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.