One prevailing theme throughout this interview was the notion of choice, and the fact that the gold standard is giving students choice in as many settings as possible. In the context of studio space, choice about how and indeed, if they access that space, as well as what that space is like.
…that element of choice. Whether people choose to access the space or choose not to access the space
[As a disability support advisor] we would say to students, how do you find these environments [open-access studio spaces]? And they would often say fine, or they might say I tend to work at home, but I manage it my own way
My interviewee reflected that a lot of the time when students choose to work from home, it’s because they have everything they need there, and their specific requirements are met. That may be hard to achieve across the board in a studio space like ours.
A lot of students may use, for example, their own assistive software. That might be funded through disabled students allowances, or stuff that they have themselves. And if that’s not available widely, they’re kind of then tied into using their own machine if they want to use that software. And if that’s on a desktop computer or laptop, they may not want to lug it around. Sometimes people choose to study from home, so they’ve got access to all the things they need.
I have certainly heard students complaining about having to carry heavy laptops on campus. ‘Having everything they need’ also extends to the sensory environment, which can be controlled to a greater extent at home.
That can also be true of like the physical and sensory environment, like making sure it’s as quiet as they want it to be, as noisy as they want it to be. Temperature. Lack of distractions. I think some people kind of thrive in a busy space, like those kind of people who will choose to go and work in a coffee shop. But I think a lot of people will choose to work in a space that feels as private as possible.
We also talked about the idea of unwritten rules (which ties in to some extent with my previous interviewee’s thoughts about the students not using a space to its fullest potential) — this really resonated with me, as it does echo anecdotally what I hear from students, especially first years, in terms of understanding how we use the space.
I think then there’s this kind of cultural element of how we use space, and this idea of unwritten rules and lack of familiarity, and I think perhaps those things aren’t specific to disabled students, but can be compounded if you’re a disabled person. However many different ways we [staff] can say ‘yeah, this space is for you. Come on in’, Until you kind of access the space and familiarise yourself with it, there can be kind of a gulf between knowledge of what the space is and how to use it. And part of that is like to do with the unwritten rules. Does a student know what to expect from the space? Like whether it is ok to speak to somebody or ask for help and those kinds of things. So I imagine there’s a little bit of, if you don’t know enough about the space, you might opt out of using it.
We reflected, similarly to my previous interview, that students not knowing what is possible within the space may limit their desire to use it
it sounds like in the context of this space, actually there is that potential for ownership. And it’s that kind of disconnect perhaps between what a student knows, and what they believe
(My interviewee gave the example that although a student might know they can hang their work up, they don’t believe they actually can/should)
We also talked about how sometimes we as staff struggle to know what we can do within a space, as we’ve all had experiences of being told ‘no’, or hearing anecdotes where others are told no, so we assume things are not possible without checking (my thoughts here, probably because the process of figuring out who to ask is a bit arduous at times)
I’ve heard rumours that you’re never allowed to put posters on the wall because there are fire hazard. And it’s just like, is that true or is that something that somebody said once and it’s become true over time? And I feel sometimes with stuff to do with, like health and safety, and these rules. Where do they come from?
We talked briefly about food in studio spaces, which I was particularly interested in discussing as it has been a repeated challenge in our space (students really want to eat in there, often hot/wet/messy food, but it is forbidden because of the machinery we have in there). It does sometimes feel to me like the majority of students would rather have that space as somewhere they can eat than somewhere they can use equipment (but the equipment undoubtedly brings greater pedagogical value, not to mention better value for their student fees in terms of ‘access to cool/sophisticated stuff)
Also I think crucially, if you’re trying to create a kind of social environment, culturally food is part of building social connection. It’s it’s a curious one. The canteens and the cafe and things are quite noisy and not very accessible. So if you are someone who’s very overwhelmed you might want to eat in a relatively quiet space.
We talked about how the disability support team rarely make specific change recommendations, and instead constantly reinforce guidance for general improvements that will benefit everyone.
I’m sure you’ll you’ll have seen or have access to individual support agreements and there’s that general guidance for inclusive teaching and learning. Those are there for a reason. Those things most of the time will meet most people’s needs.
And also that when teaching (or in other academic contexts), it’s good to work under the assumption that you simply don’t know if there is anyone disabled in a given space.
I kind of teach assuming that everybody in the space is disabled, to be honest. Which can mean that I’m anticipating access requirements that no one in the space has, like for example, when I give a really long description of an image I’ve put on the slide and everyone’s like, why are you doing this? And there’s no one blind in the space. And I’m like, well, maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. I don’t know.
It was also a great reminder of the differences in reporting between home and international students. It really is worth repeating that we truly do not know the access needs within our space, so all we can do to make general positive changes is vital.
The disclosure rate between home students and international students, there is a huge gap. So basically it’s across the university. Rounding these up, around 25% of our home students tell us they’re disabled, compared to about 8% of our international students. Now the figures are going to be broadly the same in reality. Which means that we’ve got a really significant number of international students who are disabled who haven’t told us
As we moved on to discuss sensory considerations in studio spaces, a recurring theme in both my secondary research and conversations I’ve had previously is the fact that different people’s access needs can clash.
[When it comes to noise levels] That doesn’t just mean too loud. It can mean too quiet. What’s the right environment for one person is the wrong sensory environment for another. So I think that becomes a little bit of a kind of conflict between different access requirements somehow.
My interviewee was keen to play ‘devil’s advocate’ when it came to the idea that being in a collaborative studio space IS in fact, better, across the board
I’m kind of saying this not because I really believe it, but because I like to kind of, poke it a little bit. The sort of social element. I think it’s really easy for colleagues to talk about that aspiration of university as a social and collaborative space, and to think ‘how do we foster those relationships and connections?’ And all the kind of the well meaning things that sit behind that, but there are some students who just want to be at home.
They introduced me to the idea of ‘hidden curriculum’, which is very true when it comes to notions of how important collaborative studio space is, and whether students appreciate/value this sufficiently.
And I think it becomes a little bit to do with these ideas of hidden curriculum. Like I think where we as staff often see the value in making those connections and those that learning that’s forged through dialogue, we recognize that. In a way that students. May either not recognize or may just not care about for whatever reason.
I started to reflect on the fact that maybe there are some students for whom the studio will never be the right setting. Is it worth ‘giving up’ on trying to make the studio right for those students for whom it will never be right, and instead focussing on those for whom it could work? I tried to express this:
I could take this interview as disheartening because effectively you might be saying that actually maybe we should just embrace the fact that, you know, times are changing and students deserve to have their comfort needs met. And if that means them being at home, then so be it. But I guess in a way it flips to the point where yes, not every student is going to find the studio the right space for them. So how do we make the studio into the right space for those for whom could be? If that makes any sense?
That said, I don’t like the idea of ‘giving up’ on making the studio right for all students (not just those for whom the studio is a more natural working environment), and this was where my interviewee offered what felt like a bit of a breakthrough:
You’ve got this really interesting thing where you’ve got this group of people who are using the space because of how it is now. So what are the impacts on the space if use of space changes? This is perhaps where choice comes in — in terms of are there core hours where it’s quiet? Are there days where this is the music day? Not kind of a binary choice in a given moment, but kind of ebb and flow of different uses.
My interviewee reflected again on their own conflicted feelings about the overriding sentiment (which I certainly buy into) that it is important and rewarding for students to be present, versus their own experiences (and the experiences of the students they support) that it might not always be this clear cut in terms of benefits.
There’s data across the sector that says attendance correlates with awards or attainment. And that’s thrown out left, right and centre. And I understand why. And I and I don’t disagree with it really. But I think correlation is not causation. I’m always interested about the students who aren’t in the room. […] I think it goes back to some really deep questions about kind of what your view of the purpose of higher education is. So if we think about it from an employability perspective (and I think that’s often where people’s minds go). Then stuff to do with building connections, building networks, collaboration, being in spaces that in some ways replicate perhaps real inverted commas, real world environments that’s part of this hidden curriculum. It’s not a learning outcome, but it is something that we want students to learn. I kind of want to poke it and go. You know, how much of that’s coming from neoliberalisation, marketization of higher education? To what extent do we just risk reproducing the types of education we had ourselves? But then I get stuck because I’m just like, do I really want an environment where people aren’t sat having a chat about their work and building those connections? I kind of feel like I end up being the critical voice in it because there is institutionally such a drive to staff and students always being physically present. And I’m a big advocate of that being appropriate when it suits the person. I think I’m coming in with my own kind of personal and political stance, when in reality it’s just because I like to interrogate it, not because I want a university where we don’t have any students.
Overall, as my interviewee says below, balance and choice really were the key themes here.
I think I think kind of you’ve used another of my magic words, one of which is choice and the other one is balance. I think is it a balance between the space sometimes being quite noisy. Or of coming in some of the time but not pushing yourself like to be to the point of discomfort? But maybe trying things out. Balance is a word that I try and hold on to personally and professionally. Although I’m usually the kind of the advocate for things like home working and just letting people be in a quiet little bubble if they want to, in reality my position is more balanced than that.
Insight statements from this interview
Offering students choice throughout their experiences at university is a great way of striving to meet a diversity of sometimes conflicting access needs
One key reason students stay at home may be because they feel they have everything they need there, and can better control their sensory environment there
The importance of collaboration and peer-learning can sometimes be a ‘hidden curriculum’ that students do not understand or appreciate (even when it is verbalised)
Key ‘How might we’s’ based on this interview alone
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
and/or
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