James Hopkins PG Cert

During the process of the action research project I was interested in exploring the idea of an ethical workshop environment and what does that look like?

Due to challenges and delays from the move from Camberwell to Shepards bush our space is far from a complete state, but progress has been made. After conducting research from other technicians across UAL a few recurring themes have stuck out to me. One being that the space is never really finished and constantly evolving. This is reflective of students needs, desires, abilities etc. but also in terms of equipment in the space – especially for us in digital fabrication as tools and processes are constantly updating and changing, similar to the cohort of students who access them.

As we were required to open in an unfinished state we have persistent issues, for example there is still no extraction in the space so processes like laser cutting can’t be used by students and this goes back to the issue echoed by other technicians during my research that often the design of spaces at UAL are unfit for purpose at the architectural level. Because of this our space has been limited to processes that don’t require extraction, for example 3D printing, and 3d Scanning, pen plotting and vinyl cutting. What I’ve found is by limited the processes the experimentation of the tools we can provide has been more creative which is an interesting and positive development.

In terms of creating an ‘ethical’ space, as the space is evolving this is an ongoing discussion. Practical implementations like things like having appropriate sound proofing for students who are sensitive noise, having height adjustable desks, keeping walkways clear etc. But also how can we make a safe and comfortable environment for students who perhaps feel intimidated or nervous to enter? Again, these are ongoing discussions and more research can be done perhaps from the student voice to hear their opinions and concerns.

After visiting the workshop spaces at Chelsea and Camberwell we had discussions about the table in the centre of the room. This allows students to assemble, modify and finish their models to emphasis that the workshops are making spaces and not services provided to students. This is something we have implemented at Lime Grove and it’s been in used by students in the same way, helping with collaboration and creativity within the space.

During my site visits to both Camberwell & Chelsea’s digital fabrication spaces I conducted semi-structured interviews with the technicians working and took images of the space. I was primarily focused on the locality of the spaces to other workshops and the pros/cons of this. I took inspiration after reading a paper on triangulation where semi-structured interviews provided a ‘rich and more nuanced descriptions of the complexities of delivering human services programs in rural contexts.’ (Dallas J. Elgin, 2021)

During these interviews I recorded the conversation and extracted some quotes highlighted below that align with my findings:

For example the digital fabrication workshop at Chelsea being so close to the wood workshop helps with students ‘connective thinking.’ We discussed how a project developed in digital fabrication is never usually the final product. For example, a 3D print can be sanded down, painted and finished in the wood workshop, it can also be vacuum formed and turned into multiples via plaster. The interconnectivity of the spaces allows for this thinking to be more fluid.

There’s also a more practical element where you ‘can always chat to other technicians​ immediately.’ This quotes highlights the importance of interconnectivity not only for students, but for staff. During our conversation we discussed how you can easily cut a larger piece of wood down to size in the wood workshop to place in the laser cutter, for example. This ease of flow allows for a much smoother and more beneficial working environment.

In terms of the space forever evolving one technician mentioned that ‘it’s never really finished.’ This quotes highlights to me the ever-evolving aspect of these spaces. As students needs grow and change or as equipment evolves the spaces have to adapt, so this is something I need to keep in mind when designing our space.

We also discussed an issues with the space being in close proximity to the wood workshop in particular is that noise and dust can travel into this area, and as digital fabrication has digital machinery this can cause problems. ‘Noise of the 3D workshop travels across ​to the digital fabrication space.’

This also highlights an issue of student accessibility. Students who are sensitive to noise, for example, would have a hard time in the digital fabrication space when heavy machinery is being operated. This evolved into how technical spaces could manage this. We discussed the idea of having ‘quiet hours’ at set periods of the day, however this would limit what tools can be used during these times. We also discussed the importance of appropriate sound-proofing. This goes back to the frustrations of the spaces being appropriate at an architectural level, as there is only so much we, as technicians, can do on the ground. One ideas discussed is having headphones readily available to students who are sensitive to noise.

During our discussion we also talked about technical areas being a ‘working space.’ There was emphasis that these areas weren’t a ‘service bureau.’ A discussion ensued around a table in the centre of the Chelsea workshop where students assemble, modify and finish their designs and this is something I have taken forward in our space at Lime Grove where similar activities have taken place.

I found these interviews extremely helpful in my research. Being present in the space helped me gather a better understanding of a functioning, working space. A limitation I found was that it was difficult to extract appropriate data from the recordings and the discussions were rather informal and I could have steered the conversation about ethical considerations of the space. I also only visited two UAL digital fabrication sites and It might have been beneficial to gather data from a wider variety of sites to compare and contrast. Some potental follow up actions conducting surveys or additional structured interview.​

References

Annie Irvine, et al (2012) Am I not answering your questions properly?’ Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews, Qualitative Research

Dallas J. Elgin, at al (2021) Human Services Programs in Rural Contexts Mixed Methods Analysis, Integration, and Triangulation Plan, OPRE Report 2021-214

Annie Irvine, et al (2012) Am I not answering your questions properly?’ Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews, Qualitative Research

Erin Higgins et al (2023) Towards a Social Justice Aligned Makerspace: Co-designing Custom Assistive Technology within a University Ecosystem, In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility.

Dallas J. Elgin, at al (2021) Human Services Programs in Rural Contexts Mixed Methods Analysis, Integration, and Triangulation Plan, OPRE Report 2021-214

Hemingway, J., & Armstrong, F. (2012). Space, place and inclusive learning. International Journal of Inclusive Education

Hotte, Ngaio & Nikolakis, William (2021) Implementing “ethical space”: An exploratory study of Indigenous-conservation partnerships, Conservation Science and Practice

Jean, M. Converse & Stanley Presser (2011) The Tools at Hand In: Survey Questions, Sage Publications, Inc.

Louise Archer et al, (2022) Developing equitable practice with youth in makerspaces,  Making Spaces.

Manning, C., Williams, G., & MacLennan, K. (2023). Sensory-inclusive spaces for autistic people: We need to build the evidence base, Autism, 27

Marcelo Worsley & David Bar-El (2022) Inclusive Making: designing tools and experiences to promote accessibility and redefine making, Computer Science Education.

Partridge, Helen & Wong, Anne(2016) Making as Learning: Makerspaces in Universities, Australian Academic & research libraries

Sams, C (2016) How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in higher education? Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal

Smith, D.N., Adams, J., Mount, D., Reeve, N. and Wilkinson, D. (2004) Highly skilled technicians in higher education: a report to HEFCE, Leeds: Evidence Ltd.

Thomas, Cate (2022) Overcoming Identity Threat: Using Persona Pedagogy in Intersectionality and Inclusion Training, Social Sciences 11

Till M. Gantert et al, (2022) The moral foundations of makerspaces as unconventional sources of innovation: A study of narratives and performance, Journal of Business Research 139

Till M. Gantert et al, (2022) The moral foundations of makerspaces as unconventional sources of innovation: A study of narratives and performance, Journal of Business Research 139

I sent out a questionnaire (Jean, M. Converse & Stanley Presser 2011) to technicians across UAL, some of which I work in close contact with and others from different sites. The questions were open-ended and I encouraged people to write as much or as little as they wanted. I wanted to gather as wide a variety of responses as possible. Some people wrote paragraphs, while others wrote a sentence. . For context I’m going to focus on two questions I asked. The first question was: If you were starting a new workshop, what would be your top priorities in terms of planning the space?

A summary of Key Priorities, I found:

Space layout and flow: Ensure the space is dynamic and adaptable to various uses.

A focus on equipment and resources: Making sure the workshop is well-equipped and safe for students to use.

Safety: Prioritize safety features like ventilation, machinery placement, and overall layout for the benefit of students but also the safety of the staff. 

Comfort and accessibility: Create an inviting, accessible environment for all users.

Collaboration and engagement: Foster a space that encourages both individual work and group collaboration. A space where students can work individually and independently or as part of a larger dynamic. As put in How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in higher education: ‘all student work is a one off creation.’ (Sams, 2016) so the space needs to reflect those individual needs.

Flexibility: Design the space to be flexible and able to evolve as student needs change.

Another key area of interest in the ethics of a space, for this question I asked: Is there anything you do to ensure your workshop is accessible to all students?

There was a focus on creating a supportive, adaptable, and inclusive space that not only meets the physical needs of students but also fosters an environment of respect, learning, and accessibility. For example: 

Physical accessibility: Ensuring the space is easy to navigate for everyone, with special attention to students with disabilities and mobility issues (e.g., clearances, height adjustments).

Supporting Diverse learning needs: Catering to different learning styles with varied resources such as written instructions, videos, visual aids, and in-person assistance.

Using online resources (e.g., Moodle, videos) to ensure that students can still access information even if they can’t be physically present. – bringing the workshop/learning outside of the physical space – to ensure that students can still access information even if they can’t be physically present. This could go hand in hand with potential barriers to the space: ‘It is easy to see how other modifications, like providing advance information about sensory environments (e.g. photos on a website), could also help others, such as wheelchair users or people with anxiety or dementia, navigate the space.’ (Manning, et all, 2023)

Making an Inclusive environment: Promoting a welcoming and respectful space where all students feel comfortable – there was an understanding that workshops can be an intimidating space for many students. 

Considering language barriers and providing translated or visual aids for better communication, there was a key emphasis on communication. 

Adjustments to materials and space: Modifying physical setups and resources to accommodate the physical and learning needs of students (e.g., rethinking equipment placement). ‘

Inclusive Making: designing tools and experiences to promote accessibility and redefine making. ‘People with disabilities may find themselves excluded from many making activities and makerspaces’ (Marcelo Worsley & David Bar-El 2022)

One thing I gathered from the data is the focus on physical accessibility, but very limited response to hidden disabilities and how to support those students – from readings and my own research (for example) things can be in place to support students who struggle with sound, for example having headphones available in clear view they can access. Perhaps highlights our collective unawareness of hidden disabilities.

A limitation of this data was the fact I only sent to staff, specifically technical staff across UAL. It would have been interesting to gather an academic perspective of workshop spaces – what do they think? What would they like them to be? I imagine the responses might have varied widely.

Also to gather data from a student perspective, but as my interactions with students has been so limited I was unable to do so. It would have been interesting to see what past students thought of our previous space or what the current cohort of students would want from their ideal digital fabrication area. 

Also leaving the questions open ended made it quite difficult to filter through the data. Although I found similarities in the responses, the amount written varied widely. 

References

Jean, M. Converse & Stanley Presser (2011) The Tools at Hand In: Survey Questions, Sage Publications, Inc.

Manning, C., Williams, G., & MacLennan, K. (2023). Sensory-inclusive spaces for autistic people: We need to build the evidence base, Autism, 27

Sams, C (2016) How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in higher education? Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal

Marcelo Worsley & David Bar-El (2022) Inclusive Making: designing tools and experiences to promote accessibility and redefine making, Computer Science Education.

Similar to the site visit I did at Chelsea I also visited the digital fabrication area at Camberwell to gather a wider understanding of the space across UAL.

Similar to the site at Chelsea, the Digital Fabrication area is right next door to the wood workshop, although slightly more contained in its own room rather than being at the end of a long corridor. I spoke to the technicians working about the space and the pros and cons of it being so close to other workshops. One of the technicians at Camberwell said this helps with students ‘connected thinking’ which I completely agree with. If the space was further divided from the other workshops then the outcomes would inevitably be less ambitious and more singular in scope. For example, you could laser cut an object and then finish it in the wood workshop, rather than stopping after the first process.

Logistically this also makes sense, as we talked about in our discussion. For example laser cutters are only so big so having the wood workshop next door to cut larger materials is a huge benefit. If these two areas were separated then the process of moving materials becomes more difficult and even a potential barrier for some students.

We also talked about the difficulty of noise in the space, as they have a full size CNC at Camberwell which creates a lot of noise when in use. However, the technician mentioned that it’s often not a problem as there aren’t many computers in the space where students prepare digital files as this would be done beforehand somewhere else. This is different to our thinking at Lime Grove. We have iMacs and PCs in our space where students can prepare files with our help for fabrication process, ie laser cutting or 3D printing. Because I work at Pre-Degree the level of understanding from students is slightly less and I feel it’s our job to prepare them for degree level so we need the machines in our space to help with that process. This makes me think how noise could be more of a barrier for us, so in that instance us being in an isolated room away from the noise of the wood workshop could be a benefit. For some students ‘sensory environments can be extremely overwhelming’ (Manning, et all, (2023) When we are fully set up we will have machines that will create a lot of noise and I’m currently having discussions with my colleagues on how to prepare for this. For example, building an isolated room within a room that houses the noisier equipment, or potentially having quiet hours in the workshop.

We also talked about student materials. At CCW Foundation we sold materials for the laser cutter as there was no shop on site. We now have a shop at Lime Grove but it doesn’t stock the right materials in its current format. The technician at Camberwell mentioned that they don’t sell materials and this can actually be a problem as students often buy cheaper materials that aren’t right for the machines and can even potentially be dangerous. They also mentioned that often students want to leave materials in the space and this causes an issue with space – which extends to a wider issue of space for students amongst UAL. We collect a lot of off cuts of materials that we provide to students as I’m aware the financial situation of students can vary drastically, hopefully ‘removing financial barriers as practical tactics’ (Erin Higgins et al 2023) toward making.

References:

Manning, C., Williams, G., & MacLennan, K. (2023). Sensory-inclusive spaces for autistic people: We need to build the evidence base, Autism, 27

Erin Higgins et al (2023) Towards a Social Justice Aligned Makerspace: Co-designing Custom Assistive Technology within a University Ecosystem, In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility.

For my questionaire I sent out a google form to technicans accross UAL, it can be accessed here:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1J9i8eUE2rsQVLJNy9HZ3msZ5jcjCgcAOsgdelV6HNNM/edit

I also conducted site visits to both Chelsea and Camberwell Technical spaces.

Completed and signed consent forms can be found here:

Participant Consent Forms

Version One:

Revised Ethical Action Plan:

When designing a new workshop I’m keen to make it an ethical space, a space where students feel welcome and engaged and able to explore their practices in a safe environment free from judgment. As outlined in ‘Implementing “ethical space”: An exploratory study of Indigenous-conservation partnerships’ (Nikolakis, W. and Hotte, N. 2021) an ethical space is categorised as ‘engagement, dialogic processes and principles such as mutual respect, and introspection and reflection.’ (Nikolakis, W. and Hotte, N. 2021) With this in mind it’s key to follow these processes when engaging with students in a workshop environment. I try to approach each student’s ideas or projects as a fellow practitioner, showing interest in the concept/design and thoughts that led them to entering the workshop. As Anne Wong says about Makerspaces within Universities, the same concept applies here it’s ‘making within a collaborative environment.’ (Wong, A. 2016)

I try to be very conscious of the fact that workshops can be quite intimidating spaces and this is often shadowed by the fact that tutors often have to push certain students, or bring them down themselves, for them to engage with it. I think there’s potentially a stigma, perhaps historically, that technicians can be scary or intimidating and I’ve heard from students in the past that they didn’t enter the space because they didn’t know exactly what to do, or what they were doing. This is something I’m keen to change and I often tell students that they don’t need to know about every process, or what exactly they’re doing, we’re here to have a conversation and create something together. ‘Engagement is typically dialogic, in the form of ongoing conversation and active listening between different groups, involving relationship building, and the sharing of worldviews’ (Nikolakis, W. and Hotte, N. 2021)

I’m also very aware that I work at the School of Pre Degree (previously CCW Foundation) so the students I’m engaging with are straight from secondary school and might not have the confidence of something of a student slightly older or further on in their degree. It’s key to understand and acknowledge my position of power in this relationship. I’m keen to show students that I’m here to learn from them too, as key principle reminded at the PGCert workshops: everyone’s an expert. I think it’s important to be patient and understanding with student projects, asking thoughtful questions and engaging as they might often be personal and (potentially) difficult to talk about.

I’m interested in how to apply these principles to the physical space. Some initial thoughts is supporting students with hidden disabilities without them having to declare them, reducing the risk of ‘identity threat.’ (Thomas, C, 2022) For example, workshops can be noisy environments so a place where headphones are clearly visible and accessible could be beneficial to students with sensory issues. Also, having desks and worktops that can go up or down for students with differing height needs or restrictions. With the workshop currently being empty I am exploring different ways accessibility can be improved from our previous workshop within the flow of the space. We are afforded the luxury of more space, so this idea will improve over time.

Bibliography

Thomas, Cate (2022) Overcoming Identity Threat: Using Persona Pedagogy in Intersectionality and Inclusion Training, Social Sciences 11

Hotte, Ngaio & Nikolakis, William (2021) Implementing “ethical space”: An exploratory study of Indigenous-conservation partnerships, Conservation Science and Practice

Partridge, Helen & Wong, Anne(2016) Making as Learning: Makerspaces in Universities, Australian Academic & research libraries

To gather data I’ve decided to send out an email questionnaireHow has your space evolved over time? to technicians across UAL regarding the set up of a new work-shop. This is to gather data I can cross reference from different sites and see if any similarities stand out. I initially struggled with what questions to ask, worrying they’d be too open-ended. But after discussions from the second workshop I came to the conclusion that getting a wide set of responses could be beneficial, as I’m hear to learn from others experiences and knowledge.

The questions I’ll be emailing out:

• If you were starting a new workshop, what would be your top priorities in terms of planning the space?

I will preface this with a subheading: For context: myself and my colleagues are currently setting up a new digital fabrication workshop at Lime Grove after our move from CCW Foundation in Camberwell.

• Could you briefly talk about what is working successfully in your space & what needs to be improved?

This will directly help us consider things we might have missed when setting up a new space, perhaps things that can be sorted earlier that won’t cause problems down the line. I will preface with the subheading: This could be about the size of the space, equipment, booking issues, students not engaging as intended etc.

• Were you ever consulted about the design of your space? Were things followed through? 

This is a current issue we’re dealing with, essentially working with our back against the wall. A lot of issues could have been easily fixed if we, as technicians, were consulted and I’m interested to see if this is a common theme across UAL.

• How has your space evolved over time?

This is something that inevitably happens in any workshop environment and I’m interested to see how workshops across UAL have evolved over time, whether positively or negatively. I will preface this with the subheading: for example, this could be at a small scale eg. new equipment or large scale eg. moving/expanding the space itself. 

• Is there anything you do to ensure your workshop is accessible to all students?

I’m very interested in this from a social justice stand point. I think workshops historically have been intimidated places where students perhaps would have been too intimidated to enter. And this might still be the case now for some students, but how do we rectify this? Making a comfortable and welcoming workshop environment is something I’m very passionate about, and also making it a space open for everyone. This also includes access needs and hidden disabilities, what can we as technicians do to make this space a place anyone can feel welcome and creative in?

Bibliography

Converse, J., & Presser, S. (2011) ‘The Tools at Hand In: Survey Questions,’ SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks