, exhibitions and invite international artists all over the world since 1990s. But they barely work among universities or collaborate with government organizations. Universities should work with the government organizations, such as CASTI as well as other universities. Work/ interested areas of some labs in universities are overlapped, they concern about technological usages on art. Collaboration among these labs will eventually create true transdisciplinary studies of arts, design, humanities and sciences, enhance diversity in research and education. [AW]

For Government Agencies and Other Funders

4)    Scholarships and financial aid schemes for undergraduate students, graduate students, artists and scientists to study aboard. [AW]
 
Learning across Cultures
Roy Williams [RW]

1) Action 1: Develop, and Communicate the Value of, SEAD Curricula
Barrier:  SEAD curricula include disciplines which are creative and innovative, as well as insights and which are applied across cultures and disciplines. However, in the UK in particular, the Higher Education sector has demanded more predictability and more micro-management. So there are few opportunities to develop and use innovative SEAD curricula.  
Target: First and foremost: practitioners, designers and participants in SEAD learning.  They have the most at stake.  Secondarily, administrators and policy makers.
Solution: Tools for Designing and Describing SEAD Curricula
Suggested Actions: Identify and develop frameworks and graphic formats and tools for designing, describing and communicating the value of SEAD curricula. Many of these will include emergent learning.   The 'Footprints of Emergence' is one framework and 'toolset' which has specifically been developed with emergent learning in mind. It should be tested on a wider scale, and developed further.  Others need to be explored too. [RW]

"
2) Action 2:  Theoretical Frameworks for SEAD Curricula
Barrier:  SEAD curricula, by definition, do not operate within disciplinary boundaries, which means they often lack the academic recognition and intellectual legitimacy of individual disciplines, built up over the years.
Target: Researchers, teachers, policy makers.
Solution:  Identify, develop and disseminate relevant theoretical frameworks
Suggested Actions: There are many types of SEAD curricula, which possibly draw on as many types of theoretical frameworks for their design and practice.
These need to developed, made more explicit, and applied and disseminated to underpin the recognition and legitimacy of SEAD curricula, as well as to inform better design, practice and evaluation.
"    The theory of emergence, is one such framework.  It has arisen out of the specific need to understand current developments in in emergent learning, and to inform design for emergence in practice.  It is based on an established body of research in Complex Adaptive Systems Theory (CAST), which already informs practice and research on Communities of Practice, connectivism, and networked learning.  (5, 6).  
"    The theory of affordances is related framework.  It has arisen out of the work on perception, action and interaction, in ecological psychology, based on the earlier work of J.J. Gibson (7).  It deals with the way in which people create new ways of thinking and doing things, in interaction with their environment as a whole, which often includes work across disciplines.
"    The theory of synaesthesia and embodied learning.  The work of Ramachandran on synaesthesia and cross-modality is key to understanding embodied learning, and the use of metaphor and multimedia in open and cross-disciplinary learning ( 8). [RW]


"
3) Action 3:  Develop a Knowledge Bank of Exemplars of Emergent Curricula and Courses
Barrier: Educational policy makers and administrators have little tolerance for cross-disciplinary study, whereas an a small but increasing number of academics and SEAD practitioners are enthusiastically working with their colleagues and professional practitioners in emergent learning. Particularly because emergent learning is not aimed at producing predictability and 'best practice', but rather unpredictable, 'interesting and inspiring practice', and emergent curriculum design is based on defining negative constraints rather than positive outcomes, there is a lack of understanding, or appreciation for the value of, emergent learning.  There often isn't a common framework for dialogue, let alone a working relationship.  
Target: Faculty and collaborating practitioners, administrators and managers, policy makers.
Solution:  A Knowledge Bank and Community of Practice, based on Exemplars of Emergent Learning Practice
Suggested Actions: Create a knowledge bank of exemplars of interesting and inspiring emergent learning and curricula, using a practitioner- and designer-generated, tagsonomy of  for courses and events that contribute to the development and design of emergent SEAD curricula.  Appendix 2 lists and describes several such exemplars.  Further research is needed to systematically identify, describe, and tag more emergent practice.  The current explosion of interest, and creation of new courses in MOOC of one kind or another would be a good place to start.   [RW]
 
Can Art Advance Science? A Hypothetical SEAD Experiment
Jonathan Zilberg  [JZ]

1) Suggested Action #1: SEAD Priorities
Barrier: Relevance to science is a major SEAD challenge. Few if any demonstrated cases exist which prove that Art-Science projects, extended now as SEAD projects, have or can contribute to the advancement of science.
Target: SEAD professionals, government funding agencies, university and science museum administrators, creative industry professionals
Solution: Prove the value to science of SEAD and XSEAD initiatives
Suggested Action:  A nationally funded SEAD collaboration that advances science. In order to convince the scientific community of the potential value of the arts and the humanities to the sciences, proof of the supposition is required. This common argument for the importance of inter-disciplinary education has to be demonstrable. If so future funding and university based programs are far more likely to eventuate as valid institutional and national research priorities. [JZ]

2) Suggested Action #2: SEAD Grants
Barrier: Securing funding for SEAD collaborations designed to test whether art can contribute to science can be difficult. Without funding, experimental SEAD projects cannot attract the necessary collaborators who have the skills and the resources available. Only with sufficient funding can the potential usefulness of engineering, the visual arts and design, the humanities in general, and dance and music in a transdisciplinary project be investigated.
Target: NSF, NEA, NEH, and NASA grant managers
Solution: SEAD grants
Suggested Action: Securing a large scale SEAD, XSEAD. STEM, or STEAM grant for open competition based awards would allow individual SEAD projects that have the potential to investigate the potential value of art to science. If the fact is established that there is no potential for the arts to contribute to science at the theoretical and experimental level, then the traditional argument must be made clearer that the real value of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary education is of a more general educational purpose. [JZ]