Bonus: Presentation handout

Posted on 17th January 2025 by Emma Charleston

After chatting with my tutor about the challenges of squeezing everything in within a ten minute window, we discussed the fact that offering a handout might be a nice way of both sharing additional information for those who are interested, and offering a takeaway summary of my research for those who might want to think about it more.

Images of the front and back of that handout are below — it offers a broad oversight of all the ideas that emerged through my resesrch which there wasn’t time to cover in my presentation, as well as an overarching summary of my question, process, and conclusion.

There is additionally a PDF available for download here, for anyone who wishes to use a screenreader or other technology which requires live text.

Posted in Action Research Project | Tagged | Leave a comment

Final presentation slides (and alt text)

Posted on 7th January 2025 by Emma Charleston

I like to design most presentations (particularly those delivered to my students), such that, if for some reason the viewer needs to explore the presentation without me being present to deliver it, they can still gather the salient points from my slides. It can be tough to strike a balance between simple, usable, in-person slides, and slides which are rich enough in content to make sense without personal delivery, but this is what I strive for.

I have created my PG Cert presentation with this in mind, so if you prefer to explore it in this way without my accompanying voice over (which you can view here), you can do so in this blog.

You can also download a PDF version of the presentation here.

Attendance, participation, and collaboration in the undergraduate studio
Emma Charleston
PG Cert 2024/25
Orr and Shreeve (2017)1 describe the studio space as one of the signature pedagogies of art and design — a unique and important aspect of a creative education.
Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. 1st edition. London; New York: Routledge.
(P.88 – 90)
“…the studio helps structure what can and does take place when students learn, and it has been a central part of organised learning in visual arts for more than a century. This space also echoes those found in professional working environments… There is usually no central focus for the lecturer to hold forth, but rather students create a social learning environment discussing amongst peers… Ideally the studio is an active, busy and social place where learning is visible and open to discussion through active participation.”
Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. 1st edition. London; New York: Routledge.
(P.88 – 90)
So why does our BA UXD studio often look like this? (During open access periods)
(Image of an empty studio with a fake illustration of tumbleweed blowing across a desk)
And why is students use of the studio a social justice issue?
It is easier to understand this when we start to consider reasons why students might not be there:
Accessibility
17.9% of UAL students have a declared disability. (Based on ISAs and informal conversations with our current year 1 cohort, we know we at least 10 of our 24 students have some additional access needs).
Is there some aspect of our studio that makes it inhospitable to students?
(According to UAL dashboard statistics, gathered December 2024)
Class/social/financial status
The studio could provide a haven for students, particularly if their accommodation is sub-optimal. But transport costs, or pressure to spend money (e.g. for food/hot drinks) may hinder students attendance.
“…pervasive intersectional class inequality [is] a structural problem endemic to the arts, and society at large.”
Shepherd, C. (2022) Caring to Listen: Developing listening practices to better understand experiences of socially engaged artists from working class backgrounds. (Accessed: 29 June 2024).
At this stage though, this is all just speculation.
It was time to find out more about our studio, and the staff and students who use it.
Time for some research!
Image of a spider diagram with ‘research’ in the centre, and arrows emerging from it leading to ‘student interviews’, ‘staff interviews’, student workshop’, ‘survey’ and ‘observations’. Observations has been crossed out, and there is a note which says ‘Ask me later about why I didn’t do observations’
Staff interviews
All interviews were thematically coded and analysed using grounded theory coding, and various user experience research methodologies. Each interview was summarised into key insight statements and ‘how might we’s.|
Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Third Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
IDEO (2015) The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design by IDEO.org. San Francisco, Calif: IDEO.org / Design Kit.
The same slide as previously, but with a pop up which reads ‘ask me later to show my coding document and why I LOVE this approach!
Staff interview with our studio technician
Students don’t feel or take sufficient ownership of the space, which may result in them feeling less connected and less invested
How might we foster a greater sense of ownership within the space?
Students don’t understand the full potential of ways in which they can use or adapt the space to enhance comfort, enjoyment and learning
How might we make students aware of the potential of what they can do within the space?
Students don’t appreciate the value that collaborative work and discussion can bring, and how working in a studio setting can foster this
How might we help students understand the benefits of working in a collaborative way?
Staff interview with a disability support advisor
Offering students choice throughout their experiences at university is a great way of striving to meet a diversity of access needs
How might we offer greater choice to students when it comes to their experiences in our studio
Students stay at home may be because they feel they have everything they need there, and can better control their sensory environment at home
How might we offer students greater control over the sensory environment in the studio space
The importance of collaboration and peer-learning can sometimes be a ‘hidden curriculum’ that students do not appreciate
How might we demonstrate to students the value of collaboration and peer learning
Staff interview with a neighbouring course leader
When students feel ownership of a space they are more likely to use it
How might we foster a sense of ownership of our space in our students
Comfort means more than just physical comfort, it also encompasses safety, security, support and confidence
How might we explore all different dimensions of comfort within our studio space
Shaping a space around students ‘desire lines’ can make for more successful, functional and well used studios
How might we understand students ‘desire lines’ and use them to shape our space
Next, time for…
A workshop!
I was interested in incorporating participatory drawing into my research, as well as speculative design approaches and fantasy.
Jokela, T. and Huhmarniemi, M. (2019) ‘Art-based action research in the development work of arts and art education’, in, pp. 9–23.
Pauwels, L. (2019) Visual Elicitation in Interviews. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Perrone, R. (2015) ‘Integrating fantasy into the creative process’, in. Conference: The 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, Chicago.
The workshop started by prompting students to draw their dream workspace (Images of students drawings)
Then, students added annotations to their drawings using post-it notes (images of students drawings with post-it notes added)
We then themed these post it notes collectively as a group to determine core areas of interest in a good studio (image of post its clustered under different groupings)
User Experience Design sometimes uses ‘archetypes’1 (a more contemporary methodology replacing personas).
I was curious about whether a methodology normally applied to types of people could instead be applied to types of place — together we came up with four archetypal studios based on their work so far.
Youngblood, M. and Chesluk, B. (2020) Rethinking Users: The Design Guide to User Ecosystem Thinking. 1st edition. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
Image of four different mood boards with images of studio spaces. These moodboards are titled:
Cosy/warm studio
Bright, collaborative space
Functional, bespoke, solo
Natural/green studio
Finally, we reflected on the fact that while everyone has their individual preferences, there may be elements which could allow a space to be more flexible or adaptable to meet different needs…
What might these be?
(A lot of modular walls/booths, apparently…)
Workshop insights and how might we’s
Students highly value comfort in their work spaces, but definitions of comfort are highly subjective, varied and individual.
How might we enable students to adapt the studio space to meet some aspects of their own comfort needs
It was possible to discover some broad archetypal models for ideal studios.
How might we take inspiration from these archetypal studios, combining the best elements of all of them to create an adaptable space
Students tended to socially cluster based on their studio preferences.
How might we support students to build their collective vision of what a studio should be, and empower them to adapt our space accordingly
Student interviews
I conducted a group interview with 4 year 2 students. (Note which reads: Ask me later why I did this as a group, rather than as individuals!)
Student interviews, key insights and how might we’s
The studio will never be as optimal for solo working as (most) students home spaces, and should be viewed primarily as a collaborative space
How might we build a studio culture that focusses on collaboration
Students are excited to socialise and share their space with other year groups and even neighbouring courses
How might we create more opportunities for the different year groups to mix
Students value more scheduled activities in the space, or even just themed times
How might we, taking into account staffing and budgetary limitations, make the space feel like it has more ‘going on’
Survey
Finally, I conducted a short survey1 across all years of the UX course which mostly focussed on the sensory experience of the studio space.
RM.Converse, J. and Presser, S. (1986) Survey Questions. SAGE Publications, Inc,
Key survey insights
The majority of students choose to work from home first…
How might we encourage students to spend more time in the studio, while respecting that it is not the right workspace for all kinds of work
Students comfort preferences vary and it would be impossible to completely meet them all within one space.
How might we make the studio flexible and adaptable to individual student needs
Above all, students (in this survey) want space and not too much noise.
How might we help students find the space and quiet they want
So, I learned a LOT!
There’s loads more discussion of all this, as well as my full research coding linked on the blog.
(Note reading: Ask me later how I analysed my research to develop my intervention concept!)
After analysing my research, I developed a series of concepts for my intervention, and took these to my course leader, so that we could discuss which intervention would be most effective and practical to test
in the time available.
This led us to one clear answer…
Noodles!!
More specifically:
A free hot meal within the space
For all year groups
With the intention of becoming a regular event
(Accompanying bespoke illustration of a pot noodle which lists the details of the first event)
Why?
Meets research findings which show:
Need for a greater sense of community in the space
Food as a key way of building social connections
Desire for ‘vertical’ events within the space
Why might it work?
A reason for students to stay in the studio through into unscheduled time, rather than leaving to get lunch and not coming back (as they currently do)
Student interviewees explicitly said that the one thing that would make them come to an event was hot food
Students wanted more opportunities to socialise across year groups — this is their chance!
So, how did it go? (Note which reads: Ask me later about food as a social justice issue)
Image of around 17 students whose faces have been anonymised, sitting in the studio space eating noodles.
It went great!
Good turn out (mostly year 1 students whose session it followed, some from years 2 and 3 as well)
Popular food choice (everyone was actively enthusiastic about noodles)
Positive feedback
(Note which reads: Ask me later how I gathered feedback from the intervention!)
In conclusion…
I entered this project thinking that there was something about the space itself that we could change which would improve students comfort.
But the fact is, people’s individual definitions of comfort are too diverse for everyone’s needs to be met in the same space, no matter how much hypothetical money we were able to throw at the problem (though MORE space would help)
While most students, absolutely could recommend improvements to the space, they were also pretty pragmatic about what’s possible, or indeed, worthwhile.
As one of my second years noted:
“…I think design is a very collaborative process, and I love that aspect of it. It’s not going to kill me to sit there and have a chat or sit there and work with other people [even if the space is not as comfortable as my space at home]”
The most important drivers for use of the space also happen to be some of the core benefits of the studio, as noted by Orr and Shreeve:
Community
Collaboration
Connection
This is what students want from the space. For almost everything else, their home will invariably be more appealing.
Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. 1st edition. London ; New York: Routledge. (P.88 – 90)
It is hard to artificially manufacture community
But by listening to them and designing repeatable events which actually meet their needs and wants, we begin to foster a sense of community* which will organically bloom the more the students meaningfully connect with one another.
(*Alongside some other recommendations from my research)
Thank you!
Any questions?

That concludes the main part of my presentation, which you can view a video of here.

What follows are slides from my supplementary Q&A presentation, which you can view a video of here.

Slide with 6 boxes, reading:
The challenges of observations
Grounded theory coding
Why a group interview for the students?
Research analysis and intervention concept development
Food and social justice
Gathering feedback from the intervention
The challenges of observations
I initially planned to undertake observational research1, observing both our studio and our neighbouring course’s studio.
However, this did not work out in the end. Why?
Stinkdorn, M. et al. (2016) This is Service Design Doing: Applying Service Design Thinking in the Real World. 1st edition. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. (P120 – 124)
No compatible times where I was available to attend and there was open access time in either studio
Challenges of obtaining fully informed ethical consent while remaining discreet
Ran out of time / felt I may have reached data saturation point anyway!
Grounded theory qualitative interview coding
You can view my interview coding process/document here
Why a group interview for the students?
Student interviews
I conducted a group interview with 4 year 2 students. I did this as a group:
For time efficiency (transcribing and coding interviews takes time!)
More fun/appealing for the students
Easier to schedule
Because I was interested in the potential power of the ‘focus group’…
Focus groups…
“Can stimulate spontaneous ideas and personal disclosures beyond what’s possible in a 1 to 1”
“As participants exchange opinions, they consider their own views in relation to others’—which may encourage participants to refine their thoughts”
Roller, M.R. (2020) ‘Strengths of the Focus Group Method: An Overview’, Research Design Review, 30 October. (Accessed: 15 December 2024).
Office for Heath Improvement and Disparities (no date) Focus group study: qualitative studies, GOV.UK. Available at:(Accessed: 15 December 2024).
Research analysis and intervention concept development
From my research coding themes, I wrote a series of broad recommendations for our course team (I didn’t want these ideas to get lost if they weren’t enacted as part of my intervention)
(Image of the coding themes listed in full, these are viewable here)
Analysis
In order to analyse my research and develop ideas for interventions, I first gathered all my ‘How might we’s’ and the recommendations from my coding exercise together.
Image of how might we’s and recommendations on post-its in Miro. Miro board viewable here
Core themes
I grouped my ‘How might we’s’ according to the core themes emerging from my research, which were:
Ownership / Customisation / Community / Collaboration
Image of how might we’s clustered by theme on Miro board viewable here
Recommendations
I clustered my recommendations according to these themes, to see what intervention ideas started to emerge…
Image of recommendation post-its on Miro board clustered by theme. Board viewable here
Ideation
I summarised the core themes into three key ‘how might we’s’, and developed several simple intervention ideas for each one, based on the recommendations and all other insights I gained throughout my research
Image of 3 key ‘how might we’s’ with ideas clustered underneath them. Miro board viewable here.
Value/effort matrix
I mapped all my ideas onto a value/effort matrix…
Image of ideas clustered on a 2 x 2 matrix, whose axes are high value > low value and high effort > low effort. The High value, low effort quadrant is labelled ‘do right away’, the high value, high effort quadrant is labelled ‘make a plan to do’, the low effort, low value quadrant is labelled ‘Do only if the mood strikes and there’s time’, and the high effort, low value quadrant is labelled ‘dismiss’. Miro board viewable here.
Food and social justice
Our course team have become aware that a small but significant number of students are experiencing food poverty, with some having to choose between feeding themselves or paying transport costs to university.
Image of Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), pp. 370–396), a pyramid whose successive layers are labelled, from bottom to top: Physiological needs, safety, belonging, esteem and self actualisation. Examples of what these tiers mean are provided.
As well as building community within the studio, Noodle Socials also supports some students with attendance more broadly, as they do not have to worry about paying for or preparing lunch on noodle days.
Feedback from the intervention
An image of a whiteboard in the BA UXD studio. On the whiteboard is written ‘Noodle socials: feedback! e.g. how often would you come? Types of noodles? Suggestions for how to run it? Things you like? Things that could improve? Day of the week?’ One student has written ‘It was great, thank you for organising!’ and there are a number of other post-it notes underneath.
Key feedback
(Summaries from verbal feedback and notes on feedback board)
“Next time please can we have [insert noodle brand here] / [insert hot sauce brand here]”
“Can we get more people from other years to come”
“I had a great time and will come again!”
Posted in Action Research Project | Tagged | Leave a comment

Final presentation video recordings

Posted on 7th January 2025 by Emma Charleston

The final part of the Action Research Project is presenting our research, both in person and online. This is not without its challenges, which predominantly in my case, was cramming everything in within our 10 minute timeframe.

It can be hard to know what to prioritise, when everything feels interesting (is it though?) and feels important towards accomplishing the highest possible grade (is it though?)

After much wrangling and many dramatically failed attempts at getting everything in within the 10 minute window, I adopted a totally different approach, inspired by an idea one tutor mentioned in passing. Rather than trying to squeeze everything in within the 10 minutes, I would instead omit several areas of interest, and prepare optional slides on these which can be delivered if these areas come up in the Q&A session afterwards.

If they do come up, then I am prepared! If they don’t come up, then they hopefully weren’t that important anyway.

So, the main video of my presentation, which comes in at 10:46 (within the +/- 10% allowance!) covers the following areas:

00:00 Intro
01:09 Social justice perspectives
02:04 Research introduction
02:26 Staff interviews
04:06 Student workshop
06:05 Student interviews
06:56 Survey
07:24 Intervention concept
08:46 Intervention documentation
09:09 Conclusions

You can view that video here on Youtube, or embedded below.

Following that, there is also a video which explores various other areas which may arise in the Q&A. This video runs at 21:21, but I do not imagine all areas will be covered in our 10 minute Q&A slot, and the video is divided into chapters, so that it is possible to only watch specific areas of interest. These chapters are:

00:18 The challenges of observations
01:45 Grounded theory qualitative interview coding
05:08 Why I chose a group interview format for the students
07:59 How I analysed my research and developed my intervention concept
15:07 Food as a social justice issue
19:03 How I gathered feedback from the intervention

You can view that video in full here, or embedded below.

I hope this offers an agreeable format for exploring my final presentation (for anyone not able to attend in person on January 17th), and I will additionally upload a following blog post which contains only my slides.

Posted in Action Research Project | Tagged | Leave a comment

Bibliography

Posted on 15th December 2024 by Emma Charleston

Subject research

Britez, A. (2020) What does UX in education look like?, Medium. Available at: https://uxdesign.cc/what-does-ux-in-education-look-like-ae1fda4497a8 (Accessed: 21 October 2024).

Casanova, D., Huet, I. and Garcia, F. (2023) ‘The Experience of Co-Designing a Learning Space with Teachers and Students’, Education Sciences, 13(2), p. 103. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020103.

Charleston, E., Foale, K.,Joynt-Bowe, S., Gendered Intelligence, and The Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (2023) The Trans Dimension Guide to Inclusive Events. Available at https://gfsc.studio/assets/pdf/Trans-Dimension-Guide-To-Inclusive-Events_1.0.pdf (Accessed: 23 April 2024)

Contractor, R., Janus, A. and Patel, Y. (2018) ‘Beyond design, detail, print: The Tech Futures Lab design-build studio’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 3(2), pp. 161–171.

DeLeon, R. (2018) ‘10 Principles of Physical Experience Design’, One Design Community, 4 May. Available at: https://medium.com/capitalonedesign/10-principles-of-physical-experience-design-711bef279bf2 (Accessed: 21 October 2024).

Harris, A. (2020) A Sensory Education. 1st edition. Routledge.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), pp. 370–396

Matos, A. (ed.) (2022) Who can afford to be critical?: An Inquiry Into What We Can’t Do Alone, as Designers, and Into What We Might Be Able to Do Together, as People. 1st edition. Eindhoven: Set Margins’ publications.

M.Ed), J.B. (M A. (2023) The Artist’s Studio: The Atelier and Atelierista, BarrKinderplay. Available at: https://www.barrkinderplay.com/post/the-artist-s-studio-the-atelier-and-atelierista (Accessed: 23 May 2024)

McAra, M. and Ross, K. (2020) ‘Expanding Studio Boundaries: Navigating Tensions in Multidisciplinary Collaboration within and beyond the Higher Education Design Studio’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(4), pp. 795–810. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12324.

McNeil, J. and Borg, M. (2018) ‘Learning spaces and pedagogy: Towards the development of a shared understanding’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(2), pp. 228–238. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1333917.

Salama, A. (2006) ‘Editorial: Committed Educators are Reshaping Studio Pedagogy’, Open House International, 31(3), pp. 4–9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-03-2006-B0001.

Stimpunks Foundation (no date) Enable Dignity: Accessible Systems, Spaces, & Events, Stimpunks Foundation. Available at: https://stimpunks.org/access/ (Accessed: 21 October 2024).

van Amstel, F.M.C. and Gonzatto, R.F. (2020) ‘The anthropophagic studio: towards a critical pedagogy for interaction design’, Digital Creativity, 31(4), pp. 259–283. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2020.1802295.

van Merriënboer, J.J.G. et al. (2017) ‘Aligning pedagogy with physical learning spaces’, European Journal of Education, 52(3), pp. 253–267. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12225.

Zhu, Q. and Xie, X. (2022) Users’ needs and expectations of immersive learning spaces in an academic library: A survey – Qiandong Zhu, Xiaozhen Xie, 2023. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09610006221081844 (Accessed: 21 October 2024).

Research methods

BERA (2024) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, fifth edition (2024). Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-fifth-edition-2024-online (Accessed: 2 October 2024).

Co-op Experience Library (2022) How might we activity, Co-op Experience Library. Available at: https://www.coop.co.uk/experience-library/ways-of-working/activities/how-might-we.html (Accessed: 22 November 2024).

Colley, B. (no date) ‘Synthesising user research: how to do it’, ProMo Cymru. Available at: https://promo.cymru/resource/synthesising-user-research-how-to-do-it/ (Accessed: 16 October 2024).

Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Third Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Feldman, A. (1999) ‘The role of conversation in collaborative action research’, Educational Action Research, 7(1), pp. 125–147. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650799900200076.

Hurdley, R. (2019) Drawing as a Research Method. SAGE Publications Ltd. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036838861.

IDEO (2015) The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design by IDEO.org. San Francisco, Calif.: IDEO.org / Design Kit.

Isobel, S. (2021) ‘Trauma‐informed qualitative research: Some methodological and practical considerations’, International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 30(S1), pp. 1456–1469. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12914.

Jokela, T. and Huhmarniemi, M. (2019) ‘Art-based action research in the development work of arts and art education’, in, pp. 9–23.

M.Converse, J. and Presser, S. (1986) Survey Questions. SAGE Publications, Inc. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986045.

NCVO (2021) Note taking and making sense of your research, NCVO. Available at: https://www.ncvo.org.uk/help-and-guidance/digital-technology/designing-services-products-and-activities/doing-user-research/note-taking-and-making-sense-your-research/ (Accessed: 16 October 2024).

Neontribe (2024) ‘A short introduction to user research’. Available at: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1m3I5SA3yOPGXDlX6uKLUilUQAZUlMF6Gf7xjA4dvFoU (Accessed: 2 October 2024).

O’Donoghue, T. and Punch, K. (eds) (2003) Qualitative Educational Research in Action: Doing and Reflecting. 1st edition. London: Routledge.

O’Leary, Z. (2021) The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project. Fourth edition. Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Office for Heath Improvement and Disparities (2020) Focus group study: qualitative studies, GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/focus-group-study-qualitative-studies (Accessed: 15 December 2024).

Pauwels, L. (2019) Visual Elicitation in Interviews. SAGE Publications Ltd. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036846496.

Perrone, R. (2015) ‘Integrating fantasy into the creative process’, in. Conference: The 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, Chicago.

Regmi, P.R. et al. (2016) ‘Guide to the design and application of online questionnaire surveys’, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 6(4), p. 640. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v6i4.17258.

Renzi, A.B. (2024) ‘Guided Fantasy: A Research Method for Innovative Products’, in Design, User Experience, and Usability: 13th International Conference, DUXU 2024, Held as Part of the 26th HCI International Conference, HCII 2024, Washington, DC, USA, June 29–July 4, 2024, Proceedings, Part II. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 277–289. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61353-1_19.

Roller, M.R. (2020) ‘Strengths of the Focus Group Method: An Overview’, Research Design Review, 30 October. Available at: https://researchdesignreview.com/2020/10/30/strengths-focus-group-method-overview/ (Accessed: 15 December 2024).

Roller, M.R. and Lavrakas, P.J. (2015) Applied Qualitative Research Design: A Total Quality Framework Approach. 1st edition. The Guilford Press.

Rosala, M. (2021) Using “How Might We” Questions to Ideate on the Right Problems, Nielsen Norman Group. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-might-we-questions/ (Accessed: 22 November 2024).

SAGE Research Methods (2024) What is “Critical Participatory Inquiry”?, Sage Research Methods Community. Available at: https://researchmethodscommunity.sagepub.com/blog/critical-participatory-inquiry (Accessed: 25 October 2024).

Salmons, J. (2023) Qual Data Analysis & Action Research, Sage Research Methods Community. Available at: https://researchmethodscommunity.sagepub.com/blog/qual-data-analysis-action-research (Accessed: 25 October 2024).

Stinkdorn, M. et al. (2016) This is Service Design Doing: Applying Service Design Thinking in the Real World. 1st edition. Sebastopol, CA: O′Reilly.

Stinkdorn, M. et al. (2018) This is Service Design Doing Methods: A Companion to This Is Service Design Doing. 1st edition. Sebastopol, CA: O′Reilly.

Thomas, S.E. (2020) The Practical Guide to Experience Design: A Guidebook for Passionate, Curious, and Intentional People Who Enjoy Designing for Humans. Artificial Publishing.

Posted in Action Research Project | Leave a comment

Project conclusions and next steps

Posted on 15th December 2024 by Emma Charleston

As outlined in my previous post, there are a number of recommendations which arose from my research which our course team will look to explore and resolve.

These are:

  • Better promoting studio opening times to students
  • Exploring sources of funding to restart our cross-year workshop programme, which students and staff repeatedly cited and successful and popular
  • Our technician will more actively promote the shared playlist and foster conversations with students about how they want to use and/or personalise the space

When it comes to my specific intervention (noodle socials), this was sufficiently popular that we will certainly be running them again. Questions we need to answer as a course team are:

How often

It needs to be often enough that students come to expect it, but not so often that they fatigue of it. (Also we need to keep our noodle budget in check!). Monthly or fortnightly seems likely.

What day of the week

This is a real challenge. Students from all three year groups expressed a desire to see more of the other year groups, but a great unwillingness to attend on days other than those of their scheduled sessions (entirely reasonably, due to transport costs). There is no day of the week where all three year groups are in, which presents a profound challenge. The first noodle social was hosted on a Tuesday, when year 1s are in. In addition to 15+ year 1st, we had around 5 year 2s, and around 3 year 3s in attendance. (Who had either come in especially, or were otherwise on site for other reasons). The next week we hosted a christmas party on Wednesday, which is a day year 2s and year 3s are in. We had around 15 year 2s (great!) 4 x year 1s (who were in for language support anyway), and around 5 year 3s (most of them were stressed about a project hand in and accompanying tutorials and chose not to attend.

In terms of scheduling future noodle socials, there is therefore an argument for changing which days of the weeks they run on to ensure all years get a fair shot at attending. That said, keeping it on a consistent day is more likely to get it embedded in people’s minds.

Also, (albeit without formal research), it seems that our first year cohort are those most struggling with food poverty, and so, those who most valued having a free, hot lunch (even if that was a very simple one). So prioritising their needs, as well as getting them embedded and socialised with their course mates means that it may make sense to continue scheduling on days which work best for them.

Additional activities?

Some students experessed a desire for additional activities as part of noodle socials, like workshops. Obviously this comes with budgetary, planning and staffing requirements that we cannot currently meet, but we take seriously their request. Our workshop programme last year (now discontinued due to funding challenges) had modest attendance, which had led us to believe it was not particularly appreciated, but the second years asking for its return, and the first years asking for something similar off their own backs implies that there is a desire and motivation there.

We will continue to reflect on all of the above as a course team, and consider what our next steps are.

Posted in Action Research Project | Leave a comment

Personal project reflections

Posted on 15th December 2024 by Emma Charleston

Overall I am very pleased with the work undertaken on this project, and what both I and my course team have learned from this body of research.

I feel lucky that I had undertaken this kind of research before in both professional and acadmeic settings, which meant that I felt able to hit the ground running and carry out perhaps more varieties of research than I would have done if I was exploring qualitative research, grounded theory and so on for the first time ever.

That said, this prior experience did maybe make me over-ambitious, and there were some times during the project where I felt very stretched, particularly due to the looming end of term, before which I wanted the chance to test my intervention. In the event, I got it done well before this deadline (probably becaude of the pressure I felt!) so all’s well that ends well — I should probably have put more trust in my gantt chart, which did work out as intended.

It is worth noting that there was one type of research I had planned to carry out but failed to do, which was studio observations. I’d overlooked the fact that within our studio, this year’s timetabling means there is very little unstructured studio time, and none whatsoever on the days I am in. For our neighbouring course’s studio (which I also hoped to observe), their only unstructured times were during times I was teaching or on days I wasn’t in. Due to additional work commitments, coming in on days I was not scheduled to teach was not possible during this unit, so I had to abandon the idea.

I am very keen on observation (and subsequent analysis) as a research method and had been excited about the chance to try it out, as it is regularly something we ask our students to do… But I feel reassured that I did plenty of other research, so failing to do this did not leave a major hole in my project!

Another change to my original plan was that I conducted my student interviews in a group rather than solo. This was for a couple of reasons — firstly, time constraints (I simply didn’t feel I had the time to undertake and analyse four individual interviews), but I also became interested in the group interview as a format. I realised taking more of a ‘focus group’ approach as outlined on gov.uk (2020) and by Roller and Lavrakas (2015), offered certain benefits. The focus group, while not a direct substitute for one to one interviews, can elicit greater discussion, idea sharing and debate than in a one to one setting, and may stimulate more spontaenous thoughts than in a solo setting. Inviting the students to a conversation with their friends was decidedly more appealing than one to one chats with me, and did elicit great discussion.

I also acknowledge that due to time constraints, I specificially invited students who I know are keen, chatty, and who I already have a good relationship with. That said, I did consider them valid participants in the research, as they too were not regular users of our student space, so asking them why they didn’t spend time there did make sense in their case. That said, a more in depth study would also have sought out some harder to reach students from a wider diversity of backgrounds. I suspect that the conclusions of my research (that students were predominantly seeking community and connection), while true, were particularly apparent in this group of outgoing, amibitous students.

One other potential weakness in my project is that I do not feel I have had enough time to seek out a depth of reading about my project’s subject matter (studio pedagogy). While I managed to find and explore lots of reading about the research processes I used, I made less time for comparative literature about the specific subject of my research. This may simply be how almost every researher feels at the end of their project, but for future projects I might choose to undertake less primary research, and make more time for reading and comparison of existing literature.

Overall I am pleased with the work I have done, and I have certainly learned even more about these research processes in action — this is incredibly valuable, as these kinds of research are a core part of teaching on user Experience Design.

I intend to continue reflecting on and exploring the challenges of building an inclusive, busy, popular studio space which fosters that vital collaboration and connection amongst students.

References

Office for Heath Improvement and Disparities (no date) Focus group study: qualitative studies, GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/focus-group-study-qualitative-studies (Accessed: 15 December 2024).

Roller, M.R. and Lavrakas, P.J. (2015) Applied Qualitative Research Design: A Total Quality Framework Approach. 1st edition. The Guilford Press. (pp 111 – 112)

Posted in Action Research Project | Tagged | Leave a comment

Intervention in action

Posted on 4th December 2024 by Emma Charleston

On Tuesday 3rd, we ran our first edition of Noodle Socials, the aims of which are outlined in my previous blog.

My course leader very kindly obtained a prolific quantity of noodles in Amazon’s black Friday sales, which will be used for this as well as future noodle social events, and as stock in our newly founded ‘Nourish nook’ (food bank for students facing food precarity)

We scheduled the event to commence immediately after the morning’s taught session — this was a great success, as the vast majority of students stuck around!

We blocked off the atelier area of the room so that students understood there was to be no eating there (thus meeting health and safety requirements), and bought in a couple of kettles to get the noodles on the go. All students who wanted noodles were served quickly!

We were really pleased with how lively conversation was amongst students, with many of them expressing how much they love cup noodles, and debating the best brands/flavours etc.

As students sat down to eat, some chose to sit in groups and chat, while others chose to continue working. This felt positive, as it clearly showed that some students are willing and able to work in busy settings. It was also great to see the students socialising and getting to know each other over food.

On Tuesdays, only the first years are formally in, however three second years (and a second year’s boyfriend!) and three third years did also drop in, and mingled with the first years (not just with one another), which again, was great to see, and reflected all interviewed year groups desires to mix more with one another.

We were also pleasantly surprised by how clean the space was left after the event, with students proactively cleaning up minor spills.

A few students left immediately as the session started and then returned with additional food of their own (crisps, popcorn and some other snacks) which they spread out on improvised napkin plates for other students to eat. I was slightly annoyed by this (due to potential for mess), but in the event, as noted above, the space was left clean.

We requested feedback on the event to help us (myself and course leader) decide how to run it in future.

The majority of students feedback was related to the types of noodles and wanting hot sauce (and requesting different kinds implies they would come again in future!)

Students were broadly very positive about the event, with one student verbally stating “This was the main reason I actually came in today” (which he admitted was slight hyperbole, but only slight…)

Feedback notes read:

“Great, thank you for organising!”

“It would be nice to do it once a month! It is nice to chat with other students. I like ‘Nissin’ noodles and would be nice to have a side activity! Thanks!”

“It was a great experience. I loved talking with people from different years. I would probably join every time (if I was already in for class). It takes away the stress of planning and making lunch and saves money. Suggestion: Nissin Damae Ramen Black Garlic Oil Tonkotsu”

“Very nice. Needs chilli sauce.”

“More: — Shin cup noodles — Soba noodle”

“Lovely meeting”

“Can have some Chinese/Asian noodle! (They are very delicious)”

“More Shin noodle (Pork good) chicken one taste bad”

“Good but I would like more people from different years”

Comments about noodle varieties aside (though noted), the primary feedback was a) positive, b) wanting more people from other years, and c) the potential for having another activity alongside the lunch.

In my next blog I will reflect on potential next steps for the intervention to improve the studio’s sense of community and collaboration.

Posted in Action Research Project | Tagged | Leave a comment

It’s intervention time!!!

Posted on 22nd November 2024 by Emma Charleston

As outlined in my previous blog post, I have:

  • Summarised and reflected on each piece of research (3 x staff interviews, 1 x group student interview, 1 x workshop, 1 x survey), writing key insights and ‘how might we’s’ based on them
  • Analysed my interview data as an entire body of research using grounded theory and ‘coding’ and pulled out key ‘recommendations’ based on the emerging themes
  • Categorised and refined my ‘how might we’s’ into 3 x core themes and re-written 3 final ‘how might we’s’
  • Taken my recommendations as a starting point to ideate interventions related to each of the three final ‘how might we’s’
  • Placed these ideas on a value/effort matrix
  • Discussed these potential ideas for interventions with colleagues.

Of course, none of this work has been happening in isolation — throughout my ARP I have been discussing my ideas and progress with colleagues. There have also been other conversations happening alongside these which are unrelated to my research, but nonetheless inform it.

Several of my ideas are likely to be implemented in one way or another:

  • We will certainly look to better promote studio opening times (indeed, not doing this is something of an oversight!)
  • We are exploring sources of funding to restart our cross-year workshop programme
  • Our technician is more actively promoting the shared playlist and pro-actively fostering conversations with students about how they want to use and/or personalise the space

But my specific intervention as part of my ARP is going to be…

Noodle socials!!

I and my course lead developed the concept for several reasons:

  1. Students have expressed a desire for more ‘vertical’ (cross-year) socialising

I think one thing I liked was that we saw the second years, even though I didn’t talk to them, but it’s like, oh, other people are in our course, and it’s not just our year

2. Students explicitly said the top thing that would make them come to an event is food

I think food helps [with socialising/community]. Because some people are like, well, I need to eat lunch, especially after class. Then they feel more inclined to stay on.

3. Many of our interviewees also recognised that food builds culture/community

And also I think crucially, is that kind of if you’re trying to create a kind of a social environment and culturally food is part of building social connection.

4. Some interviewees noted that much more important than any physical characteristic of the space is the community and the people within it. By building regular occasions where people attend, attendance will (hopefully) grow organically, as people get used to making it part of their routine

It’s not truly about the space, but I think like, if it’s Friday, and if we have some activity. I think people would like to come in like, oh yeah, Friday, we’re gonna do this or that, and then we’re gonna end up staying the place a little more.

5. We have become aware of a number of students facing food poverty. To counter this our course lead has also introduced ‘the nourish nook’, a small food-bank overseen by staff, but additionally we thought this would be a low-cost, low-effort way of giving any students who want it a free hot lunch once a week.

Previously, I had assumed that this kind of event would not be possible due to the limitations of the machinery in our space preventing dining for health and safety reasons, but we are going to explore entirely blocking off that side of the room so that it is clear to students that this is a special event and the machinery is not to be accessed, and we will also supervise all students throughout the event to ensure they remain within the right area of the space. We believe that this will satisfy health and safety regulations, while also allowing the students the freedom to consume a hot lunch in the space at a designated time.

For students who have expressed that they are not fans of food in the space, we will be ensuring that it is clearly communicated that this is a special event, not something which will be habitual, and there will be robust clean-up and deoderising processes undertaken after food has been consumed.

We will run our first noodle social on Tuesday December 3rd, and I will seek feedback at that event from students on what they think! (Likely verbally and using paper comment forms)

Posted in Action Research Project | Leave a comment

‘How might we’s’ — overview and development into ideation

Posted on 22nd November 2024 by Emma Charleston

For this next stage of analysis and ideation I am largely following established processes within the fields of UX design, service design and human centred design, which I have experience using both in industry and academically. (These are methodologies which we teach our UX students). Obviously I put my own twists and preferences into precisely how I tackle things, and how I combine methods, but I do follow a broadly established framework for taking initial insights through various processes to land on a number of potential ‘ideas’. There is a bibliography at the end of this blog which notes some key texts which outline these methodologies.

As you may remember, after each piece of research I attempted to draw out some key insights, which I then used to write ‘how might we’s’. These ‘how might we’s’ were:

  • How might we foster a greater sense of ownership within the space
  • How might we make students aware of the potential of what they can do within the space
  • How might we help students understand the benefits of working in a collaborative way
  • How might we offer greater choice to students when it comes to their experiences in our studio
  • How might we offer students greater control over the sensory environment in the studio space
  • How might we better demonstrate to students what the studio can offer that they cannot get at home
  • How might we demonstrate to students the value of collaboration and peer learning
  • How might we enable students to adapt the studio space to meet some aspects of their own comfort needs
  • How might we take inspiration from the archetypal studios as defined in this workshop, combining the best elements of all of them to create an adaptable space
  • How might we support students to build their collective vision of what a studio should be, and empower them to adapt our space accordingly
  • How might we foster a sense of ownership of our space in our students
  • How might we explore all different dimensions of comfort within our studio space
  • How might we understand students ‘desire lines’ and use them to shape our space
  • How might we build a studio culture that focusses on collaboration
  • How might we create more opportunities for the different year groups to mix
  • How might we, taking into account staffing and budgetary limitations, make the space feel like it has more ‘going on’
  • How might we encourage students to spend more time in the studio, while respecting that it is not the right workspace for all kinds of work
  • How might we make the studio flexible and adaptable to individual student needs
  • How might we help students find the space and quiet they want

For this next stage of the process I used Miro, a tool which I always find useful for this stage of analysis. You can view my Miro board for this project here.

On the left, you will see all these ‘how might we’s on individual post its. Alongside them are the recommendations I drew from my interview coding (let’s ignore these for now as they start to stray into ideation, but they’ll be useful later!)

My next step is to take these ‘How might we’s’, and group them by theme.

As you can see, some clear themes start emerging: ownership and customisation (these two connect, I think), community, and collaboration. I also note one outlier, which discusses students access to quiet space, and reflect that though this is undoubtedly a student need, it may be too much at odds with all the other findings of the research to be the correct thing to attempt to pursue here, so I lay it to one side.

After this, I group my initial recommendations within those broad themes.

After this, I reflect on the three core themes, and write a final, cumulative ‘how might we’ for each of them.

Then, I start to ideate. I start trying to answer those ‘how might we’ questions with ideas. It is worth noting, that in true ‘human centred design’, this entire process, and particularly the ideation phase, would be done in collaboration with stakeholders (so in this case, staff and students). However due to the scope of this project, I have carried this out as a solo task, but once I have concluded this bit of the process, I will take these ideas to the UXD staff team (particularly our course lead) for discussion about what we can implement.

You’ll see that on the diagram above I’ve connected some of the ideas which are essentially the same thing, just for my reference.

My next step is to place these ideas on a value/effort matrix (you can see an image of the blank matrix here)

Armed with this, I will meet with my course leader to explore my research so far together, and discuss what might make a suitable intervention as part of my PG Cert (as well as potentially other high value, low effort tasks that we might undertake anyway!)

Bibliography

How might we activity (2022) Co-op Experience Library. Available at: https://www.coop.co.uk/experience-library/ways-of-working/activities/how-might-we.html (Accessed: 22 November 2024).

IDEO (2015) The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design by IDEO.org. San Francisco, Calif.: IDEO.org / Design Kit.

Thomas, S.E. (2020) The Practical Guide to Experience Design: A Guidebook for Passionate, Curious, and Intentional People Who Enjoy Designing for Humans. Artificial Publishing.

Stinkdorn, M. et al. (2018) This is Service Design Doing Methods: A Companion to This Is Service Design Doing. 1st edition. Sebastopol, CA: O′Reilly.

Stinkdorn, M. et al. (2016) This is Service Design Doing: Applying Service Design Thinking in the Real World. 1st edition. Sebastopol, CA: O′Reilly.

Rosala, M. (2021) Using “How Might We” Questions to Ideate on the Right Problems, Nielsen Norman Group. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-might-we-questions/ (Accessed: 22 November 2024).

Posted in Action Research Project | Tagged | Leave a comment

Qualitative research analysis

Posted on 21st November 2024 by Emma Charleston

I have been thematically coding all of my interviews as outlined by Corbin and Strauss as part of their grounded theory methodology (Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Third Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.)

You can view the full coding process for my interviews here.

Below, I explore the data gathered from these interviews, while also holding in mind the additional insights gained from the workshop and survey, which broadly echoed the findings of the interviews.

Of particular interest are the overarching themes which I pulled out from the interviews with staff and students, which are as follows:

How our/a studio is run

Observation/oversight

By tutors

Preventative/protective

Lack of

By fellow students

By UAL senior management

Vibes

Balance between work and fun

Opening times

Comfort

Personalisation

Tidiness/cleanliness

Staff team

Facilities

Equipment

How students use the space

Frequency

Usage

Modularity vs defined spaces

Things which (maybe) put students off

Cost

Pressure to perform

Pressure from senior UAL management regarding how the space is run

“Unwritten rules”

Lack of knowledge

Transporting their own equipment

Productivity

Lack of culture/community

Things which (maybe) make students attend

Peers

Culture/community

Across year groups

Collaboration

Ownership

“Benefits”

Space

Scheduled activities

Tricking them into it

Studios that work

[Another course’s] studio

Student needs

Contradictions in needs

Space

Disability and access

Choice

Sensory

Sight (lighting)

Sound (music and chat)

Touch (comfort of seating)

Smell

Taste (food)

Wider context

Sector wide drops in attendance

Connection between attendance and awards

Size of course

Students workspaces at home

The themes which featured the most discussion (and from at least two different interviewees including at least one student) were:

  • How a studio is run > Observation/oversight
  • How a studio is run > Opening times
  • How a studio is run > Personalisation
  • Facilities > Equipment
  • Things which maybe put students off > Pressure from senior UAL management regarding how the space is run
  • Things which maybe put students off > Unwritten rules / lack of knowledge
  • Things which (maybe) make students attend > Culture/community
  • Things which (maybe) make students attend > Collaboration
  • Things which (maybe) make students attend > Ownership
  • Sensory > Sound (music and chat)
  • Sensory > Taste (food)

A summary of my key insights from across these themes follows:

How a studio is run > Observation/oversight

There are some contradictions here — students DO like the presence of a tutor or technician in or near the space. It motivates them to stay. However, they do not like to feel too closely observed, overlooked or judged, so a hands-off approach is best. Some students also feel anxious about being observed by fellow students, and in some cases this pressure is enough to make the avoid the space entirely. For others a tolerable compromise is to work in places within the room where their work cannot be overlooked. Many students also recognise the immense value of collaboration and time with their favoured peers. There is also some overarching pressure on both students and staff when it comes to UAL management’s views on how the space should be run (predominantly related to protection of the machinery limiting access and full use of the space, for e.g. eating, room being locked when no supervision)

Recommendations:

  • Tutor present, but hands off
  • More flexibility/trust around equipment care and safety from UAL senior managers would widen use of space

How a studio is run > Opening times

Staff interviewees reflect that wider opening hours foster greater usage, as students come to rely on the space and trust that it will be open. Wider opening hours also potentially foster more varied use of the space at different times. Students reflect that they are extremely unclear on exactly when the space is open and when they are allowed to access it.

Recommendations:

  • Maximise opening hours
  • Publicise opening hours much more clearly

How a studio is run > Personalisation

Very many complex thoughts around this topic. The majority agree that a studio which is more personalised/customised to a group is good and fosters wider usage. It is also clear that students do not feel empowered to, for example, hang work or decorate the space. However, some forms of personalisation which affect the immediate sensory experience of the space (like music, smells, lighting) can be very divisive and should be handled with care, and kept broadly neutral or subtle. Interviewees reflected that studios which strive to do ‘everything’ end up doing ‘nothing’ — through personalisation studios gain their identity, which in turn fosters culture, community, and ownership (topics explored below)

Recommendations

  • Allow and encourage students to display work
  • Music, different lighting, smells etc can be explored by students or staff, but shouldn’t become too intense or constant

Facilities > Equipment

Having technical equipment in a studio offers obvious benefits, but also imposes many limitations, including the need for constant supervision/oversight (discussed above), prevention of food being eaten (discussed below), and potentially limited/uncertain hours. Some interviewees feel that UAL management are heavy-handed in their application of health and safety guidance and that alternative means of protecting the equipment may offer greater access.

Recommendations

Perhaps not much to be done here, a bit of an insurmountable challenge!

Things which maybe put students off > Pressure from senior UAL management regarding how the space is run

Broadly the same themes as explored above in ‘facilities > equipment’. Additionally, there is anecdotal evidence of management/non-academic teams visiting studio spaces and rearranging them to some unknown, pre-defined standard from on high, which doesn’t meet with actual usage requirements established by teaching staff on the ground. There is a general sense that there is an air of pessimism and over-caution about how spaces might be run which is antithetical to the creativity the institution purports to support.

Recommendations

  • Raise concerns about unscheduld and unauthorised rearranging of established studio spaces

Things which maybe put students off > Unwritten rules / lack of knowledge

Staff interviewees reflected that students may not have a full understanding of what is possible in the space, as well as how and when they can access it. Students echo that they are uncertain of opening times and access.

Recommendations

  • Clarify studio opening times for students
  • Some kind of ‘user manual’ for students which explains more clearly what the studio is all about, how and when it can be used, and what they can do in there

Things which (maybe) make students attend > Culture/community

This was a very large topic, and one which arose in pretty much every interview I undertook (as well as in my other research). Students and staff alike were in agreement that a positive studio culture and community are key aspects of getting people to use the space, above and beyond other considerations like comfort, facilities and so on. The greater challenge of course is how to foster this community. The good news is that community is a positive feedback loop (and a catch-22 when it comes to getting started) with students noting that they are reluctant to start working in the space because no one else is there (and likewise, that if there were people there, they would be more likely to stick around themselves). Students reflected that activities and events which draw students into the space during non-scheduled times might help to foster this sense of culture and community. Students are also keen to meet their cohort from other years, so anything which fosters this kind of ‘vertical’ studio use is a pro.

Recommendations:

  • Arrange events or activities which bring students into the space at non-scheduled times
  • As per unwritten rules/lack of knowledge, offer more publicity around studio access and events

Things which (maybe) make students attend > Collaboration

Staff and students both recognised the value of collaboration, though both also noted that not all students value or want this. Both students and staff felt that, above all, the studio should be viewed and fostered as a collaborative space. Many students do feel that there are insufficient quiet spaces on campus for solo, focussed work, and for a while I found myself thinking of ways to try and support both this and more collaborative work within our space, however after some reflection I have realised that (in my view), solo focussed work is not compatible with collaborative work, and should not be the goal of this particular studio space — it is a need which should be addressed in other areas and by other teams within the university. Instead, we should focus on fostering community within the space, viewing it primarily as a collaborative working area.

Recommendations:

  • Accept that for the majority of the time the studio cannot and should not offer a totally silent, focussed working environment, and that there are other areas of the university which should provide this
  • Make layout and publicity choices about the space which reflect these goals

Things which (maybe) make students attend > Ownership

Many of the discussion points in this theme are reflected in the personalisation and community topics above. The key characteristic of ownership specifically is fostering ways to make the students feel like the space is specifically theirs, and thus that they should both use and personalise and use it according to their requirements.

Recommendations:

As per ‘Personalisation’

Sensory > Sound (music and chat)

Sound was a very divisive topic amongst my student interviewees, indicating that these divides likely exist amongst the wider student community as well. Students differed on their opinions around music, and while the majority agreed that they like music while they work, only very few were happy to listen to absolutely anything. That said, it does seem like low volume, relatively neutral music is a positive addition to the space, and our technician has already taken steps to empower students in contributing to a shared playlist. When it comes to the sound of voices, all students noted that when they need to undertake focussed work, they need a quiet space. However, many also reflected that the presence of others inspires and energises them, so, as discussed above, focussed (quiet) work can happen elsewhere, and the studio should be viewed as a collaborative space where conversation is allowed

Recommendations

  • Continue to offer regulated, sensible volume, broad-appeal music during open-access studio times
  • As per ‘collaboration’

Sensory > Taste (food)

Food was another divisive topic. Staff and students alike note that sharing food can be a powerful tool in building community. However, food within the space can also be a source of conflict where it is overwhelmingly noisy, smelly, or messy. General limits on food that can be consumed in the space seem like a positive step (for example, no hot food, no smelly food). However, this rule might be broken during designated social events, which could be used to foster that vital sense of community and studio culture, with students noting, when asked, that ‘food’ was the main thing that would make them attend an event. There have also been seperate conversations between staff on BA UXD (outside of this body of research) around our concerns about food poverty amongst some students, so course funded opportunities to share food feel like a positive step.

  • Firm up on rules/guidelines about what food is and isn’t allowed in the space (and when), and enforce these
  • Offer sanctioned opportunities to share proper meals in the space, and put in place health and safety precautions to protect machinery

In my next blog I will explore these recommendations alongside my key insights and ‘how might we’s’ from each interview, in order to begin the process of developing intervention concepts.

Posted in Action Research Project | Leave a comment