38
Paper submitted for Journal for Education in the Built Environment 1 Copyright © 2010 CEBE Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio Micah Gideon Modell Indiana University Colin M. Gray Indiana University Abstract The literature regarding studio-based education suggests that personal space is an integral component of a studio-based pedagogy (Brandt et al., 2010; Demirbas & Demirkan, 2000). However, the extant studio designed for a Human-Computer Interaction Design (HCI/d) program at the Masters level examined in this study does not offer any apparent provision for such space. This study aimed to determine if and how students in a studio-based HCI/d program create and maintain personal space in a publicly accessible studio that does not explicitly provide space dedicated to individuals. The results of this study indicated a tendency toward group territoriality, with individual territoriality as a non-normative behavior. These groups were generally ad hoc in construction, which presents a number of possible curriculum features by which students loosely form groups. Individual boundaries were often indicated by the student’s personal computer and sometimes other personal items as well. The faculty design focused on integration of faculty and student spaces, public display of student work and studio-based classes. At this early stage, there are gaps between implementation and design. Opportunities for further research are explored. Keywords: studio, territoriality, personal space

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

  • Upload
    dangtu

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Paper submitted for Journal for Education in the Built Environment

1

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

Micah Gideon Modell Indiana University

Colin M. Gray Indiana University

Abstract The literature regarding studio-based education suggests that personal space is an integral component of a studio-based pedagogy (Brandt et al., 2010; Demirbas & Demirkan, 2000). However, the extant studio designed for a Human-Computer Interaction Design (HCI/d) program at the Masters level examined in this study does not offer any apparent provision for such space. This study aimed to determine if and how students in a studio-based HCI/d program create and maintain personal space in a publicly accessible studio that does not explicitly provide space dedicated to individuals. The results of this study indicated a tendency toward group territoriality, with individual territoriality as a non-normative behavior. These groups were generally ad hoc in construction, which presents a number of possible curriculum features by which students loosely form groups. Individual boundaries were often indicated by the student’s personal computer and sometimes other personal items as well. The faculty design focused on integration of faculty and student spaces, public display of student work and studio-based classes. At this early stage, there are gaps between implementation and design. Opportunities for further research are explored.

Keywords: studio, territoriality, personal space

Page 2: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

2

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Introduction Beyond the product of its practice, the built space, the field of architecture demonstrates benefits transferable to other fields. Since Schön’s (1985) analysis of architecture studios as a valuable pedagogical approach that encourages participants’ ability to deal with ill-defined problems of designing the built space, researchers interested in design pedagogy worked to understand more deeply and harness its strengths for other fields. This has led to studios in computer programming (Barak, Harward, & Lerman, 2007), information technology (Carbone & Sheard, 2002), Instructional Systems Technology (Clinton & Rieber, 2010) and Human-Computer Interaction Design (Blevis, Lim, Stolterman, Wolf, & Sato, 2007; Brandt et al., 2008; Y. J. Reimer & S. A. Douglas, 2003). From studies of these implementations a theoretical framework including surface features, pedagogy, epistemology and community of practice emerges to make sense of the elements involved and how they interact (Cennamo, Brandt, S. Douglas, Vernon, & McGrath, 2010; Shaffer, 2007).

An important surface feature in the architecture studio is dedicated personal work area (Demirbas & Demirkan, 2000) as practice in the field involves sketching using a variety of scales. Furthermore, the studio itself is accessible by students beyond posted class times and they are encouraged to work there after hours. Student-dedicated work space is traditionally part of the description of the studio learning environment (Brandt et al., 2008, 2010) because sketching is a prominent component of the designer’s toolset (Boling, 2010a; Buxton, 2007; Lawson & Dorst, 2009; Nelson & Stolterman, 2003). Ever-increasing pressure to reduce costs, have educators experimenting with the model (Cai & Khan, 2010; Tucker & Reynolds, 2006): it is worthwhile optimizing learning environments by providing dynamic flexible spaces. Indicators are that removal of private space from collaborative environments can have a beneficial impact (J. S. Olson, Teasley, Covi, & G. Olson, 2002).

In this study, we observed an HCI/d program without dedicated space in an effort to establish whether territorial behaviours exhibit themselves (Brown & Robinson, 2007).

Review of Literature

Where did the Design Studio Come From? Disciplines in which creativity is valued, such as visual arts, music and architecture, have long taken advantage of studio environments (Larson, Cennamo, & Vernon, 2008). Furthermore, instruction designed to support these disciplines often takes advantage of studios, such as École Des Beaux Arts in Pariouttakrs, France and the Bauhaus in various locations in Germany.

Schön (1985), claimed the architecture studio offered benefits in the form of authentic tasks in a realistic context. The ill-defined tasks require that a successful solution develop as a dialogue between designer and design context. The studio calls for practice and, through it, the acquisition of tacit knowledge of technical concerns and the affordances of the tools used

Page 3: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

3

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

to achieve them. In addition to practical application of the tools, Schön argues the benefit of instructor-, peer- and practitioner-led guidance in the form of “desk crits” and “juries.”

The architecture design studio is a signature pedagogy—a method developed for a profession to convey a way of thinking that is particular to the field (Shulman, 2005a). In the studio signature pedagogy, the instructor challenges and critiques the work of students, working either independently or collaboratively, encouraging them to find their own solutions to design problems (Shulman, 2005b).

Adaptations of Studio Pedagogy in Multiple Fields Recognizing potential benefits offered by studio-based instruction, attempts have been made to adapt this method to other disciplines. The problem centred, hands-on approach has been variously adapted to physics (Cummings & Marx, 1999; Dori & Belcher, 2005), math, computer programming, information technology, instructional systems technology, and HCI/d with differing results.

Escher’s World (Cossentino & Shaffer, 1999) was a combination of math and graphic design. In the lab, students were given design problems and provided with mathematically focused tools to define and render their responses. Feedback was provided in the form of performance assessments—similar to critiques — in response to the design story provided by the student. This study informed an analysis of an M.I.T. architecture studio which led to the development of a framework for understanding a studio-based pedagogy (Shaffer, 2007). Extending the work of Schön (1985), Shaffer argued that surface-features interact with epistemology and pedagogy in an interlocking cycle of expression and feedback.

Figure 1 Cycles of expression and feedback (from Shaffer, 2007)

Page 4: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

4

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Building upon the work of Shaffer and Schön, a theoretical framework has been developed to understand the inner workings of the design studio (Cennamo et al., 2010). In this model, the studio itself serves as a bridge enabling students to pass from academia into professional practice. As such, they enhance Shaffer’s model (Shaffer, 2007) by adding the community of practice as an additional layer of interactions specific to the discipline being taught. For example, studio instructors may arrange the workspaces (surface features) to serve their pedagogical interests resulting in a shared interaction space, while a student may move furniture to carve out territory within the existing space. Alternatively, HCI/d studio students require space for usability testing while an architecture studio may opt for large spaces for pinups.

Design Practice Design practice, with its continuing refinement of candidate solutions to a problem, involves communication, both visually and verbally between stakeholders (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003). This implies a need for space both for the creation of products and for displaying them in an effort to elicit feedback for further growth.

Design itself has been described as moving an existing situation to a preferred state (Friedman, 2003). There is no correct answer, but rather solutions that solve problems and others that do not. They are often ill-defined or “wicked” problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973) that must further be framed by the designer. Framing is the process of deciding what to focus on and what to ignore; it results from an application of design judgment (Lawson & Dorst, 2009; Nelson & Stolterman, 2003) and is therefore deeply personal.

Designers are known to sketch their ideas in one form or another in the process of development (Boling, 2010a; Buxton, 2007; Lawson & Dorst, 2009). They take advantage of past experience as they struggle to solve the task at hand, which appears to be driving an effort from the academic community to formalize reporting and documentation of design cases (Boling, 2010b; Boling & Smith, 2009). Sketching, using traditional materials (e.g. paper and pencil) requires space. A dedicated space minimizes the setup and teardown required with each use. However, digital technologies such as laptops and tablet computers support sketching tasks and yet are portable.

Although the romantic notion of a “eureka” moment of creative insight persists, research indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas from the surrounding environment (Cross, 2011; Lawson & Dorst, 2009). Some of this input may come from precedent in the form of design cases collected over time (Boling, 2010b), but it also comes from communication with others. Awareness of reflection-in-action enables designers to be more competent in the messiness of design problems (Schön, 1987) and this may be facilitated by critiques by and impromptu discussions with others. Therefore, an

Page 5: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

5

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

important support for designers and aspiring designers is the establishment of a collaborative culture—an integral feature of a studio environment (Cennamo & Vernon, 2008).

Human Territoriality Territoriality, or ownership of resources such as space, ideas or even people, is expressed and observable as marking, through reactionary or defensive behaviours. In contrast with personal space, which is dynamic and appears to have direct biological origins, territoriality seems to be a more durable and culturally grounded extension. As such, it seems that it offers benefits in building community and, despite the conflicts in which it often seems to manifest, creating a workplace that does not support territoriality can lead to problems.

Territoriality is described as a feeling of ownership over physical or social entities in a workplace (Brown & Robinson, 2007). This may be expressed through a wide variety of behaviours aimed at social construction of a territory by signalling its extent and defending boundaries. Although it has been linked to benefits from identity construction and a sense of belonging in a social group, it can also hinder effective knowledge sharing, as it is durable over time and people feel protective of the entities they believe to be owned by them. Territorial behaviour falls into the categories of control-oriented marking (e.g. a name plate), identity-oriented marking (e.g. placing photos of loved ones), anticipatory defences (e.g. locking one’s door) or reactionary defences (e.g. removing a trespasser) (Brown, 2009).

A study of territoriality with respect to violent teenage gang activity was performed in Glasgow, Scotland (Kintrea & Suzuki, 2008). The authors indicated possible roots in the Maslovian basic human need for security, a sense of belonging, esteem and self-actualization.

Differences in degree of territoriality expressed in differently configured classrooms and the role played by gender were investigated (Kaya & Burgess, 2007). Their surveyed sample included 912 students at a university indicated the strength of territoriality and likelihood of mounting a defence varied from student to student, but level of territoriality and seat location were related (i.e. high territoriality students consistently chose seats on the ends of rows). On the other hand, women were more likely than men to lay claim to a particular seat regardless of the configuration. Another study (Haber, 1980) of 48 students in a classroom looked at defences. Students were more likely to defend spatially central territory than that on the periphery. Additionally, more defences occurred by those who occupied the space already that day than if they were entering fresh in the morning. Furthermore, those who retreat instead of defending, tend to sit near to their original seat.

Personal space is more fluid as it refers to a cognitive construct that allows one “to operate at acceptable stress levels” (Evans & Howard, 1973, p.340) by avoiding feelings of crowding. The zone includes the space around a person and can extend to tools they are manipulating. Its size varies not only from individual to individual, but also by gender-pairing combinations and psychological state—both alone and in relation to specific others (Burgoon & Jones, 1976; Evans & Howard, 1973; Iriki, Tanaka, & Iwamura, 1996). These behaviours have been

Page 6: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

6

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

traced to particular groups of cells (Lloyd, 2009). Sommer’s (1969) (somewhat ethically suspect) experiments in physical personal space invasion with patients in a 1500 bed mental institution led to “fully half of the victims [having] departed compared with only 8 per cent of the controls” (p.33) after 9 minutes. A similar effect was achieved with students in a university library but not at a distance.

Research on territoriality in organizations is largely theoretical at the time of this writing and a dearth of validated measures is available. An attempt to validate Altman’s Typology of human territories was performed and the empirical findings do support the theory (Taylor & Stough, 1978). Altman classifies territories as primary, secondary or public in relation to an individual and indicates that measuring centrality/control and the duration one spends in the space can be used for classification. Although the results sound promising, the sample consisted of friends of friends of the researchers. Furthermore, the subjects in the urban space were an ethnic minority as high education, high-income whites in a 90% black and low-income neighbourhood. Both of these issues present significant threats despite the strong MANOVA results.

Demirbas and Demirkan (2000) looked at issues of privacy, personal space, territoriality and crowding in an architecture studio in Turkey. An observation of the studio itself indicated that students demarcate their space by placement of personal belongings or by using surface features such as cabinets or partitions as dividers. The results suggest that the studio in question was not flexible enough to meet the privacy needs of its users. Although a majority indicated they share their design ideas with others, locating their table near friends, most of those also indicated a preference for greater isolation and secrecy in the studio.

Research into computer supported collaborative work applies an understanding of territoriality in efforts to support workplaces. Even in shared spaces (e.g. table top computing environments) close observation reveals distinct personal, group and storage territories (Scott & Sheelagh, 2004). Others contrasted groups working with shared digital artefacts (e.g. documents) with those using physical objects and the former were claimed to have yielded “better-quality designs” (J. S. Olson et al., 2002, p. 127) but little detail was provided on the artefacts, the conditions of the study or the measure(s) of quality. Analysis of a workspace (Hunt & Poltrock, 1999) specifically designed for collaboration through elimination of private, enclosed spaces indicate a dramatic improvement in the unit’s capacity. This would seem to indicate that reducing opportunity for isolation might benefit group work, but it should be noted, “a process change to multi-disciplinary work cells also occurred during [the time of the study]” (p. 10). Another report indicates that such efforts do not eliminate territoriality, but rather exacerbate the situation—again, few details were provided (Brown, 2009).

Purpose of Study The HCI/d program, which constitutes the subject of this study, did not explicitly provide or allocate space to individual users of the environment, but the literature suggests that this is

Page 7: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

7

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

an integral component of a studio-based pedagogy (Brandt et al., 2010; Demirbas & Demirkan, 2000). This study investigated how students in a studio-based Human-Computer Interaction Design program made use of the provided studio with respect to territoriality.

Research Questions 1. What did the faculty involved in designing the studio space report as their pedagogical

and epistemological goals for the studio space?

2. Did the study participants’ behaviour fall into patterns that suggest an attempt to create personal or private territory?

3. Did the participants feel the studio adequately addresses their need for personal or private space? Or did they find themselves satisfying their territoriality needs by going elsewhere?

Method

Researcher’s Connection to the Study The researchers conducting this study were familiar with the context and many of its participants because both researchers had taken classes in the program while completing the requirements for a doctoral minor in HCI/d. Additionally, there are strong ties between the major department of the researchers and HCI/d as a result of faculty relationships and collaborations and fellow students who are likewise minoring in the program.

Setting The study was conducted at a large Midwestern university within its School of Informatics. Specifically, this study concerns itself with those students in the Human-Computer Interaction Design (HCI/d) Masters program. This program was established in the year 2000, and was of interest because the faculty has been actively working to enhance it with a physical studio space since 2007 (Blevis et al., 2007). The intensive program saw Masters students study theory and grapple with authentic and contrived design problems over a series of design-oriented courses. Students in their first year were exposed to a wide range of craft-knowledge-based studio and theory-based courses, engaging in product testing, prototype creation, and ethnographic methods (for inquiry). Second year students spent both semesters completing a Capstone project which drew upon coursework from first year, moving a problem from framing through design iteration to prototype. As this study concludes at the end of the spring semester, it was expected that a majority of second year students would spend much time working on their Capstones and other projects. There was no requirement that they use the provided space, but it was likely that they would do so during this period if they were inclined to use it at all.

Beginning October 2010, the studio underwent significant changes as it was moved from a secluded basement room to an upper floor of a newly constructed space designed for the purpose. In January 2011, the move concluded with the reallocation of the original space.

Page 8: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

8

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

The new space was publicly accessible during the period of the study, because planned electronic door locks had not yet been installed. Additionally, the ventilation system was only partly operational and stacks of shipping boxes remained, slightly crowding a peripheral space during initial observations. In spite of being incomplete, the entire faculty had moved into their offices in the new studio. The faculty acknowledges that the process of establishing an appropriate culture is in progress and the goal of incorporating theory makes the program distinct (F1); one cannot expect this data to reflect a traditional studio culture or program. Further complicating the circumstance, the original studio space offered limited personal storage, privacy for and ownership by the intended users and freedom to make a mess. It is a culture in transition.

A majority of the faculty was not present fulltime throughout the semester and those that remained was focused on research, not the development of the studio space itself. Of the five full-time faculty members, one was on sabbatical the entire time and another two were present only infrequently as their grant-funded research required travel; they taught no classes and their availability was limited. One might expect changes to occur once the faculty has had an opportunity to use and develop the space further. The relative newness of the space provides a unique viewpoint, as features and affordances that would be embedded and difficult to analyse in an established design and studio culture are still relatively exposed and malleable in this space, as faculty and students work to build their own studio culture.

The approximately 3,725 square foot space offers an open layout (see Appendix A) for faculty, Ph.D. and Masters student use. The department was involved in the planning of the space, consulting in the details of the layout and furnishings. Three faculty offices occupied secured, locked spaces on the periphery, featuring a glass wall facing the design space. Three more nautilus-style offices comprised an island against an internal wall in the middle of the space. The nautilus offices featured a large sitting room with a smaller workstation connected to it. Most striking was the fact that these offices have no doors at all — the walls provide structure, but there are no doors or locks. The two entry/exit doors to the floor were unsecured.

The primary working area, accessible to all Masters students, comprises approximately 880 square feet within the space, with an additional 1,100 square feet of auxiliary space accessible for individual work. These two areas are divided in function based on the space and furnishings—while the primary space is separated from faculty offices and provides numerous work tables, digital displays, and whiteboards, the auxiliary spaces face faculty offices or major entrances to the floor, and feature open study carrels, sofas, and small circular tables and chairs. In addition to these two areas, a shared, semi-private meeting room with writable surfaces (also identified as the “fishbowl” [S4, S25, S30] or “war room” [S30]), open to viewing through a glass wall and door, comprised 128 square feet adjacent to the primary studio area. The south wall of the studio was glass, but the faculty offices blocked most of the natural light from reaching the largest student work. There was also a small kitchenette.

Page 9: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

9

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Potential workspaces included semi-circular high tables with bar stools and an accessible high-resolution video display, large beanbags, standard tables and chairs, study carrels, and comfortable sofas. The wall spaces featured five fixed whiteboards at regular intervals—some enabled with a camera to facilitate recording of sketches and notes, and numerous portable whiteboards and stands for individual or group use. Lighting was provided by overhead fluorescent lamps and augmented in daytime by natural light from windows in the north and south walls.

Participants

Faculty interviewees The participants in this study included two faculty members responsible for the design of the space and the curriculum employed therein. The faculty members selected were involved in the initial design of the HCI/d studio program and of the space itself. Faculty members who had published on the studio program design process or on research related to collaborative work were approached first. Although all who were approached expressed interest, only two were able to make themselves available for interviews.

Observation participants Student participants include all those who entered the space during at least one observation session. The space was open to the public at the time of the observations, but was neither obvious nor easy to reach. It was expected that those using the space would primarily be students in the HCI/d program and students taking HCI/d courses.

Student interviewees At the conclusion of the observation period the researchers reviewed the observation data for indicators of territoriality amongst participants. Examples of candidate behaviours included (but were not limited to): decorating or demarcating an area, informing others verbally of spatial ownership, gestures to warn others away, leaving objects on departure.

Once candidate behaviours were identified, the researchers tallied the participants in close proximity of the expressed behaviour. All participants were ranked according to the number of distinct instances of candidate behaviours they were likely to have been involved in (even if peripherally). Ultimately, six were asked to participate in an interview and three accepted.

Type of Study In this exploratory, naturalistic case study the researchers collected and analysed observation and interview data using primarily qualitative methods. A case study “investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” in which “[t]he boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 1994, p. 13). Furthermore, it is naturalistic because the researchers observed behaviours in person in their natural environment (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and then analysed these behaviours for signs of territoriality—a subjective judgment based upon matching perceived behaviours with the

Page 10: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

10

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

descriptions from the literature on the subject. When such behaviours were identified, the researchers followed up with interviews to gain further understanding of the motivation behind the behaviour and confirm or reject the notion that they were territorially motivated. Additionally, the researchers interviewed members of the faculty to understand their goals and how they implemented the HCI/d studio to provide a richer context for the results of the observations.

Data Collection Strategies

Faculty interviews Two individual, semi-structured, one-hour interviews were conducted with faculty members to gain an understanding of the design goals and implementation realities of the HCI/d studio program (see Appendix C). These interviews were performed after reading their published writings on the topic. Each interview was recorded using a LiveScribe Echo smart pen (www.Livescribe.com) to synchronize the audio with the notes. As it is known that designers sketch (Cross, 2011; Lawson & Dorst, 2009; Nelson & Stolterman, 2003), the LiveScribe notebook was made available for any sketching, to facilitate communication. No such sketching occurred. Upon completion, these interviews were transcribed for analysis.

Observation period In parallel with the faculty interviews, the design studio was observed in four three-hour sessions per week over a period of three consecutive weeks towards the end of the spring semester, followed by another two three-hour sessions three weeks later during the final week of classes. This yielded 42 hours of observation data. The researchers recorded observations on a blueprint of the space (see Appendix A). The researchers recorded the position of visible people and movable objects at twenty-minute intervals. Additionally, the researchers logged potentially territorial behaviours. The average number of participants noted per sheet was 5.7 with a maximum of 16 and a minimum of 0 (See Appendix B).

Page 11: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

11

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Table 1 Two consecutive observation instrument pages with area colour overlay indicating regions of the space and showing observer notes from 3.40pm and 4:00pm on the same day 3:40pm 4:00pm

Student interviews After the observation period completed, the researchers followed up with interviews of three students who were exposed to candidate territorial behaviours. Four interviews were sought and six candidates were identified, but only three took part in interviews. Two interviewees were male (S4, S25) and one was female (S30). Both males had prior work experience, but it was unclear if S30 did. S4 and S30 were in their second year, while S25 was in his first. These semi-structured interviews explored the motivations behind the behaviours in question and how well their needs were met within the physical space (see Appendix D).

Table 2 Number and classification of interviewees Interviewee Classification Number

Faculty 2

First-year Master’s Students 1

Second-year Master’s Students 2

Throughout the study, the researchers maintained an informal reflective log of observations, impressions and progress in the study, to facilitate analysis and monitor their subjective lenses (Glesne, 2006).

Analysis The primary investigator reviewed all interview data at least twice from transcripts and twice from the recordings, to become familiar with it. The software program TAMS Analyzer

Page 12: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

12

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

(multiuser version 4.13b13h, http://tamsys.sourceforge.net/) was used for transcription and coding. Complete thoughts, which took many forms in the captured verbal communication, were sought. Therefore variable length utterances representing complete thoughts comprised the unit of analysis (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). All data was read and coded as follows:

Table 3 Data codes derived from Cennamo et al. (2010) and Brown (2009) as pertains to the research questions and used in the analysis process Design Epistemology Pedagogy

Behavior Identity Marking

Control Marking

Anticipatory Defensive

Reactionary Defensive

Features Provided

Missing

Satisfied elsewhere

Observation data The observation data were analysed for instances of territorial behaviours upon completion of the observation period to facilitate selection of student interview candidates. Upon completion of this analysis, instances were reviewed and six target interviewees were identified (see Data Collection Strategies). Of these six candidates, three participated in interviews.

Faculty interviews The next read of the faculty interview data coded the categories pedagogy and epistemology. The faculty interview information was primarily intended to provide data to answer research question 1. The codes were derived from the question to be answered (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009, p. 476).

We began analysis with a framework of codes including epistemology and pedagogy in reference to the design of the space but these two overlapped heavily, and lost much of their categorical significance. Therefore, the taxonomy used in the reporting of results for research question one used the terms design and implementation in lieu of the originals. Design refers to the initial goals for the designed space, along with the process through which the space was envisioned and built. Implementation refers to the physical reality and usage of the space, including application of pedagogy and constraints that constitute the gap between design and implementation.

Page 13: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

13

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Student interview data Student interview data was read, explicitly looking for behavior descriptions and classifications as well as references to pedagogical methods employed, epistemology, and felt needs. This analysis was primarily applied towards answering research questions 2 and 3, but contributed to question 1 as well.

Validity and reliability Both validity and reliability are significant concerns in research—particularly when using methods in which the researcher is the instrument. These researchers subscribe to the argument that, under such a circumstance, such terms largely lose their meaning. In their place, one can instead provide transparency in their activities (both physical and mental) in an effort to enable the reader to make their own determinations from the most well-informed viewpoint (Wolcott, 1990). As a result, the researchers maintained a reflective journal and performed one round of member checking based upon the first draft (Glesne, 2006). Additionally, the researchers collected data during independent observation sessions in the space.

The data from these sessions were compared and found to be similar in the type of content noticed and recorded. Although one researcher coded all data and transcripts, a sample was constructed to calculate Cohen’s Kappa as an estimate of our shared understanding (Fleiss, Cohen, & Everitt, 1969) for inter-rater reliability. The 63 item test resulted in a kappa of .569 which Landis and Koch (Landis & Koch, 1977) characterize as moderate agreement. Upon review of the discrepancies, it was determined that this was due primarily to lack of context in the test samples and the inability to properly account for multiple coded utterances. However, this was not deemed problematic for this study.

Results and Discussion Throughout the results section, observed users of the design space, along with faculty and student interviewees, are referred to by a unique code to appropriately anonymise the data, while also providing the opportunity to identify parallel accounts in which the same subject is referenced. Faculty are identified by an “F” followed by the order in which they were interviewed, while students are represented as “S” plus the order of their appearance within the space.

Design v. Implementation As indicated in the analysis section, answering our first research question regarding faculty epistemological and pedagogical goals for the space led to a re-framing of this data as a contrast between design intent and implementation. Goals for the space during planning stages included: tight integration between faculty and student spaces, creation of public spaces where student work is visible and accessible, and allowing for the integration of a studio-based teaching model component.

Page 14: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

14

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Design Intent The HCI/d faculty was involved in the design of the new studio space, bringing a variety of experiences and expectations of the role of the studio. Two of the faculty came from traditional design school environments that included the use of studio space as the primary pedagogical model. F1 reported “both F3 and I have a history of being in more traditional design schools - at least to some degree,” and two additional faculty members were resident researchers for a semester in a university with a strong studio focus. Through these experiences, a variety of epistemological concerns for the space were raised during the design process.

From the perspective of utility, the studio space is primarily an area for design practice, and is expected to be a “very messy place” where “ongoing work is—is present in the space all the time” (F1). In addition to the continual presence of student and faculty work, participants in the space can “see what the other students are doing...and how they do it” (F1). While these traditional studio norms were clearly important to the faculty, the HCI/d program provides more breadth than a normative studio experience, focusing not only on craft, but also on “intellectual, theoretical thinking...research...[and argumentation]” (F1).

A consideration overarching the practical goals of the studio space is the role of a design culture. The studio space does not provide intuition on proper use, “it's not as simple as, if you have the space then people will use it in a way they are supposed to” (F1). A combination of the features of the space and the underlying pedagogy of the program, brought together through the studio’s design culture, will “educate [students], push them, force [students] to use [the space] in the way that it should be used” (F1). This acculturation to the culture of the studio by students becomes organic over time, with “new students […] doing what the others are doing,” “until it becomes a natural part […] of the culture” (F1).

Implementation The design of the space naturally proceeds from the epistemological considerations of the faculty, but the specific pedagogy created was subject to a series of design considerations and constraints. Although stated goals of the space included themes of a “very messy place” (F19) and the presence of ongoing work, neither of these characteristics is true of the current space. The relative cleanliness of the space may be due to perceptions about the space from students, as S4 indicated, “it has to be presentable in case someone com—like faculty or senior staff comes to have—hold a meeting in here. They don't want to have to clean our space—since nobody cleans it.” Additionally, the lack of storage or individually dedicated space limits potential for display or presence of ongoing work and there appeared to be no other mechanism for displaying student work either in-progress or completed.

Another observation of interest is the placement of walls in the space. Based on a series of floor diagrams and faculty interviews, walls separating the faculty space to the south from the main studio space in the north, along with the west presentation table wall, and the full wall between the two faculty offices on the east end of the building were all late changes.

Page 15: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

15

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Although these walls may initially seem to be inconsequential, the west Ph.D. space is created by such a wall and, despite our not observing more than the southern carrels in use, Masters students requiring space for research clearly felt it was off limits. Furthermore, the faculty space to the south effectively prevents the natural light from the south windows from benefitting the designers in the north.

Finally, although the space was not designed for direct studio instruction, like the spaces experienced by much of the faculty during their own education, use for studio-style classroom instruction has been considered. However, while the traditional studio model includes the display of work from students and faculty alike, in this setting, faculty members are judged by their research output, not presence of studio work in the space. The space “has not really [been] incorporated... intentionally in the courses” (F1), but there are unofficial plans to teach studio-based courses there in the future. The purpose of a course is a consideration in determining whether the studio would be helpful, with F2 noting “[the faculty] are very committed to a studio-based teaching...[but] I guess it would have to depend on the nature of the class.” The space has been used for an invited speech, and found to be successful “because the space is not very big [...] so it’s more intimate and people are more engaged that way” (F2).

The Observed Context The studio was constructed on the third floor of the School of Informatics, which is not easily accessible physically by students outside the Masters or PhD program. The open studio space replaces a smaller basement area that was the exclusive province of students in the Masters program until October 2010. The Masters program currently includes approximately 70 students, evenly distributed over first- and second-year status. The program is completed in two years by the majority of students, with 80-85% of students finishing the cohort-based program on a full-time basis. The Masters and PhD students both occupy the studio space. The PhD program includes approximately 15 active students, with an expected duration of five years. While Masters students do have access to the resources within the space, they do not have individually dedicated physical space there. In contrast, the PhD students are assigned a study carrel for the duration of their degree program. F19 expressed disappointment in not having been able to secure individual workspaces for all graduate students: “the best space would be to have a much bigger space where all our students would have their individual workstation.”

Students in the Masters program were observed in the final weeks of spring semester, when second-year students were concluding Capstone projects, and first-year students were completing a wide range of smaller projects in various studio courses. The studio space was available for student use 24 hours a day, utilized for a variety of purposes, including individual project work, socializing, group meetings, prototype testing. It has also been reserved and used for occasional departmental events [reported by F2 and S4]. In some cases, one of the access doors was locked and thus inaccessible to students on evenings and weekends, reducing access.

Page 16: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

16

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

During the 42 hours of studio observations, 89 unique subjects were observed, including 4 faculty members, 7 PhD students, 36 known Masters students, one was identified as a visiting applicant to the program and 41 subjects that were unknown to the researchers. The researchers had each taken at least one course in this program, and recognized some but not all students in the space. Some of these unknown subjects may be duplicates as we relied upon written physical descriptions to identify those not personally familiar to us. These subjects spent a combined total of approximately 204 hours in the space, drawing from observation sheets compiled every 20 minutes throughout the observation period. The duration students spent in the space ranged from 20 minutes to 14 hours, with a median of 100 minutes per subject spent in the space over 42 hours of observation.

Most activity was concentrated on the north-facing wall of the space, stretching from PT1 to the fishbowl. Although traditional tables in the centre of this space were well used, the presentation tables on the east and west ends saw the majority of the open space activity, while the fishbowl served a need for group or individual privacy on a temporary basis. The south-facing portion of the space was infrequently used, despite the availability of large floor-to-ceiling windows allowing a great deal of natural light. Students waiting to speak with professors used this area and, in one case, a professor used this space to discuss a project with a group. However, interviews corroborated what this researcher found to be the case: “[the furniture is] really ugly and uncomfortable” (Appendix E, Q1).

The southeast area is equipped with a sofa and appears to be outfit as a lounge. Although at least one student and one faculty member felt this to be an ideal location for social activities, only one group activity was recorded there during the observations and it was often empty.

Personal and private space The analysis of studio observations and faculty and student interviews revealed a number of ways students attempted to create personal or private space, in relation to research question 2.

While the space was under observation, interactions between the participants would most accurately be characterized as friendly or cordial; no overt conflicts were detected. Students worked both individually and in groups. It was not uncommon for entrants to greet others before setting to work.

On an individual level, we did not see significant territorial behaviours emerge. Only one participant expressed an affinity towards a particular place within the studio. Of the roughly nine and a half hours S4 spent in the space, about 7 and a half found him working at the western presentation table (PT1). This preference, however, was due in part to the needs of his Capstone project, which involved observing patterns of resource usage. When asked about it, he responded that it was a “personal choice […] so I could observe the space” (Appendix E, Q2). However, no identity or control marking was apparent beyond his frequenting that area and he denied any possessiveness, “if someone’s there, I move to a different spot on the table. I don’t feel hurt[…]” (Appendix E, Q3)

Page 17: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

17

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

In spite of the lack of physical markers and S4’s indications, S33 perceived this space to be S4’s territory: “people I’m good friends with, like [S33], are like haha! I’m in your space” (Appendix E, Q3). Aside from S4, no other participant was as consistent in selecting a particular area.

Participants often entered the space, dropped their bags on a table and walked away for a bit or work elsewhere before returning. Although this might be construed as a control marking behaviour, it appeared to be a convenience or, in some cases, a need for a change of scenery. Both S34 and S22 were seen alternating between areas of the space, in most cases leaving personal belongings in at least one area unattended. S34 alternated between the lobby space, where he worked with laptop and writing materials facing faculty offices and a bean bag near the north wall of the main studio space where he napped and used a mobile device; he seemed to treat the studio as he might his own home.

The two second-year interviewees both felt an unmet need for a place to store their personal materials — an inability to establish anticipatory defences. Both of these students presented their frustration at having to bring all their materials to and from the space each day and S30 indicated that this contributed to her reluctance to use the space: “the hassle to drag all of that stuff on the campus that it doesn’t seem worth it[…]” (Appendix E, Q4).

Interestingly, S25, who had no opportunity to work in the previous space (which included a small number of lockers which could be claimed by students on a first-come, first-served basis), expressed no such need for storage space.

Owning the space While instances of individuals overtly claiming and defending space for themselves was relatively rare, it felt that the users as a whole were struggling to determine some form of ownership of the space. This took the form of individuals acting in or on the space in an effort to mark it or defend it on behalf of all Master’s students. It is not clear that any of these actors sought opinions from the group they aimed to represent and these actions were not universally welcomed, but they were noticed.

There were inconsistent views of what belonged to the Masters students and what did not. It was the researchers’ impression that the entirety of the new design studio that was not specifically assigned to either faculty or a Ph.D. student was to accommodate the Masters students and Ph.D. students worked there as well. Nothing the faculty said contradicted this impression, but S4 was convinced otherwise: “the Master’s space is really considered to be from— from this room, the fishbowl conference room—to the other wall” (Appendix E, Q5), followed later by: “actually the display tables aren’t really considered ours” (Appendix E, Q6)

In fact, some of these decisions were still changing: “they think it’s for Ph.D. students and that’s what we said in the beginning […]” (Appendix E, Q7). This emerged during our interview with S4 (Appendix E, Q8).

Page 18: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

18

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Technology Of the students seen in the space, most brought a laptop, tablet or other computing device. Four of the people who entered the space and sat alone reading on chairs in front of the south windows did not visibly have computing devices and the same was true of the student who took a nap in the lounge area east of the lobby. In addition to these special cases, none of which were known to be Master’s students, all students we observed carried personal belongings that included computing devices. These computing devices often followed their owners if they should move, even temporarily, but occasionally were left until the owner’s return. The researchers did not notice any password protection or other anticipatory defences being used, but for S25, his laptop seemed to serve as an extension of his territory: “my privacy was really kind of invaded today […] I go to take a phone call in the design space and I come back and my screen has been adjusted for, like the blind […]” (Appendix E, Q9). Later he elaborated that his computer is organized “so I can work immediately” (Appendix E, Q10). Clearly, for S25, the laptop represented a work environment that carried a portion of his identity as a student and as a designer. S25 elaborated that he had four computers at home and three were shared with his partner, but this machine alone was off limits. Through this instance, personal computing devices may be considered a powerful implementation of personal territory, while a decidedly transitory presence in the space.

Group Ownership Upon entering the space for the first observation session, it felt and even smelled like a new construction. The carpet had no visible stains and the paint on the walls was not noticeably marked. The tables were clean with the exception of a few papers, cups and a bowl. By comparison, the Ph.D. Students identity marked their dedicated spaces with books and other work materials, even spreading out into the surrounding areas with posters and Christmas lights. We noticed 6 posters hung on the walls at various times, a stuffed monkey hung from the rafters and a pirate flag that made a brief appearance. Each of these items contributed to its character. The students we spoke with had mixed feelings about these, but they were most strongly expressed in relation to the pirate flag. The two male interviewees talked about the flag and both felt that it clearly carried a message and an attitude—and neither felt it represented them as individuals. S4 seemed to appreciate the effort even if he didn’t agree: “That’s somebody’s personal idea of what [design] is. It’s not what I would think of” (Appendix E, Q11). By contrast, S25’s reaction was a bit stronger: “I hate it. Gimme a break, I hate it […] I also don’t want a pirate flag hanging… because it has no meaning for me” (Appendix E, Q12).

On the other hand, S4 appreciated some identity markers he perceived as missing. He was most upset about the absence of their toy box (Appendix E, Q13).

Communicating group identity The whiteboards also carried various patterns, sketches, and messages. The students we spoke with seemed to appreciate the whiteboards, but during the observations of the space,

Page 19: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

19

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

students were often careful to clean off their work when they were done. S8 would write on the board and then immediately erase it, go to work on his nearby laptop and then go back to the board to repeat the process. Others left their work on the board during the time they were there and then cleared it before they left. Although some work did remain on the boards, it was mostly community messages that remained longer than a single working session, like a joke or a graphic to celebrate the first day of spring. S25 commented on this: “people were drawing stuff on that and I thought it was kinda’ cool because it created this, like, location, this place where people could be creative […]” (Appendix E, Q14).

As with identity marking behaviours, control marking behaviours were observed at the individual and group level. In addition, some behaviours represented other actors exerting control over this new space. Some, like S10 claimed the fishbowl by writing reservations on its glass wall. Others, like S30, piled the worktable she occupied with her belongings. In some cases, this may simply have been for convenience, but S30 later reflected upon her intent to discourage others from joining her. She also spoke of others who moved desks around, apparently to create their own space: “they take one of the tables, shove it against the wall, make it like it’s a desk almost […] I did it once intentionally because […] you kind of have to put those barriers up…” (Appendix E, Q15).

In a dissimilar instance, a table was also moved, but not by a Master’s student. Towards the end of the semester, one of the four tables initially in the design space was moved into a formerly unoccupied office. S22, a Ph.D. student, and other Ph.D. students subsequently used the office. There was no indication that the Master’s students were consulted prior to the removal of this table from the design studio space.

Some people appeared to seek control over their territory by deliberately choosing who shared it rather than attempting to defend an unoccupied space on their own. One afternoon, a woman, S48, entered to find three of the four tables occupied students. A fourth table carried a notebook and two of the four chairs around it held backpacks. S48 asked S25 if she could sit at his table and he responded, “sure, but I may ask you some questions about IRB.” The woman proceeded to sit down and work. Although, S25 did ask a question or two a few minutes later, there was no extended conversation indicating familiarity between the two. Later, in interview, S25 indicated some memory of the event, but could not recall who the woman was. When asked to speculate on why S48 chose his table as opposed to the empty one with a few belongings, he responded: “Once there are two people at a table, we take up enough space that it’s—it’s atypical that someone else will come sit down at that table with you” (Appendix E, Q16). Furthermore, we observed that during the period of our observations, S25 appeared open and welcoming. In particular, during one observation session, he approached one of the researchers and asked who he was and what he was doing. When asked about this event, he responded: “we’re trying to create like a safe space […] Ask them if you can help them with anything. Or find out what they’re doing there so that they understand what the space’s purpose is” (Appendix E, Q17). When asked if he felt comfortable doing this, he answered, “yeah. Yeah, because you wouldn't be very good - it

Page 20: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

20

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

wouldn't be good for you to make any enemies there. So it was a bit of a power thing there[.]” Clearly this was a polite, but confident reactionary defence directed at protecting his studio. S25 was not the only one to approach a researcher in this way (when the space seemed to approach full capacity a few sarcastic comments were made to the observing researcher by S8, S71 and S80 about his being an “outsider”), but he was the only one that did not have a pre-existing relationship.

Struggling for control As the Master’s students sought to establish themselves in the studio space, there’ve been conflicts with other stakeholders. It seems the pirate flag, about which feelings were mixed, was a casualty of a power struggle between the faculty and its supporter(s). It was hung in an apparent effort to identify the space with the Masters students, but not everyone agreed with the sentiment it conveyed: “there was a professor who found that since this was a shared space and there’s groups coming here other than us, that that might be interpreted wrong by other people, so that’s why it got taken down initially” (Appendix E, Q18). It seems the professor reacted to defend users of the space from this apparent affront by asserting his control over the environment as a member of the faculty. It is possible that this faculty member held a broader view of stakeholders in the space than did the students, showing concern for the presentation and appearance of the new space to academic officials.

One afternoon a few Masters students entered the space with a large flat panel display and a gaming console for research. It is the impression of the researchers (based upon the testimony of S4) that this hardware was donated by students (like the contents of the toy box) who work in the space and was to be available for use by all Master’s students. Unfortunately, there was only space for it in a Ph.D. space. Discussion quickly turned to whether or not it was OK to place the system in territory occupied by the Ph.D. students and conflict surfaced. S4 explained it arose from the need to be “respectful of the Ph.D. people” and the knowledge that “the only way people are going to know it's here is by its being present. You know, if you, if you have it in the storage area in the box, people aren't gonna' want to pull it out all the time.”

Finally, the students and faculty both emphasized the importance of getting dirty. This was a theme common to all five interviews. HCI/d designers need to be able to get dirty and make a mess in the studio. If they are to build prototypes, they can't be worried about spilling a little paint on the floor. An important epistemological component of the studio space is the constant exposure to others working (Shulman, 2005a) and yet this space was always clean, and relatively tidy. Even when students brought in materials, they left no trace when they were finished. This is due, at least in part, to seemingly contradictory faculty messages: “they can do things in it, as long as they clean up afterwards […]” (Appendix E, Q19). However, the biggest factor is that second-year students do not feel it is their space. The studio space previously experienced by these students was located in a small basement room at the back of the building, rarely visited by anyone other than HCI/d Masters students. Its walls were covered in a whiteboard surface filled with sketches and notes; counter spaces housed

Page 21: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

21

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

works in progress. By contrast, students internalized the need to keep the new space clean. One of the researchers in this study has a significant academic background in the field of graphic design, including over two-dozen classical design courses in various studio environments. In contrast, the observed studio space was uncharacteristically clean, indicating a lack of use by the students or lack of artefacts retained after student departure. S4 lamented that “you can’t goof around up here. […] It does happen, but not to the extent they did before” and “we no longer have our personal storage […]” (Appendix E, Q20). This feeling is compounded by the perception that "this is now shared by the dean and anybody else who can come and hold events in here, so there's got to be more thought given to what is being hung up on the walls and things like that” (S4).

The Masters students that we observed using the space exhibited a variety of territorial behaviours. Many of these seemed to be motivated by a desire to establish a space for the group rather than for individuals. Although the researchers expected to find individual territoriality, our data clearly tells a story of group identity and ownership in the space.

Meeting the Needs of the Students Our third question explores how well the HCI/d studio meets its students’ needs for personal or private territory. This iteration meets some student needs well while others are not yet realized and, in some cases, these needs are satisfied elsewhere. While its occupants make regular use of the presentation tables, we did not notice contention over outlets or whiteboards or even the conference room. The beanbags along the north side of the space and the sofa in the southeast corner both provided comfortable spaces for students to nap.

Exposure to work All interviewees, Masters students and faculty alike, expressed a need for freedom and space to get dirty. HCI designers need to be able to get dirty and make a mess in the studio. An important epistemological component of the studio space is the constant exposure to others working (Demirbaş & Demirkan, 2003) and yet the space was always clean and tidy. Images were often seen on the whiteboards and stray cups or papers were not uncommon, but everyone we spoke with felt that HCI/d was about building–which implies making a mess. Notably, according to the students, no cleaning staff maintains the space.

Similarly, the faculty believes the epistemology of the studio environment to involve “the entire building […] it's work everywhere” (Appendix E, Q21). Although desire for showcase capabilities were expressed to the architects and the planning committee, no space expressly provided for the display of projects yet exists. Due to the research focus of the faculty, artefacts of faculty work are not available, which further contrasts the current space against the model of a studio space.

Storage As discussed earlier, the new studio space does not provide any facility for storing personal materials. As a result, S30 indicated that she used the space less because doing so meant

Page 22: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

22

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

she would have to carry her materials back and forth from her home. Both second year students remarked on the absence of lockers, despite having had some in the basement space and perceived promises that this feature would be replicated in the new space.

Social interaction Although it did not seem to present difficulties worthy of mention by S4 or S25, S30 had mixed feelings about the social nature of the space and her seeming inability to escape it. “[Y]ou just don't get that community feeling. Which is kind of a shame. Because that's exactly what they wanted, it seems. They wanted PhD and master's students to interact more. And I think that they are, but I think that's also a drawback of the space, is that there's so much socializing going on because of it. That's why I don't go there to work ever.”

Limitations of The Study As we analysed this rich data set, we noted some limitations of the study resulting primarily from the newness of the space, the nature of the program itself and the students it attracts.

This study was conducted during the first semester this space was in use as the primary workspace provided to our study participants and this had a number of implications. Physically, important aspects of the construction had not been completed—most notably, the locks securing the entry/exit doors. Indeed, some faculty materials were still being moved from old offices to new. Although it is clear that the students we observed and spoke with felt uncomfortable making a mess, it seems likely that this is, at least in part, due to the fact that everything is still clean and new.

Our participants were all HCI/d Masters students or very recent graduates at the time of the data collection. They were trained, as designers, to change an existing situation to a preferred one (Friedman, 2003) and therefore criticality is to be expected.

Although the awareness of being studied is sufficient to alter behaviour to some degree (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), the researchers avoided exacerbating the situation by not interfering or asking questions during the observations. As a result, much of our interpretation came from our informed inferences and the recollections and guesses of our interviewees.

Conclusion Within the data collected and analysed in this study, individual territoriality was not seen to be the norm, but was observed in isolated incidents. While individuals infrequently employed these measures to mark off space in a temporary way, the primary utilization of defensive behaviour applied more directly to groups in the space. These groups were largely ad hoc as observed in the space, but could have potentially been related to project groups, individual courses within the curriculum, or classification as first- or second-year students, or as Master’s and Doctoral students. The need for personal space was apparently not anticipated or assumed by many students, particularly the first-year Master’s students that had not experienced the previous studio space, which provided greater isolation due to its remote location. Students appeared to address any personal space in a transitory manner, seeking

Page 23: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

23

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

out minimal personal boundaries, often in the form of their personal computer, while present in the space, and removing all personal artefacts when leaving. Some students also reported setting up their primary personal working space at home or in other areas, infrequently relying on the studio space to serve this function. Based on the knowledge that some students were not observed in the space despite significant and varied coverage in a high traffic period and the university guidance that a standard three-credit hour course requires nine hours out of class (“Academics: New Students,” 2011), it can be inferred that some students worked elsewhere.

The space was designed by the faculty to included integration of faculty and student spaces, provision of public spaces dominated by visible student work, and the possibility of a studio-based teaching model where applicable. Significant discrepancies apparent in the final space included omission of mechanisms for displaying student work and the current status of teaching studio-based courses in the space—courses were in the planning stages but not yet active. Further, barriers created by walls added late in the construction process counteracted the goals of faculty and student space integration.

These researchers find that this space is too young to thoroughly apply the framework for understanding the design studio (Cennamo et al., 2010). Elements of the faculty’s design intent and of the usage patterns within the space do align — particularly the desire that students be immersed in the work of others and certain social aspects such as critiques and the evolving community. However, the space is too new for discussion to be meaningful.

This study suggests opportunities for future research including investigation into group territoriality, the transition between the design intent of the studio space and the actual functioning and utilization of such a space, and the shaping of a design culture both through explicit pedagogy and implicit sharing and shaping of culture between students and faculty. Additionally, recognizing the computer as an element of personal territory may present additional opportunities for researching individual territoriality in a transitory design studio space.

Page 24: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

24

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

References

Academics: New Students. (2011). Indiana University Bloomington, University Division. Retrieved July 30, 2011, from http://www.indiana.edu/~udiv/new-students/academics.shtml

Barak, M., Harward, J., & Lerman, S. (2007). Studio-based learning via wireless notebooks: a case of a Java programming course. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 1(1), 15–29. Inderscience. Retrieved from http://inderscience.metapress.com/index/exvkjgrm1e176u22.pdf

Blevis, E., Lim, Y.-kyung, Stolterman, E., Wolf, T. V., & Sato, K. (2007). Supporting design studio culture in HCI. CHI ’07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '07 (p. 2821). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1240866.1241086

Boling, E. (2010a). Design Sketching. Noel Wheeler Press.

Boling, E. (2010b). The Need for Design Cases  : Disseminating Design Knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 1-8. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/index

Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2009). Exploring Standards of Rigour for Design Cases. Retrieved from http://shura.shu.ac.uk/468/1/fulltext.pdf

Brandt, C., Cennamo, K. C., Douglas, S., McGrath, M., Reimer, Y., & Vernon, M. (2008). (de) Coding the Studio Method to Teach the Design of Human-Computer Interaction. 24th National Conference on the Beginning Design Student. Atlanta. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1853/29133

Brandt, C., Cennamo, K. C., Mcgrath, M., Vernon, M., Douglas, S., & Reimer, Y. (2010). DIY Ethic of the Design Studio – Past, Present & Future. IDSA Education White Papers.

Brown, G. (2009). Claiming a corner at work: Measuring employee territoriality in their workspaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 44-52. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.004

Brown, G., & Robinson, S. L. (2007). 15 The dysfunction of territoriality in organizations. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper, & R. J. Klimosk (Eds.), Research Companion to the Dysfunctional Workplace: Management Challenges and Symptoms. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Human Communication Research. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00706.x/abstract

Page 25: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

25

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching User Experiences. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Cai, H., & Khan, S. (2010). The Common First Year Studio in a Hot-desking Age: An Explorative Study on the Studio Environment and Learning. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 5(2), 39-64. Retrieved from http://cebe.cf.ac.uk/jebe/pdf/HuiCai5(2).pdf

Carbone, A., & Sheard, J. (2002). A studio-based teaching and learning model in IT: what do first year students think? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(3), 217. ACM. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=637610.544485

Cennamo, K. C., & Vernon, M. (2008). Fostering Creativity in the Classroom: A Case Study of a Multidisciplinary Design Project. Success factors in fostering creativity in IT research and education (p. 11). Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved from http://swiki.cs.colorado.edu:3232/CreativeIT/uploads/245/cennamo_paper.pdf

Cennamo, K. C., Brandt, C., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., & McGrath, M. (2010). A Theoretical Overview of the Studio as a Learning Environment. American Educational Research Association (p. 10). Denver, CO.

Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. P. (2010). The Studio experience at the University of Georgia: an example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 755-780. Springer. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9165-2

Cossentino, J., & Shaffer, D. W. (1999). The math studio: Harnessing the power of the arts to teach across disciplines. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 33(2), 99–109. JSTOR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3333689

Cross, N. (2011). Design Thinking. New York, NY: Berg.

Cummings, K., & Marx, J. (1999). Evaluating innovation in studio physics. American journal of physics. Retrieved from http://link.aip.org/link/?AJPIAS/67/S38/1

Demirbas, O. O., & Demirkan, H. (2000). Privacy dimensions: A case study in the interior architecture design studio. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0272494499901482

Demirbaş, Ö. O., & Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learning styles. Design Studies, 24(5), 437–456. Elsevier. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X03000139

Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students’ Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts? How Does Technology-

Page 26: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

26

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Enabled Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students’ Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279.

Evans, G. W., & Howard, R. B. (1973). Personal space. Psychological Bulletin, 80(4), 334-344. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033290907665885

Fleiss, J. L., Cohen, J., & Everitt, B. S. (1969). Large sample standard errors of kappa and weighted kappa. Psychological Bulletin, 72(5), 323-327. doi:10.1037/h0028106

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (Seventh.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods. Design Studies, 24(6), 507-522. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5

Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Haber, G. M. (1980). Territorial Invasion in the Classroom: Invadee Response. Environment and Behavior, 12(1), 17-31. doi:10.1177/0013916580121002

Hunt, R., & Poltrock, S. E. (1999). Boeing Operations Fleet Support: A Case Study in Integrated Workplace Design. Cooperative Buildings. Integrating Information, Organization and Architecture, 2-11. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/e427378g622105w1.pdf

Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport, 7(14), 2325. Retrieved from http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/8951846

Kaya, N., & Burgess, B. (2007). Territoriality: Seat Preferences in Different Types of Classroom Arrangements. Environment and Behavior, 39(6), 859-876. doi:10.1177/0013916506298798

Kintrea, K., & Suzuki, N. (2008). Too much cohesion? Young people’s territoriality in Glasgow and Edinburgh. In John Flint & David Robinson (Eds.), Community cohesion in crisis: new dimensions of diversity and difference (p. 277). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159. Retrieved from http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/843571

Larson, M., Cennamo, K. C., & Vernon, M. (2008). Knowledge, Conditions & Interactions in Studio-Based Design Education. Association of Educational Communications and Technology. Orlando, FL.

Page 27: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

27

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design Expertise. Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Lloyd, D. M. (2009). The space between us: a neurophilosophical framework for the investigation of human interpersonal space. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S014976340800167X

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The Design Way (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Olson, J. S., Teasley, S., Covi, L., & Olson, G. (2002). Lessons from Collocated Work. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed Work. MIT Press.

Reimer, Y. J., & Douglas, S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education, 13(3), 191–205. Routledge.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730

Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio, an exploration of its traditions and potential. Building. London, UK: RIBA Publications Limited.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. AERA meeting. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, Inc. Retrieved from http://educ.queensu.ca/~russellt/howteach/schon87.htm

Scott, S., & Sheelagh, M. (2004). Territoriality in collaborative tabletop workspaces. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1031655&dl=GUIDE

Shaffer, D. W. (2007). Learning in Design. In R. A. Lesh, J. J. Kaput, & E. Hamilton (Eds.), Foundations for the Future In Mathematics Education (pp. 99-126). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://epistemicgames.org/cv/papers/8089_Lesh_CH05.pdf

Shulman, L. S. (2005a). The signature pedagogies of the professions of law, medicine, engineering, and the clergy: Potential lessons for the education of teachers. Teacher Education for Effective Teaching and Learning Workshop, NRC, Irving, CA. Retrieved March (Vol. 15, p. 2009). Retrieved from http://www.taylorprograms.com/images/Shulman_Signature_Pedagogies.pdf

Shulman, L. S. (2005b). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/0011526054622015

Page 28: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

28

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Sommer, R. (1969). Personal Space. The Behavioral Basis of Design. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED036112

Taylor, R. B., & Stough, R. R. (1978). Territorial cognition: Assessing Altman’s typology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 418-423. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.418

Tucker, R., & Reynolds, C. (2006). The impact of teaching models, group structures and assessment modes on cooperative learning in the student design studio. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 1(2), 39–56. Citeseer. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.96.4868&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Wolcott, H. F. (1990). On Seeking - and Rejecting - Validity in Qualitative Research. In E. Eisener & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative Inquiry in Education (pp. 121-152). New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Page 29: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

29

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Appendix A

Page 30: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

30

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Appendix B

Page 31: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

31

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Appendix C

1. When did you become involved in the design of The Space? What stage was the design in at that point?

2. What do you feel are the most important features of this design studio program? 3. How does The Space figure into the pedagogy of your classes? Of the department as a

whole?

Interviewer will ask probing questions to follow up on participant responses.

Page 32: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

32

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Appendix D

1. What felt need do you have, if any, for personal space or territory as a student in HCI/d. 2. How do you satisfy any need you might feel for personal space as a student in the HCI/d

program? 3. During my observations, I noticed ____________. Can you recall the purpose behind this

action? (Repeat with other behaviours as necessary.)

Interviewer will ask probing questions to follow up on participant responses.

Page 33: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

33

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Appendix E

Table 4 Full quotes

ID Quote

Q1 S25: the front section to me, by the windows, I mean it's really unfortunate because it seems like it's really nothing more than a lobby for the professors offices and nobody really works there very often, and I definitely don't because I find the chairs uncomfortable. And I think that's really unfortunate because they could have like really comfortable chairs with a little table in front of them, I think, with a big back that I might sit at and stare out the window. But they've chosen these, like, really ugly, uncomfortable, backless chairs….

Q2 S4: um, actually, it's a personal choice of mine. R: mmm-hmmm S4: I chose it mainly because it was in the corner so I could observe the space because I - I, when I was doing my Capstone also, I was observing the space.

Q3 R: do you feel that other people view that as your space as well? that sort of corner, that… S4: only people that want to torment me, so, people I'm good friends with, like [S33], are like haha! I'm in your space. R: hahah! Ok S4: you know - if other people take it that way, that's fine. I don't claim that space. I don't say it's mine. I never - if someone's there, I move to a different spot on the table. I don't feel hurt if anybody's in that spot.

Q4 S30: There's not a lot of computer stuff that I take on the campus now that - I mean the Arduino stuff [a programmable circuit board for a project], I have it in a box enough that I could protect it enough, whereas a laptop in my computer- in my bookbag, I would freak out. I would like, camp out at informatics and pull everybo- <wind noise> [...]there's a little bit of a safety issue that I don't like to bring that stuff as well as that I don't get as much stuff done when I do take the time and the hassle to drag all of that stuff on the campus that it doesn't seem worth it that - when I do have stuff like I'm sewing for Arduino I'm building something.

Page 34: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

34

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Q5 S4: It is actually about the same size [as the basement space]. R: is it really? S4: our space? yeah. I mean from - from this wall R: oh, you mean just this area - ok S4: just what's the master's space? the master's space is really considered to be from - from this room, the fishbowl conference room - to the other wall. This little spot here is ours. R: Oh! So then those areas over there are not - S4: common

Q6 S46: from the mentality of what I’ve picked up, our space is from this from the display rooms to the display tables. And actually the display tables aren't really considered ours

Q7 S19: … and the interesting thing is we do have some - you know, the workspaces over there, you know, around the glass R: yeah, I know S19: at least one or two that are - that are open. almost no one uses those [...] they think it's for phd students and that's what we said in the beginning, so master's students never use them.

Q8 S4: like over on that side, and these [desks] over here will become more of a cubicle space for masters… R: well these over here are open, those are… S4:but they're assigned to people. They're all—these are phd R: these are phd, these are not S4: yeah, yeah R: S19 told me that they weren't S4: ok, well then, that, they - because there were people assigned to them R: oh really? oh. That's interesting because he - he was commenting that he wasn't sure why people hadn't taken any - why like, nobody used those spaces because they weren't assigned… S4: well… R: and I might have misunderstood… S4: when this space first opened up, there are phd students that were assigned desks here

Page 35: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

35

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Q9 S25: my privacy was really kind of invaded today because there were - because for some reason today, I don't know what's going on with the second years, like, they're like graduating and they're getting, like... R: silly? S25: silly. But I - I go to take a phone call in the design space and I come back and my screen has been adjusted for, like the blind - like, the colorblind or something like that. And it was just like a prank or something

Q10 S25: when I go to my computer, I can't spend time reorganizing it. I need it to be there so I can work immediately.

Q11 S4: um, the flag, I didn't have anything one way or the other. The flag didn't mean anything to me, to me that's not a design-type thing, so. That's somebody's personal idea of what it is. It's not what I would think of. R: mmm-hmm S4: to me, I don't have a problem with it being gone.

Q12 S25: I hate it. Gimme a break, I hate it. R: you hate what? S25: I hate them all. R: the posters? er: yeah, they're just like poorly done. [...] I feel like there should be a discussion first and that we can actually, like design a better space. [...] I feel like it's very sophomoric to kind of just put stuff up like that. [...] I also don't want a pirate flag hanging… because it has no meaning for me. I assume it has meaning for everyone else, but[…]

Q13 S4: we don’t have a toybox here anymore because they won’t put our toybox in, so, you know…

R: OK

S4: there are things we used to have in the space that we no longer have because we no longer have it. And that's one of the big issues also with this new space R: so we- so you can no longer have the toybox - what was in the toybox? I don't... S4: nerf guns, nerf footballs, race tracks. various - bascially stuff that people have picked up over the years, doing - cuz when we do prototyping, you never know what someone's gonna' prototype and what's being used for a prototype

Page 36: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

36

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Q14 S25: there was like a whiteboard on the west side, um, it's like a hallway, but it's basically like the outside of Erik's office. R: yup S25: it's like a whiteboard material. so people were drawing stuff on that. R: that's all whiteboard? S25: yeah R: ok. yeah yeah… S25: so people were drawing stuff on that and it was getting erased and people were drawing stuff on that and I thought it was kinda cool because it created this, like, location, this place where people could be creative and leave stuff knowing people would walk by and respond to it. Kind of like a bulletin board type of thing.

Q15 S30: I've seen other people do this where it's like they take one of the tables, shove it against the wall, make it like it's a desk almost. I mean, I could do something like that, I could put stuff on the chair to my left, to my right, stuff in front of me. Almost taking up an entire table, and, like... R: and do you do that intentionally? S30: I did it once intentionally because, like, if I'm taking up that space. I mean, not only is it, I'm spreading out so I'm not crowded, but it's kind of like I'm saying: I'm busy. You can't sit here because there's stuff there, so even if you do sit at this table, like, you're sitting further away from me. So I mean it's probably passive aggressive and I didn't realise it, but you kind of have to put those barriers up…

Q16 S25: I think usually I - usually I sit by myself. I tend to like a lot of space, but at the same time, I guess, the only thing that I can think of is that one thing about sitting at those tables in there with someone that you know, or a table that is already occupied, is that you already are in control of who else is going to sit there, you have less of a chance of someone joining you. Once there are two people at a table, we take up enough space that it's - it's atypical that someone else will come sit down at that table with you. Especially if there's a full open table. That's a not crowded table. So that's the only thing that I can think of and that's something that I've done before, is to say: OK, I'm going to sit at this table with this person because I like them or I know them and I don't want to risk sitting alone at a table to then - to have someone come sit next to me…whoever that might be.

Page 37: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

37

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Q17 S25: Well, we're trying to create like a safe space up there - it's a semi-private space. R: right S25: um, so, a lot of times people will leave their belongings, like very expensive belongings, like laptops. R: yeah S25: out, and, uh, and a lot of times people will borrow stuff. Like I borrowed - I mean I borrowed an ipod charger off this phd's desk today. And so it's kind of like, it was pitched to us when it was opened that it was this private space that we were the only ones that were allowed there and for that reason it was safe. Not necessarily leave your stuff, because it was unlocked, but it was just kind of like this safe place. And so that creates this need and not everyone is good at it - even I'm not that good at it - but whenever someone that you don't know comes through the space, I think it's important to introduce yourself. Ask them if you can help them with anything. Or find out what they're doing there so that they understand what the space's purpose is. And if they're there and they're - they shouldn't be, or, um, or just - it's like introducing yourself to your neighbours.

Q18 S4: but um, from the standpoint of these posters, um, it's individual people putting posters up and, and they, um, and people were trying to put things up in there to be a - to make it more of our space and so that's why things are coming up. That was one of the issues with the flag R: mmm-hmm S4: it's because of what it was, um, there was a professor who found that since this was a shared space and there's groups coming here other than us, that that might be interpreted wrong by other people, so that's why it got taken down initially, then somebody put it back up again, trying to say: well it's our space, we can do it and… I think the professor finally took it away and has kept it now because, you know, he said once not to put it up and I don't think people took him seriously, and he was very upset about that because you have to remember that this is no longer a - a private space which was our previous space, this is now shared by the dean and anybody else who can come and hold events in here, so there's got to be more thought given to what is being hung up on the walls and things like that.

Q19 F2: Right now you go there, it's a very neat place. R: yeah F2: does that make sense? R: absolutely F2: I want the students to actually feel like they can play with it, they can do things in it, as long as they clean up afterwards, they need to feel free R: yeah F2: to do what they need to do in order to be creative doing design work.

Page 38: Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio · indicates that design concepts evolve over time and are influenced by exposure to ideas ... Searching for Personal Territory

Searching for Personal Territory in an HCI Design Studio

38

Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Copyright © 2010 CEBE

Q20 S4: and so we don't have - things that we used to, you know - we had videos of people engaging in nerf gun battles and things like that and just goofing around doing things like that and that's just not happening up here. R: so does that. So does this space have a different feel than the other space did when people are working in it? S4: yes. yes. yes. This space doesn't give you the option of - you can't be like - you can't goof around up here R: no more nerf gun battles… S4: it does happen, but not to the extent they did before R: yeah S4: because they're not available - they're not sitting… R: and you don't think that in time they could… S4: right now they're locked up in the storage room next door R: I'm not specifically that - but do you think that there's a possibility that in time this could evolve into a space… S4: here's what is gonna' have to happen. Um, what you see up here is that we no longer have our personal storage is gone from up here also.

Q21 F2: the entire building, like four floors, you go into any space, whether it's faculty space/student space, design studio/workshop space— it's work everywhere.