LumeNet 2018 was held at Aalborg University in Copenhagen on 16th and 17th August 2018. It was organised by Steve Fotios and Ásta Logadóttir with help from the scientific committee of the CIE Expert Tutorial and Workshop on Research Methods for Human Factors in Lighting.
There were 33 PhD students, these mainly working at universities in Europe but with some coming from as far as the USA and Australia. This shows that LumeNet is an international event. The review themes included non-visual effects of light, road and outdoor lighting, daylighting, subjective evaluations of lighting and interior lighting design. The abstract booklet can be downloaded here. The nine reviewers were Myriam Aries, Jens Christoffersen, Steve Fotios, Kevin Houser, Ásta Logadóttir, Werner Osterhaus, Jim Uttley, Jennifer Veitch and Clarence Waters.
The day before the event some of us met for beach volleyball. Daylight, physical exertion and fun combine to make happier, healthier people.
Photograph by Seda Kacel, Istanbul Technical University
Students presented their work for review in small groups – around 8 students and two senior researchers. An aim of LumeNet is to provide sufficient time for discussion of a project, sadly lacking at many conferences, and thus the schedule allowed each student one hour for their review. A further aim of LumeNet is to encourage participation in discussions: the students at LumeNet 2018 tended to be good at this!
Joffrey Girard (Université Paris-Est) discussed his work on discomfort glare with (from left to right) Scott Fox, Clotilde Pierson, Steve Fotios, Jim Uttley, Yichong Mao, Clarence Waters, Khalid Hamoodh, Sandy Buschmann, and Benedikt Huggins. Photograph by David Kretzer, ETH Zurich.
Finally, I must say thanks to Bertil Svensson’s Foundation for sponsoring LumeNet 2018. With their support it was possible to avoid a registration fee, which is a barrier to attendance at some events.
This was my second LumeNet experience, having also been a reviewer in 2012. As before, I came away feeling that the future of lighting research is bright, because we heard from a delightfully diverse group of students from various relevant disciplines and countries, and with a good variety of research topics. Unsurprisingly, there was also variety in the quality of the work they proposed to do, but each student that I heard from seemed open to feedback and prepared to adapt their plans in response to what they heard. In most cases we -- the expert reviewers and the observing students together -- were able to make constructive suggestions that would improve the scientific value of the finished work. The exception to this was in the case of students who were so close to degree completion that there was little or no capacity to change any aspect of the work except the final conclusions. Even in those cases, I think the student came away better prepared for their final defense and therefore the experience had value for them. In all cases I was impressed by the students' ability to think on their feet and to engage in mature discussion about the work; equally I was impressed by how supportive were the observing students, and how careful they were to make constructive comments of their peers. Reviewing and commenting on others' work is as important a research skill as performing the work itself, so all parts of the workshop provided training in lighting research as a profession.
Dr Jennifer Veitch, National Research Council of Canada, Canada
This year was my first experience as a LumeNet reviewer and it was an enjoyable and productive event to be part of. I do not know of any other forum where PhD students get the opportunity to have in-depth, critical discussions with experts and other peers, particularly in relation to methodological approaches. The range of expertise, knowledge and experiences within the discussion groups made for a rounded and beneficial debate about each of the presenting students' proposed or completed projects. It was clear that most if not all students received feedback that would potentially improve their research going forward, and in informal discussions with students in between critical review sessions, it was also apparent how much they valued the opportunity to have these detailed discussions. The event also may have benefited students in terms of providing experience of explaining their research and methods to people who may not be very familiar with their specific research area. Some students were better able to do this than others, but for all students LumeNet provided the opportunity to develop their presentation and explanatory skills.
Dr Jim Uttley , University of Sheffield
LumeNet 2018 offered me a wide overview of most doctoral lighting research currently ongoing. The ambience was professional, constructive, and friendly. All participants, both experts and PhD-students, were exchanging plenty of questions, answers, doubts, or suggestions. This helped both the students to perform high(er) quality lighting research and experts to give appropriate assistance and feedback. The group sizes for the sessions were proportionally correct for having input from all session participants, and the time reserved for the sessions was sufficient to be able to understand the projects and have discussions without rushing. It is great to see that students, in particular those with limited resources/knowledge with regards to appropriate supervisors, methodology or equipment, can get additional assistance, a growing network, and new inspiration.
Prof. Myriam Aries, Jönköping University, Sweden
I came to LumeNet with some doubts and insecurities about my methods, and left with much more confidence and clarity. So, I must say that for me it was absolutely positive. I will always be grateful for this opportunity
Marta Benedetti, Ecole Polytechnique Fédéral de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland
... receiving feedback on self-research and elaborating on possible answers to the questions that I had in my mind in a friendly atmosphere was great. I have highly benefited from sharing knowledge.
Seda Kacel, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey
The LumeNet 2018 was a great support for my research project. Getting a direct feedback from the world's top lighting researchers was a privilege and it definitively helped to refocus and strengthen my research
David Kretzer, ETH Zürich, Switzerland
This was my second LumeNet experience, and it was as (if not more) enlightening and informative as the first one. I was a bit afraid that since I already conducted my experiments and collected all my data, the discussions might not be useful or might be a bit redundant to me, but it wasn’t at all the case. I got nice feedback on my data processing and data analysis plans, but also other perspectives and opinions on my research project and its implications. The best part is probably to learn about other PhD students project, to be able to relate their project to yours, and to have constructive discussions on how to improve the way we do research!
Clotilde Pierson, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL), Belgium
This event helped me to take a step back and put my research into perspective. It was incredibly valuable to receive feedback of experts in the field and the other PhD students
Maaike Kompier, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
First and foremost, being at the 1st year of my PhD and being not so sure about the path I follow for my study, I arrived LumeNet shaking since the team of reviewers are of the best in daylighting society. With the constructive comments I’ve received, I went back home with full of courage and self-confidence. Plus, I’ve learnt that you don’t bite!
Merve Öner, University of Pisa, Italy
It provides great balance between review sessions –where you get high-quality feedback from experts and peers-, and gathering opportunities for connecting with other students and researchers in a more informal way.
Francisca Rodriguez, Queensland University of Technology, Australia