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.