Post Script

2/20: We turned in the ERC proposal (yay!).
Fisheries Epilogue: We are close to completing the European Research Council (ERC) proposal, and I kept a few notes along the way these past few weeks that I want to share with readers.

Nothing too startling, really, considering how much fun I had putting it together and working with newly minted PhD, Kathrine Tveiterås.

It was really swell.

We turned in the latest draft to a few folks for circulation, we will knock out the 5 page abstract, and then call it a day. Phew, that was an entire year that I put into moving that forward.

But I tell you what, it would never, ever, have looked so awesome as I feel it does right about now without Kathrine’s help and the folks that came along with her at the Fisheries College, here at U. Tromsø. What a difference it makes working with a team.

I plan to complete a few more sentences right here, in a few days, but let us have a look at what few notes I jotted down along the way, shall we?

Addenda to Epilogue: 2/9 – We (Kat and I) received written feedback from three persons, U Tromsø postdoc Maaike Knol, ERC postdoc Egle Rindzeviciute, Mette Skraastad ERC workshop guru. We then met with Petter Holm and Peter Arbo, senior professors at U Tromsø in STS and critical theory. All of the feedback was instructive and attempting us to move toward a less cartoonish depiction of our object, which in part, was my creation, as way of dramatization. My caricaturization worked okay for a while, but as the proposal came more into focus, everyone wanted more. 
The shocker came when we met with the [Thor]Bjørg[s]. That was hard, I have to admit that. Thorbjørg, in her inimitable politeness, pointed out that the proposal is simply not there yet, and has to be elevated to the status of skipping off the surface of the water.

Bjorg was more blunt. She simple does not want to be bored while reading the first page, let alone anything thereafter. That was hard. I have to admit that.

Kat and I regrouped. We divided up the tasks. Most importantly, I have to and will generate the Synopsis, a five-page abstract of the proposal with citations. I made several travel changes to my trip to Villa Otium. We will see what we can see. Ten days left.

1/17: I met with Peter Arbo at the Fisheries building, to discuss progress on the European Research Council (ERC) proposal. We sat for a little chat on the Q.T., pouring over the ERC draft. He provided valuable advice, mostly, that I have to unpack terms of art. Peter gave advice on the graphic. Graphic #1:
This is the original created by Kathrine Tveiterås. I like this image. But Peter could not read it, and found it static with unnecessary data. So. I came up with a few versions which I sent over to Kt. First revised version: In this next image below, I high light two spheres of activity:
Finally, the minimalist version:



1/15: Tromsø’s a swell town as any. I have the pleasure of working with a research partner Kathrine Tveiterås at the Fisheries building.

And also having coffee at Kaffe Bønna.

1/14: This was my viewshed for the day. Hanging out at the Fisheries Building, I shared a quiet moment of vertigo with myself while leaning over the fourth floor balcony.

A lot of activity goes on in there. It has the feel of hustle and bustle, like a small self-enclosed city of different guild workers attending to their errands.

I worked with Kathrine on the ERC proposal beginning at 12:30PM to 3:30 PM, came home at 8PM, ate, fell asleep until 11PM — procrastinating for several hours, waiting to begin work on the proposal. I committed myself to getting a draft together by next morning (in a few hours). I am going to doodle a bit more on this blog then work till 5 or 6 AM, nap, shower, coffees.

1/13: I worked with Kathrine today, continuing on developing our ERC proposal. It was clear to me several days ago, during the first real session when we decided to work together, that she had developed a better analytical grasp of the overall proposal than either Annamots or I could make out of it this past year.

For example, she notes early on an image of how the project works. Using the words I have written in the initial proposal, she drew a graphic which represents the overall dynamic of intermediary expertise. From there, several days later, she developed a follow-up image, which both tightened the proposal, and added another set of categories that I explained were not characteristic of what I had in mind. Essentially, in this next image below, the work of the persons we have in mind became commensurable with industry.

For today’s meeting she translated her notes, finally, into a graphic image (see above) that we could then examine and discuss as the basis for beginning to develop our research questions. We sat before it for about one hour, while discussing in what way it was reflective of what we wanted to say about what we propose to do and what we think is happening. I almost thought it was perfect. But then I suggested several items of difference, which I demonstrated in a crude drawing.

So. We began with this image, that Kathrine created, seen above on the computer screen.
After a lengthy discussion, we ended up with something akin to this model, seen below. I just created this, and I have asked her to create a new image based on our discussion today, which she is doing now. Instead of sending my own image to her, I plan to share it with her tomorrow to see if she has come up with anything radically different.

1/11: Busy day. Great discussion with Kathrine. We spent a great deal of time laying out the European Research Council proposal. There was at one point, a bridge we needed to cross in order to understand each other’s orientation to the project. It was quite humorous. How shall I put this? It was as if she understood the exact pieces of the proposal and in fact, understood them exactly. But the way that she approached the task of assembling the pieces — it was as if we were involved in carrying out a science project. For this reason, having her on the proposal is the best thing for the proposal, because it is a science project. However, I explained that the way I assemble the pieces, the way the project becomes interesting to me, is when I consider the proposal as an art project. It is an art project made to appear like a science project or made to mimic a science project, to see what science could look like if we created an art project and represented it as a possibility for what science could do.

1/10: I had a great meeting with Kathrine Tveiterås. We went over the European Research Council proposal. She is so Smart!

Katherine works in the Fisheries building, which has fabulous views of Tromsø. In addition to the great view, a coffee room on the 4th floor has quite a bit of artwork by the scientists who work in the building. We began with a brain storming session. She cleverly drew an image of what she thought the project was about. She suggested, if I understand her correctly, that my work deals with the “production of the condition” . Actually, I have an article titled Condition of Market Formation on Arctic Gas Frontier.
Kathrine pointed out what would be good to know: What makes a forecast different from someone’s opinion? What is the description of the knowledge production that results in energy forecasts?

We did this for 1.5 hours, then headed over to have a chat with Geir Gotaas, at the Rector’s office. I wanted to walk him through the project.

Geir gave us plenty to think about. Who we should tie the project with on campus and to ensure that we are touching bases with the correct faculty. Things like that.