<%BANNER%>

The Ideal Design Studio

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043522/00001

Material Information

Title: The Ideal Design Studio A Comparative Case Study of the Interior Design and Landscape Architecture Design Studio Cultures at the University of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (169 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Wall, James Douglas
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: culture -- design -- interiors -- landscape -- studio
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This thesis holistically analyzed the project-based educational model of the design studio through a conceptual framework of design studio culture to determine relationships between: the physical learning environment, the social learning environment, and the learning activities associated with the design process. This case study employed qualitative and quantitative research methods to compare the existing conditions of two allied design disciplines at the University of Florida and to describe the recurrent attitudes and behaviors of studio users that were found to be an intrinsic part of design education. The findings showed that students, faculty, and department chairs were dissatisfied with their studios, desiring spaces that were more comfortable and flexible with a greater variety of technological resources. This thesis concludes by coupling characteristics of the physical and social environment that were found to facilitate learning with user preferences to propose administrative, pedagogical, and spatial strategies for optimizing design studio culture.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by James Douglas Wall.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Portillo, Margaret B.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043522:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043522/00001

Material Information

Title: The Ideal Design Studio A Comparative Case Study of the Interior Design and Landscape Architecture Design Studio Cultures at the University of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (169 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Wall, James Douglas
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: culture -- design -- interiors -- landscape -- studio
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This thesis holistically analyzed the project-based educational model of the design studio through a conceptual framework of design studio culture to determine relationships between: the physical learning environment, the social learning environment, and the learning activities associated with the design process. This case study employed qualitative and quantitative research methods to compare the existing conditions of two allied design disciplines at the University of Florida and to describe the recurrent attitudes and behaviors of studio users that were found to be an intrinsic part of design education. The findings showed that students, faculty, and department chairs were dissatisfied with their studios, desiring spaces that were more comfortable and flexible with a greater variety of technological resources. This thesis concludes by coupling characteristics of the physical and social environment that were found to facilitate learning with user preferences to propose administrative, pedagogical, and spatial strategies for optimizing design studio culture.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by James Douglas Wall.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Portillo, Margaret B.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043522:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE IDEAL DESIGN STUDIO: A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY OF THE INTERIOR DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE DESIGN STUDIO CULTURES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA By JAMES DOUGLAS WALL A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 James Douglas Wall

PAGE 3

3 To Mom

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first and foremost like to thank my thesis chair, D r. Margaret Portillo, for taking me under her wing my first semester in the M.I.D. program and flying with me ever since. This thesis is as much hers as it is mine. Furthermore, I would like to thank my thesis committee member, Dr. Mary Joyce Hasell, for s uggesting this topic to me and contributing her knowledge and expertise throughout my journey. I must also thank the students, faculty, and department chairs of the Department of Interior Design and the Department of Landscape Architecture in the College o f Design, Construction and Planning who participated in this study. This thesis could not have been made without their valuable insights. For better or worse, the Architecture Building has been my home, off and on, for the better part of a decade. I t is d ifficult to even imagine what my college life would have looked like without a studio at the heart of it. The relationships born from this dynamic and often sleepless environment are greater than friendships indeed, my friends have become my family. Jessic a Stewart Centella, Karla and Robert Delacruz, Suzanne Dowd, Dennis Kradolfer, Michael and Kiera Kushlan, Nalo McGibbon Danielle Palow, Tristian Rieber, Joshua and Stefanie Rothburd, Alexia Cazort Thomas, Andrew Wehle, and Miche al Wood: thank you all for providing me a place to crash, a shoulder to cry on, and for simply being there. You all mean more to me than I think you will ever know. Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my mother, because without her, I woul d be nothing. So thank you, Mom, for everything.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 The Design Studio ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 14 History of the Design Studio ................................ ................................ ............. 15 History of the Design Professions ................................ ................................ .... 19 Culture of the Design Studio ................................ ................................ ............. 20 Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 22 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 22 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 23 Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 23 Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 24 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 26 Conceptual Framework for Design Studio Culture ................................ .................. 27 Socio Organizational Climate of Desig n Studio ................................ ...................... 32 Characteristics of Design Cohorts ................................ ................................ .......... 36 Physical Features of the Studio Setting ................................ ................................ .. 37 Learning Environments ................................ ................................ ..................... 38 Working Environments ................................ ................................ ..................... 39 Design Studio Attitudes and Behaviors ................................ ................................ ... 43 Diffusion of Responsibility ................................ ................................ ................ 44 The Design Process ................................ ................................ ......................... 45 Conceptual Framework Operationalization ................................ ............................. 47 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 49 Case Selection ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 50 Researc h Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 51 Architecture Building ................................ ................................ ........................ 51 Department of Interior Design Facilities ................................ ........................... 51 Department of Landscape Architecture Facilities ................................ ............. 58 Research Instruments ................................ ................................ ............................. 63 Student Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ 63

PAGE 6

6 Student Focus Groups ................................ ................................ ..................... 64 Faculty Interviews ................................ ................................ ............................. 65 Observations ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 66 Research Procedures ................................ ................................ ............................. 66 Student Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ 66 Student Focus Groups ................................ ................................ ..................... 67 Faculty Interviews ................................ ................................ ............................. 68 Observations ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 69 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 69 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 70 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 71 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ............... 72 Defining Characteristics of Design Studio Culture ................................ .................. 73 Description of Sample ................................ ................................ ...................... 73 Educational Requiremen ts ................................ ................................ ............... 74 Cohort Dynamics ................................ ................................ .............................. 75 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 78 Satisfaction with Design Stu dio Spaces ................................ ................................ .. 79 Design Studio Satisfaction ................................ ................................ ................ 80 Most Liked Features ................................ ................................ ......................... 85 Most Disliked Features ................................ ................................ ..................... 90 Current Studio Descriptors ................................ ................................ ............... 96 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 97 Analyzing the Design Process ................................ ................................ .............. 100 The Imaging Phase ................................ ................................ ........................ 101 The Presenting Phase ................................ ................................ .................... 102 The Testing Phase ................................ ................................ ......................... 105 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 110 Ideal Environment ................................ ................................ ................................ 111 Physical Features of Ideal Design Studio ................................ ....................... 112 Socio Cultural Climate of Ideal Design Studio ................................ ................ 116 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 117 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 119 The Ideal Design Studio ................................ ................................ ........................ 120 Socio Organizational Clim ate ................................ ................................ ......... 122 Personal Characteristics of Design Students ................................ ................. 125 Physical Features of the Studio Setting ................................ .......................... 126 Design Studio Attitudes and Behaviors ................................ .......................... 130 Design Recommendations ................................ ................................ .................... 135 A Postscript and Recomm endations for Future Research ................................ .... 1 37 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 141

PAGE 7

7 APPENDIX A STUDENT SURVEY ................................ ................................ ............................. 142 B STUDENT FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL ................................ ............................ 153 C STUDIO INSTRUCTOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................ .............. 155 D UNIT HEAD INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ 158 E STUDENT SURVEY CONSENT FORM ................................ ............................... 160 F STUDENT FOCUS GROUP CONSENT FORM ................................ ................... 161 G STUDIO INSTRUCTOR CONSENT FORM ................................ .......................... 162 H UNIT HEAD CONSENT FORM ................................ ................................ ............ 163 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 164 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 169

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Summary of professional organizations. ................................ ............................. 20 2 1 GSA Hallmarks of a Productive Workplace (GSA, 2006, pp. 9 10). ................... 31 3 1 ............................ 53 3 2 .............. 58 3 3 Student survey pa rticipants and response rate. ................................ .................. 67 3 4 Focus group participants. ................................ ................................ ................... 68 3 5 Tot al interview participants. ................................ ................................ ................ 69 4 1 Mean satisfaction rating of overall studio environment by discipline and stakeholder gr oup. ................................ ................................ .............................. 80 4 2 Mean satisfaction ratings of studio features by discipline. ................................ .. 82 4 3 Mean satisfaction rating of overall studio space by discipline and cohort. .......... 83 4 4 Frequency count of self reported favorite studio features for interior design students. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 86 4 5 Frequency count of self reported favorite studio features for landscape architecture students. ................................ ................................ ......................... 86 4 6 Frequency count of self reported least favorite studio features for interior design students. ................................ ................................ ................................ 90 4 7 Frequency count of self reported least favorite studio features for landscape architecture students. ................................ ................................ ......................... 91 4 8 Activities associated with the phases of the design process. ........................... 101 4 9 Opportunities and barriers to working in studio. ................................ ................ 104 4 10 Ideal studio descriptors from inte rior design students ( n = 41). ........................ 112 4 11 Ideal studio descriptors from landscape architecture students ( n = 44). ........... 113 4 12 Space types desired in ideal design studio by discipline. ................................ 114

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Architectural studio in Dessau, Germany circa 1925 (Gropius, 1926). ............... 15 1 2 Architectural st udio in New York, NY circa 2009 (Damonte, 2011). .................... 16 2 1 A framework for conceptualizing person environment relations in learning settings (Reprinted with permission from Gifford, 2002, p. 299). ........................ 28 2 2 Conceptual framework of studio culture (Adapted with permission from Gifford, 2002, p. 299). ................................ ................................ ......................... 32 3 1 Architecture Building located at the University of Florida. ................................ ... 52 3 2 Studio module. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 52 3 3 Interior Design ................................ ....................... 54 3 4 View into Interior Design ................................ ....................... 55 3 5 Systems furniture in Interior Design ................................ ...... 55 3 6 Interior Design plan. ................................ ....................... 56 3 7 View into Interior Design ................................ ....................... 57 3 8 Central collaboration space in Interior Design ....................... 57 3 9 Landscape Architecture ................................ ......... 59 3 10 Collaboration space in Landscape Architecture .................... 60 3 11 Drafting height table s and construction wall. ................................ ...................... 60 3 12 Landscape Architecture ................................ ......... 61 3 13 View into Landscape Architecture ................................ ......... 62 3 14 Drafting tables in Landscape Architecture ............................. 62 3 15 Research instruments by framework dimension. ................................ ................ 63 4 1 Distribution of student reported time spent in studio in a typical week. .............. 75 4 2 Signs of overnight stays in the interior design studios. ................................ ....... 76 4 3 Household appliances in ID Cohort A studio. ................................ ..................... 76

PAGE 10

10 4 4 Summarized findings for research question one. ................................ ................ 79 4 5 Interior of LA Cohort B studio. ................................ ................................ ............ 84 4 6 Comparison of workspaces across disciplines. ................................ .................. 87 4 7 Comparison of collaborative spaces across disciplines. ................................ ..... 88 4 8 Comparisons of views across disciplines. ................................ .......................... 89 4 9 Comparison of balconies across disciplines. ................................ ...................... 89 4 10 Comparison of aesthetics across disciplines. ................................ ..................... 92 4 11 Comparison of lighting across disciplines. ................................ .......................... 93 4 12 Comparison of technology across disciplines. ................................ .................... 94 4 13 Comparison of storage issues across disciplines. ................................ .............. 95 4 14 Descriptors of studio with frequency counts of three or higher from interior design students. ................................ ................................ ................................ 98 4 15 Descriptors of studio with frequency counts of three or higher from landscape architecture students. ................................ ................................ ......................... 98 4 16 Summarized findings for research question two. ................................ ................ 99 4 17 Collaboration tables left with cutting boards and paper scraps after use. ......... 105 4 18 Most frequently mentioned favorite critique space on campus. ........................ 109 4 19 Summarized findings for research question three. ................................ ........... 111 4 20 Lounge furniture in studios. ................................ ................................ .............. 114 4 21 Summarized findings for research question four. ................................ ............. 118 5 1 Summarized findings for comparative case study. ................................ ........... 121 5 2 Bicycles stored in landscape architecture studios. ................................ ........... 127 5 3 New desks and window wall in landscape architecture studio. ......................... 138 5 4 Changes to LA Cohort A studio space. ................................ ............................ 139 5 5 Sliding doors connecting landscape architect ure studios. ................................ 140

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thes is Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Interior Design THE IDEAL DESIGN STUDIO: A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY OF THE INTERIOR DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE DESIGN STUDIO CULTURES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA By James Dougla s Wall December 2011 Chair: Margaret Portillo Major: Interior Design This thesis holistically analyzed t he project based educational model of the design studio t hrough a co nceptual framework of design studio culture to determine relationships between: the physical learning environment, the social learning environment, and the learning activities associated with the design process. This case study employed q ualitative and qu antitative research methods to compare the existing conditions of two allied design disciplines at the University of Florida and to describe the recurrent attitudes and behaviors of studio users that were found to be an intrinsic part of design education. The findings showed that students, faculty, and department chairs were dissatisfied with their studios, desiring spaces that were more comfortable and flexible with a greater variety of technological resources. This thesis concludes by coupling c haracteris tics of the physical and social environment that were found to facilitate learning with user preferences to propose administrative, pedagogical, and spatial strategies for optimizing design studio culture

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The entire studio system in many programs could be seen as a modern guild. Each semester cadres of students and professors come together in groups that, in one form or another, develop a sense of identity related to the group, encounter problems, and enforce standards of quality. Ashraf Salama & Nicholas Wilkinson Design Studio Pedagogy Chances are that you know exactly what a design studio is if you currently are or were a student in the disciplines of architecture, interior de sign, or landscape architecture You instantly under stand the amount of time and dedication it takes to generates strong emotions and reactions. Indeed, those familiar with the design studio know that it is a unique educationa l environment. Philosopher Donald Schn (1985) noted: deviant. It is a throwback to an earlier mode of education and an earlier epi stemology of p. 5). T he studio is the heart of curricula in design studies including architecture, interior design, and landscape architecture. While these disciplines design at different scales and find solutions to different problems they share among them the act of design. The design studio fosters a pedagogical approach that is well documented and discussed in depth in the following section; however the physical space that nurtures the design process has largely been exempt from any critical analysis. Jack Nasar, Wolfgang Preiser, an d Thomas Fisher (2007) recognized this need, conducting a comparative case study of nine domestic and three international architecture design schools in their text Designing for Designers Administrators, faculty, and students at the selected schools volun tarily completed comprehensive post occupancy evaluations

PAGE 13

13 (POEs), rating their satisfaction with their overall facilities and specific spaces including: libraries, galleries, faculty offices, classrooms, computers labs, and studios. Nasar and his colleague s consolidated the findings and proposed broad design recommendations for the future development of architectural design schools, based on th os e past failings and successes. Department of Interior Design professors Mary Joyce Hasell and Morris Hylton III at the University of Florida (UF) were inspired by the work of Nasar and his colleagues and sought to conduct a similar study of the 83,000 square foot UF Architecture Building. In the fall semester of 2009, they guided 3 rd year interior design students th rough a comprehensive POE of the Architecture Building, which houses studios, faculty offices gallery, critique spaces, classrooms and computer labs for many disciplines within the College of Design, Construction and Planning including a rchitecture, inte rior d esign, and landscape architecture. The POE was conducted using the same survey instrument that was used to assess the architectural design schools studied in the text Designing for Designers (2007, pp. 246 252) Their findings show that the Architect ure Building is often a polarizing facility with students, faculty, and administration being extremely frustrated with the overall conditions of the design studios, while greatly enjoying some aspects of the building such as the social connections afforded by the atrium. The POE findings greatly contributed to the Architecture Building Rehabilitation Report a program for a ny potential renovation or addition to the existing building detailing the types and amount of space needed for the various disciplines (Hasell & Hylton, 2010)

PAGE 14

14 Though the work of Nasar and his colleagues was a first, it fell short in that it assessed schools at the macro level, focusing on large programmatic spaces. In other words, users rated their overall satisfaction with spaces, but w ere not asked to report the specific reasons why they liked or disliked spaces. Additionally, the POEs largely should provide acoustical privacy and controls, so that st udents can hear and The limitations of Designing for Designers coupled with the fact that the studio spaces within the UF Architecture Building were so disliked opened a window of opportunity to critic ally assess in depth the design studio as a specific space type. This study investigates the physical and social learning environment of the design studios in the Department of Interior Design and the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of Florida. The findings of this study were used to propose broad considerations to address specific problems found in design studios. The following section provides background information on the design studio, followed by the purpose and research questio ns of this study. The chapter concludes by reviewing the assumptions and limitations that underlie this research, as well as the potential significance of the study. The Design Studio For many university students, the design studio represents a new enviro nment, especially when compared to traditional learning spaces like classrooms and lecture halls. or collective, which are more or less closely patterned on projects drawn from actual practic e The following sections describe t he history of the design

PAGE 15

15 studio including its migration from a European tradition to the preeminent pedagogical model in American design education, including a review of the history o f the design professions of architecture, interior design, and landscape architecture. This historical review is concluded with an illustration of the ways that the design studio creates a unique culture unto itself within the American university system. H istory of the Design Studio It is safe to say that much has changed since 1925, however, there are few physical differences between the studio spaces of the Bauhaus in Dessau, Germany (Figure 1 1) and those at the Bernard and Anne Spitzer School of Archite cture in New York, NY (Figure 1 2) though over 80 years separates their completion dates. The design studio as a workroom continues to be the standard in design education (Salama & Wilkinson, 2007) The following section briefly reviews the history of the design studio and the design profession, concluding with a discussion of the ways that the design studio is a culture unto itself in higher education. Figure 1 1. Architectural studio in Dessau, Germany circa 1925 (Gropius, 1926).

PAGE 16

16 Figure 1 2. Archit ectural studio in New York, NY circa 2009 (Damonte, 2011). The design studio as we know it today, can trace its roots to medieval guilds where men who were interested in practicing archi tecture would learn from other master practitioners through apprentic eship programs ( Schn, 1985). The formalized training and education of architects began sculpture, and music in 1795 to become the cole des Beaux Arts in Paris ( Egbert, 1980 ). The pedagogical approach at the cole des Beaux Arts saw the birth of many elements of the modern design studio, including design competitions, juried critiques, and the atelier room where he or she studied under close supervision of the patron or studio master ( Carlhian, 1979) The cole des Beaux Arts advocated a particular design aesthetic, simply known as the Beaux Arts style, which was typified by: monumental scale, axial a nd symmetrical spatial organization, and

PAGE 17

17 classical architectural details (Pile, 2000). T he Beaux Arts style diminished in popularity in the United States in the early 20 th century as World Wars I and II necessitated a more utilitarian and less ornamental a pproach to architecture and design. A new tradition of architectural education began in 1919 when Walter Gropius founded the Bauhaus in Weimar Germany developed around the separation of the educational process of archite cture into two components: practical workshop training, and formal design aesthetic. According to Gropius, the objective of the Bauhaus was not to propagate any style, system or p. 53). Furthermore, the Bauhaus sought to create well rounded practitioners with workshops for metalworking, painting, sculpting, printmaking, stone carving, and woodcarving though the workshops were not always active ( Whitford 1992). The Bauhaus had t wo directors after Gropius resigned in 1928: Hannes Meyer and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. While each director adjusted the workshops to match their vision, the overall layout of spaces and, to a certain extent, the core curriculum organization remained the s ame. whole. The rejection of ornamentation and celebration of materiality expressed th rough functional and minimal designs typified the Bauhaus aesthetic, which came to be known as the International Style (Pile, 2000). While the Bauhaus was founded in Weimar, it later relocated to the city of Dessau in 1925 after city officials offered to s ubsidize the construction of a new facility. The Bauhaus moved one final time to Berlin in 1932 before the Nazi regime forced the institution to close in 1933 (Salama, 1995).

PAGE 18

18 The influence of the cole des Beaux Arts and the Bauhaus on architectural and d esign education is still felt in colleges and universities throughout the world today. Due to World War II, many educators and practicing architects in Germany, including on to teach at the Harvard Graduate School of Design while van der Rohe become the head of the architecture program at the Illinois Institute of Technology, which he retooled in the Bauhaus tradition (Whitford, 1992 ). Prior to World War II, many of the gradu ates of the cole des Beaux Arts and the Bauhaus went on to practice in the United States. Richard Morris Hunt, the first American to graduate from the cole des Beaux Arts open ed the first architectural school in the United States, the Tenth Street Atelie r in New York City in 1857 (Cobb, ed the first architectural program in a university, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1868. Though model he sou ght to approach the curriculum from a fresh perspective. In order to do this, he traveled throughout Europe for two years surveying the architectural profession and differing pedagogical approaches. Upon his return, Ware proposed curriculum that paired tec hnical proficiency artistic aesthetic ( Chewning 1979 ). In 1881, Ware resigned from MIT to become the director of the architecture program at Columbia University in New York City. He subsequently brought the pedagogical approach that he developed at MIT to Columbia. Philippe Cret, another student of the cole des Beaux Arts, established an architectural program in that tradition at the University of Pennsylvania 1890 (Crosbie, 1985).

PAGE 19

19 Design studio pedagogy in America clearly has its root s in Europe; however, placing architectural education and training in a university setting rather than specialized institutions was an American invention (Cobb, 1985). Though created as a method to train architects, the design studio is additionally at the core of curriculum for students in design disciplines including interior design and landscape architecture. Regardless of this connection, each discipline had its own unique journey to professional status. History of the Design Professions The design rel ated disciplines of architecture, interior design, and landscape architecture are currently recognized as professions with each having professional organization s that represent its members. The A merican I nstitute of A rchitects (AIA) is the leading national professional association for architects the A merican S ociety of I nterior D esigners (ASID) and the I nternational I nterior D esign A ssociation (IIDA) are the leading national professional associations for interior designers, and the American Society of Land scape Architects (ASLA) is the leading national professional association for landscape architects To ensure that students are adequately prepared for professional practice, the N ational A rchitectural A ccrediting B oard (NAAB) the C ouncil for I nterior D e sign A ccreditation (CIDA) and the L andscape A rchitectural A ccreditation B oard (LAAB) accredit professional programs in those disciplines All three disciplines also have examination bodies to ensure that practicing professionals meet minimum qualification s: the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ), and the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB). In short, the pro fessions of architecture, interi or design,

PAGE 20

20 and landscape architecture are well established with accreditation and licensing standards See Table 1 1 for a summary of the professional organizations. Table 1 1. Summary of professional organizations. Organization Type Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Professional AIA ASID & IIDA ASLA Accreditation NAAB CIDA NAAB Certification NCARB NCIDQ CLARB Culture of the Design Studio Caroline Hill's (2007) research on the classroom climate of interior design studios in a univ ersity setting found that the design studio is a specific learning environment dist inct from the traditional classroom because of its emphasis on learning by doing, close teacher student interaction and highly homogenous cohorts with strong interpersonal bonds. The studio is a very unique learning space It is not simply a classroom, or an office, or a workroom, or a conference room; it is all of these and more. The studio bec omes the nexus of learning, working, and socializing for students of design. The premise of this study is that design pedagogy, with its focus on project based learning revolving around the studio results in a wholly unique educational culture within the university system a culture that must be experienced to be understood. C ulture wa s first defined in 1871 by British anthropologist Sir Edward Tylor as: hat complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law, custom, and (p. 1) Cognitive anthropo logist Edwin Hutchins (1995) collection of things, whether tangible or abstract. Rather, it is a process. It is a human cognitive process that takes place inside and outside the m Indeed, there are many ways to define a culture, however, the definition set forth by

PAGE 21

21 c ontemporary anthropologist Conrad Kottack (2006) will be used for this study : culture is learned; culture is shared; culture is symbolic; and culture is integrated (2006). So then, how do First, c ulture is learned. In other words, culture is not biological; you are not born with it. Design studio culture is learned. Most students have had limited, if any, exposure to a studi o environment when they arrive for the first day of class. It is a design program. Nevertheless, they learn the style of teaching, and eventually, it becomes second nat ure. Second, culture is shared. Culture does not exist at the level of the individual; it exists at the level of the group. Design studio culture is shared. Small student to teacher ratio ensures that students have the opportunity to get to know each other and their instructors well. Each cohort spends countless hours together over the course of their academic career from their first day of studio until the day they graduate. Each course taken, each critique, each sleepless night is shared with the same coh ort of students. Third, culture is symbolic. In any culture there are tangible and intangible symbols that are used functionally and carry meaning. Tangible symbols could be tools, works of art, buildings, vehicles written language anything physically gen erated through that culture is a tangible symbol. Intangible symbo ls are commonly spoken language and behaviors that carry meaning such as a hand wave to say hello. Design s tudio culture is symbolic. Design education by its very nature generates artifacts found exclusively in its field of study. For instance, you would be hard pressed to learn about a reflected ceiling plan in a calculus lecture or any other liberal arts class Design education also has its

PAGE 22

22 own symbolic language that outsiders would find fo reign such as : axis, symmetry, hierarchy, datum, rhythm, repetition, and transformation (Ching, 2007) Finally, culture is integrated. Cultures are patterned systems where core values dictate acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. Design studio culture is integrated and all encompassing. It feeds into personal lives to the point that they define themselves by their major of study. Further, they are likely to spend just as much time in the studio as they do in their own home. The design s tudio is their home away from home it is integrated into their life. Purpose It is an assumption of this study is that design studios create a culture unto themselves within the American university system. Despite this uniqueness, scholarly research has largely mi ssed the opportunity to investigate the physical and social learning environment of the design studio, instead focusing on its pedagogy. Given this, the physical and social learning environment s of the design studio warrant further study to ensure that the y are optimized to cultivate learning. Even though technology has had an increasing role in the design process, studio environments have remained largely unchanged. Do these spaces with rich legacies dating back to 1795 with the cole des Beaux Arts and ex tending to the influential Bauhaus need reimagining for the realities of 21 st century design education? The purpose of this study is to therefore identify the salient qualities of existing studios and describe features of the idealized studio space based o n the realities and preferences of students, faculty and administrators. Research Questions In order to examine the ideal design studio, one must understand the relationship between the activities and behaviors associated with design studio pedagogy and t he

PAGE 23

23 physical learning environment of the design studio. A comparative case analysis of the interior design and landscape architecture design studio cultures at the University of Florida was employed as a means to understand this relationship. The research q uestions central to this study are summarized as follows: 1) What are the defining characteristics of the interior design and landscape architecture design cultures at the University of Florida? 2) How satisfied are the students, instructors, and unit heads with their studio facilities? 3) What are the learning activities associated with the design process and how well do the studio spaces accommodate those activities? 4) How do students, instructors and unit heads envision the ideal studio and how much do their ideal s differ from existing conditions? Assumptions This study rests on a number of assumptions. First, it is assumed that studio spaces should enhance the design process in higher education. Second, that the design studio cultures investigated in this study do not significantly differ from those in other programs and academic institutions Third, it is assumed that all participants will respond truthfully and that their responses are accurate representations of their actions Finally, personal bias will be limit ed through a mixed research method employing quantitative data to support qualitative findings. This will further illustrate the multi faceted concept of design studio culture. Delimitations The upper division studios of the D epartments of Interior Desig n and Landscape Architecture in the College of Design, Construction, and Planning are the studios being investigated. While it would be valuable to include the studios from the School of Architecture and potentially studios located in other universities, i t falls outside the

PAGE 24

24 disciplinary comparison of like sized programs while maintaining a reasonable depth and duration of study. Furthermore, while it is difficult to discuss design studio pedagogy and the physical learning environment of the design studio as two separate entities, the researcher does not question the appropriateness of the design studio as a pedagogical approach to teaching design. It must be acknowledged that students and even cohorts have individual personality types yielding different environmental preferences. Personal preference is beyond the scope of this study. Instead, the collective attitudes of cohorts will be discussed. Significance This study is significant for many reasons. First and foremost, the design studio as an educational space type in the American university system has avoided much scholarly inquiry, though the reason for its omission is unclear. The research of environmental psychologist and educator Carol Weinstein (1981) demonstrates that learning is only optimized when the physical environment is given as much attention as the learning materials and approach to teaching. If logic holds, student academic performance, and by extension the standing of their academic p rogram, could potentially be increased if the design studio fully met the needs of students and faculty. When researchers from the IBM Institute for Business Value and IBM Strategy & Change asked over 1500 CEOs, senior executives, and public sector leaders from 60 countries and 33 industries to identify what they look for in new hires, creativity was the y are the largest generation since the Baby Boomers and represent over 25% of the current world

PAGE 25

25 population ( Puybaraud, Russell, McEwan, Leussink, & Beck 2010). It would prove valuable to investigate the ways that a sample from that population works and in novates. This study does just that. On the broadest levels, this study can be conceptualized as an investigation of project based work patterns of creative individuals seen through the lens of design studio culture. Every design studio culture is unique; therefore the qualities of the ideal design studio described in this study are not prescriptive. Design schools can implement the findings based on their existing conditions, priorities, resources The unique norms and activities, the sha reflected in place. Place making and use is a natural part of forming and sustaining groups conceptual framework for investigating an d understanding the culture of the design studio.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW I think that studios provide a really unique form of learning. People learn a lot about themselves when they are working in teams and how they are able to interact with other people while trying to meet a deadline. You know Interior Design Studio Instructor, University of Florida I was giving a desk crit one day and this girl was looking like she had been up all night working on her project bloodshot eyes started drinking coffee in that exact same studio, just probably 20 yards away from where I was giving this desk crit precisely where I had developed my bad habit. It caused me to pause and to consider the connection that I had to the space. Landscape A rchitecture Studio Instructor, University of Florida The purpose of the design studio is to facilitate design education, which Donald Schn described as: design, individual or collective, which a re more or less closely patterned on proj ects drawn from actual practice While the design studio is a learning environment, it has many traits in common with a work environment because to learn design is to actively practice design. Therefo re it appears that the design studio is a hybrid space. Indeed, this study will show that the design studio serves multiple purposes and can be conceptualized in a myriad of ways; however, at its core, the design studio is a learning environment. Students are not employees they are in the design studio to learn. Instructors are not supervisors they are in the design studio to facilitate learning. Unit heads work intently to balance the needs of students and instructors with external stakeholders to deliver superior education in alignment with the

PAGE 27

27 mission of their program. These socio cultural factors dictate that the design studio be conceptualized as an educational environment. Chapter 2 starts by first proposing a conceptual framework for understanding de sign studio culture. This conceptual framework will be used to organize the supporting literature on design education. An illustration of how the conceptual framework will be operationalized throughout this study follows the literature review. Conceptual F ramework for Design Studio Culture The conceptual framework for the design studio is referred to as design studio culture Describing the person environment relationship of the design studio as a culture is appropriate because the space and the pedagogical approach are so intrinsically bound that they share the same name: design studio. The process of learning design, the act of designing, the design studio, the student as learner, the student as designer, and the studio instructor are so intertwined, that it is difficult if not impossible to think of one without the other. This level of integration supports cognitive anthropologist Edwin list like definitions of cultur process. Design studio culture refers to the relationship between the users of the space, the physical setting, the pedagogical approach, and all of the direct or indirect behaviors, attitudes activities, rules, and customs that govern that relationship. There is no existing person environment framework for studio culture; instead one must be adapted from applicable sources. The design studio is first and foremost an educational space; it is the place for students to learn design. Therefore, Robert environment relations in learning settings (Figure 2 1) will serve as a basis for the design studio culture conceptual

PAGE 28

28 framework. Gifford propos es that the personal characteristics of learners interact with the physical features of the space and the socio organizational climate to produce learning educational settings can a nd should make education both more efficient and more enjoyable. The physical setting may not make or break education on its own to believe so would be a nave form of architectural determinism but it can interact with non environmental factors to either p p. 298). Figure 2 1. A framework for conceptualizing person environment relations in learning settings (Reprinted with permission from Gifford, 2002, p. 299). The purpose of the design studio is to facilitate design education; therefore the proposed design studio culture conceptual framework must include the design process

PAGE 29

29 at the heart of the studio model. John Zeisel (2006) describes the design process as three elementary activities : imaging, prese 39). In other words, imaging is the cognitive act of idea generation, brainstorming, and conceptualizing. Presenting is the act of taking the image, and giving it a physical form: Testing is the act of reviewing criticisms, judgments, comparisons, reflections, reviews, and confrontations are all timeline; they are cyclical in nature, narrowing possible solutions with each iteration. included in the conceptual framework for design studio culture as a way to investigate and identify the ways in which the studio space is used directly or indirectly to support those design activities. Carol Weinstein (1981) suggests that the educational setting should reinforce the curriculum To learn design is to practice design learning design is preparation for professional practice. If logic holds, it appear s that the studio setting should reflect a spects workplace environment Taken together, these qualities of the design studio hysical dimension of Giffor educational model should include a way to evaluate the physical space from the standpoint of a work environment.

PAGE 30

30 The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for providing civilian federal government agencies with workspace so they ca n effectively carry out their missions. All told, GSA o wns or leases 9,600 properties and maintains an inventory of more than 362 m illion square feet of workspace (GSA, 2011). GSA established the Office of Workspace Delivery to ensure that workplaces meet the needs of their users. Their text, Innovative Workplaces: Benefits and Best Practices dentifies key workplace trends; discusses the history, background, and current state of the Federal workplace; and outlines the benefits of innovative workplace ap (2006, p. 1). Through their research, they identified specific characteristics that innovative workplaces possessed, naming them the Hallmarks of the Productive Wo rkplace (Table 2 1): spatial equity, healthfulness, flexibility, comfort, technolog ical connectivity, has verified that their efforts to improve worker satisfaction and productivity through the Hallmarks have been successful (GSA, 2009). While the Hallmarks were dev eloped to improve productivity in the workplace, their principles could easily be applied to any situation where people spend a long period of time with the purpose of completing work, such as a design studio. on environment relations in learning settings becomes the conceptual framework of design studio culture with the inclusion Hallmarks of the Productive Wo 2 2). However, the Hallmarks are an evaluation tool they are not an intrinsic part of the design studio culture. Because of this fact, they will be shown as being imposed on the framework rather than being an integral part of it. In other words, they will provide a

PAGE 31

31 structured approach to evaluate and d iscuss the physical features of the studio space. Setting as well as the Socio Organizational Climate Design Studios because Sense of Place includes more than just the physical space; it translates the mission, vision, and appropriate image and identity 2006, p. 10). The conceptual framework for design studio culture organizes the review of literature of the Socio Organizationa l Climate of Design Studios, the Personal Characteristics of Design Students, the Physical Features of the Studio Setting, and the Design Studio Attitudes and Behaviors. Table 2 1. GSA Hallmarks of a Productive Workplace (GSA, 2006, pp. 9 10). Hallmark D escription Spatial Equity A humane, well functional needs and provides individual access to privacy, daylight, outside views, and aesthetics. Healthfulness Clean and healthy work environments with access to air, l ight, and water and free of contaminants and excessive noise. Flexibility Easily adaptable workplaces that support varied work strategies and including systems and furnishings that accommodate organizationa l change with minimal time, effort, and waste. Comfort Occupant adjustable temperature, ventilation, lighting, acoustic, and furniture systems providing personal and group comfort. Connectivity A robust communications system providing access to people an d/or data from any place, at any time. Reliability Efficient and state of the art building, security, computer, and telecommunication systems that are easy to maintain. Sense of Place A workplace that has a unique character, with an appropriate image and identity, instills a sense of pride, purpose, and dedication for the individual and the workplace community.

PAGE 32

32 Figure 2 2. Conceptual framework of studio culture (Adapted with permission from Gifford, 2002, p. 299). Socio Organizational Climate of Desi gn Studio Caroline Hill's (2007) research found that the design studio is a specific learning environment dist inct from traditional classroom settings. This is largely in part to the emphasis on learning by doing, close teacher student interac tion and highly homogenous cohorts with strong interpersonal bonds. The studio is a very unique learning space; however, is not a perfect pedagogical model and continually faces

PAGE 33

33 criticism and reevaluation from those within the educational system as well a s from practitioners. Thomas Dutton, a professor of architecture and interior design, described curriculum refers to those unstated values, attitudes, and norms which stem tac itly from (Dutton, 1987, p. 16). He claims that the design studio does not achieve its goal of establishing open and honest dialog between the student and instructor due to the damental precondition dialog requires an equality of participants an equal distribution of power which by defini tion is lacking in any system of teachers tend to speak in ways (often uncon scio usly) that legitimize their power and students orient their speech and work to that which is the context of the studio, there is a double paradox: on the one hand, the student cannot initially understand what he needs to learn; on the other hand, he can only learn it by educating himself, and he can only educate himself by beginning to do it. This be told how to This process of beginning design student, potentially decreasing his or her confidence, while securing an unheal thy authoritarian role for the instructor (Carmel Gilfilen & Portillo, 2010 ). being as well as creating unnecessary conflict ompetition tends to

PAGE 34

34 pro mote the belief that ideas are unique, to be nurtured individually c losely guarded, and hea st udents lose the opportunity to learn from each other because they are actively guarding their ideas. Schn illustrates that one of the key advantages of the design studio is that students have the ability to learn from each other, drawing from fresh perspe ctives (1985, p. 6). Therefore, if competition in the studio becomes severe enough that a student would guard rather than share his or her ideas, it could then negatively impact the learning environment for the whole cohort. Evaluations of the design stu dio do not just come from academia; within the discipline of architecture, the AIA, the AIAS, the NCARB, and the NAAB commissioned an independent assessment of their profession. Ernest Boyer and Lee Mitgang (1996) surveyed architecture schools in the Unite d States, and presented their findings in the book Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice The y called for a more diversified and holistic approach to architectural education, an approach that increased an emphasis on libe ral arts and critical thinking, and decreasing the emphas is on the design studio (1996) Similarly, Peter Monaghan (2001) a correspondent for the Chronicle of Higher Education described how architectural education is being pulled between two opposing for ces: professional practice, desiring graduates who are more adequately trained; and universities and academics who wish for the curriculum to remain firmly rooted in theory. It is worth noting however, that the commentaries of both Boyer and Mitgang (1996) and Monaghan (2001) focused on the overall place of the design studio within the context of the curriculum. Neither report fully questioned the effectiveness of design studio as a

PAGE 35

35 pedagogical approach to teaching students how to design or specifically how diverse stakeholder groups students, faculty, and administrators perceive opportunities and inherent problems of the model. One e lement that has not been addressed thus far is the increasing role and influence of technology on the design process. In the days of the cole des Beaux Arts and the Bauhaus, ideas were represented primarily through model building and free hand drawing ; however, entire projects can now be completed digitally through a computer. Jason Meneely and Sheila Danko (2007) saw technolog y as somewhat of a W e found that as students developed more autonomy in their work, they tended to design predominantly on the computer, typically employing digital tools that were too accurate or cumbersome to properly serve their e arly conceptualization processes Despite the proclivity for digital media, The National Architectural Accrediting Board (2009, p. 21), the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (2011, p. II 10), and the Landscape Architectural Accreditation Bo ard (2010, p. 10) require accredited programs to demonstrate that their students are proficient in visual communication skills through traditional physical media including: freehand drawing, drafting, and rendering. Students however, push for the integrat ion of the latest technological tools into the curriculum because they feel it will make them more marketable to employers. On a broader level, the research of Meneely and Danko reflects the tension s illustrated by Boyer and Mitgang (1996) and Monaghan (20 01). Collectively these studies point to the inherent duality of design professions each describes itself being both an art and a science (NAAB, 2009; CIDA, 2011; and LAAB, 2010). A separate study by Jason Meneely (2010) further reflects this duality:

PAGE 36

36 A n alytical and critical modes of thinking are vital to design problem solving. Analytical thinking is needed to explore and clarify the initial design problem essentially restructuring the problem into a set of objectives, directions, and goals while critica l and convergent thinking are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of emerging solutions as the design unfolds. (p. 27) Design studio pedagogy is a reflection of its practice, being aligned with the arts and the sciences. It is worth noting that since th e days of the medieval guilds, the approach of teaching others how to design has been and continues to be to have students practice and experiment under the guidance of a master practitioner. A student can read a book to inform design decisions, but a stud ent cannot read a book to learn how to design architecture, interior design, and landscape architecture apply knowledge and expertise through the act of designing. Characteristics of Design Cohorts For the most part, the design students represented in thi s study belong to the generation is seen as master multi taskers, easily juggling various projects and commitments (Brand, 2009). Their propensity to multitask is reflected in work preferences, with technological connectivity being a key requirement. Personal computers and smart phones allow many work wherever they please as long as there is a wireless internet connection is present (The Economist, 2008). While technological connectivity is must for any space, millennials desire workplaces that are decidedly untraditional: E nterprises are fragmenting into eco systems of partnerships and nomadic work on the go is normal. Consequently workplaces are themselves transforming, kale idoscope like, into patterns of distributed and virtual configurations. The plethora of p ublic spaces available through W i F i allows permanently connected knowledge workers choice in where they work

PAGE 37

37 based on what mood they are in, what they have to do and who they have to be with. ( Puybaraud, et al., 2010, p. 79) Since work can now be completed anywhere, this generation often finds itself completing concentrative work in solitude, generally outside of the office. They therefore want the workplace to specifi cally facilitate face to face socialization through a variety of collaboration space types that support strategic thinking, presenting, and socializing (Haworth Knowledge & Research Team, 2010). Similar to the workplace, the millennial generation has chal lenged college campuses, especially libraries. No longer places to simply house books, libraries have started adopting features typically seen in bookshops including areas where socialization is encouraged, extended operating hours, and cafes, all with the intent of drawing students into the space (Sweeney, 2005). Millennials like that the library has a convenient spot between classes, it is a place to socialize with others and to b e motivated by them where to collaborate on group work close to many resources, and it is a safe, non and working environments, millennials demand flexibility and t echnological connectivity with an emphasis on socialization and collaboration. The following section adds to the preferences of the millennials by investigating the ways that the design studio in particular is similar to both a learning and a working envir onment. Physical Features of the Studio Setting Design schools are institutions charged with educating students for professional practice. Law schools historically prepare their students in moot courtrooms, while medical schools historically use surgery th eaters (Newman, 2003). In these comparable

PAGE 38

38 examples, physical settings from professional practice were adopted for the educational environment. The design studio is the physical setting in design schools that emulates ly large, open, naturally lit design studios, where each student was assigned a desk for drawing and model making, have been a central unique space type in the American university system yet little research has been published on the topic. The following section therefore reviews relevant literature on learning environments in higher education as well as workplace environments as the design studio mimics professional pract ice. Learning Environments Students and instructors are dissatisfied with their higher educational classrooms because they are often poorly maintained, and lack natural light, flexibility, as well as environmental controls such as adjustable lighting and t emperature (Scott Webber, Marini, & Abraham, 2000). D. Kent Halstead (1974) noted that: The design of the physical environment of the learning task is often neglected yet science has established a close correlation between the amount of work people do a nd where they do it. It stands to reason that a student sitting in an unbearably hot, stuffy room listening to a lecture on cryogenics would not learn as much as he would in a cool, comfortable space. Unfortunately, most college buildings have been planned to impress people from the outside, not necessarily to provide comfort for the users (p. 485). Valkiria Dur n Narucki the condition of the built environment directly and indirectly impacts the quality of n run down school buildings students attend fewer days in percentage and had a poorer performance in Mathematics and English Language Arts standardized tests

PAGE 39

39 su ggests that the built environment can indeed provide more than just shelter. If properly designed, it has the ability to be leveraged as a strategic tool to increase Finally, Carol Weinstein (1981) illustrated four assumpti ons of the learning environment: First the physical classroom can facilitate or inhibit learning, both directl y through noise and crowding and symbolically through poor design and maintenance Second, the effects of the physical environment on learning a re moderated by other soci al, psychological, and instruc tional variables. Third, the learning environment should match teaching objectives, student learning styles, and the social setting. Finally, she argues that learning is optimized only when the physi c al environment is treated with the same care as the curriculum and other educational materials (p.12). The literature on educational settings suggests that higher education learning environments do not meet the needs of their users (Scott Webber, et al., 2000), the quality of the educational setting directly impacts student performance and attendance (Dur n Narucki 2008), and that student learning is only optimized when the physical setting is given as much thought and attention as the curriculum (Weinste in, 1981). Working Environments The research of Iris Vilnai Yavetz, Anat Rafaeli, and Caryn Schneider Yaacov (2005) suggests that users are able to perceive three dimensions of a workplace: its instrumentality (the degree to which it meets the needs of th e users), its aesthetics (the dimensions do not operate independently; each impacts the other to cr eate the overall experience for the user.

PAGE 40

40 The design process is a creative exercise; therefore, it would be valuable to also investigate offices that were specifically designed to encourage creativity. Juriaan van Meel and Paul Vos (2001) illustrated that care centres [sic], pool tables and dartboards. Playfulness and pleasure Additionally, since the focus on digital work freed employees from their desktop does, not where one goes; doing it is what counts. In this context of independence of time and place, it is extremely important for workers to have a common space where they meet colleagues, have small talks with their boss (if they have one) and catch up with all the new gossip. It is not just earning a s alary. It is about belonging, about having An office of industrial designers was investigated to identify the elements of their workplace that contributed to a creative atmosphere (Martens, 2008). It was found that the workplace should express, stimulate, and facilitate creativity. In order to express olourful [sic] materials, unusual f urniture and present rtens claims that including sense of belonging. Martens then claimed that in order to stimulate creativity, the space should be comfortable with materials that stimulate the sense s (p. 310). Finally, in order to facilitate creativity, the space should be spacious, flexible, and acoustically private (p.

PAGE 41

41 workplace illustrated by Vilnai Yavetz and her colleagues (2005): instrumentality ( facilitate creativity), aesthetics ( stimulate creativity), and symbolism ( express creativity). achieved through a combination o f whimsical physical features, collaborative workspaces, and organizational policy to create a climate that encouraged free expression, creativity, and innovation. Taken together, the research of van Meel, Vos, Martens, Vilnai Yavetz and Miller suggests t hat a whimsically designed space has the propensity to stimulate creative thinking; however, there are other techniques in the Pixar Animation Studios is an Academy Award winning computer animation studio respo nsible for some of the most creative and admired animated films of our time (Pixar, 2011). Their headquarters, located in Emeryville, California features such as reproduction over socialization through billiards, table tennis, and foosball ( Beiler & Ryzik 2011). CEO there would b e lots of forced collisions of people. He [Jobs] always felt the best Beiler & Ryzik 2011, 3:30). Jobs saw that when someone spends so much time in a space, the novelty of a whimsically d esigned space can lose its affect over time multiple methods need to be employed to sustain a creative environment. The research of Wineman, Kabo, and Davis unlock organizational innovation and creativity is to acti vely or passively create new

PAGE 42

42 social connections, which can then lead to the cross pollination of ideas (2008, p. 439). Workplace spatial layout is often considered a management tool to promote the aims of the organization, and can be a powerful tool for s haping organiz ational culture and the environment or social interaction; there are many other dimensions that contribute to an individual being creative, including hi s or her personality, environmental preferences, and even the object that is being created ( Csikszentmihalyi 1996; Portillo, 1996). The role of the built environment in stimulating creativity was not featured heavily within the conceptual framework of des ign studio culture because it is such a highly individualistic process accounts for idea generation in the design process. The previous studies focused on workplaces that were designed with creativity and innovation in mind, however, they were not specifically designed for architects, interior designers, or landscape architects. When a Boston area architecture firm ctly involved the users the employees of the firm, including architects and interior designers in the design of the new space with goals of increasing the openness of the office, encouraging a sense of community, and increasing the amount of flexible and m ulti purpose spaces (Shepley, Zimmerman Boggess, & Lee, 2009). After conducting a post occupancy evaluation, the results showed that the new emphasis on openness, community, and flexibility was achieved and that the users were quite satisfied with their n ew office. Their multi flexible, and encouraged community. Additionally, the kitchen was another favorite spot

PAGE 43

43 because it helped to create a stronger sense of community ( Shepley, et al. 2009). These multi purpose communal areas have the capability of becoming the social and creative heart of an office. These findings align with the previous studies suggesting that a workplace designed with a focus on collaboration, will p ositively contribute to a creative work environment. In summary, the design studio as a space type is also similar to a work environment, because the way one learns how to design is to practice design. The literature on work settings suggests that organiz ations have the ability to directly influence how people perceive them through their brand identity including through the the ability to be inspirational and stimulate c reativity (van Meel & Vos, 2001; Miller, 2005), yet spontaneous meetings have the ability to help to create new social connections resulting in the cross pollination of ideas increasing organizational innovation ( Beiler & Ryzik 2011; Wineman, et al., 2008 ). Taken together, this research suggests that the physical and the social environment of workplaces can positively contribute to organizational productivity and innovation. Design Studio Attitudes and Behaviors The following section reviews the attitudes and behaviors of the design studio, specifically addressing the psychology phenomenon of diffusion of responsibility and its presenting, and testing has thus far been used to frame the research questions of this study. Research by other scholars on the topic of the design process will be reviewed to further illustrate the complexities of this process and how it differs from other more traditional pedagogical models in academia

PAGE 44

44 Diffusion of Responsibility Robert Gifford (1976) experimented with the furniture layout of a classroom, creating uncomfortable and disorganized seating arrangements. His intentions were to see if students would take control of their environment by organ izing their space to be more comfortable. He found that students were prone to accept the environment students do not feel empowered to make positive changes since they do not view the space as theirs. diffusion of responsibility also known as the bystander effect, to the buil t environment. This phenomenon was based on a brutal murder of New York City resident Kitty Genovese, who was repeatedly stabbed for 35 minutes. The attack continued for such a long duration because none of the 38 bystanders called the police; it was assum ed that present (Darley & Latan, 1968). In many ways, the research of James Wilso n and George Kelling (1982) vandalized property (private or public) is not repaired, it begets more vandalism and more crime. In other words, poorly maintained property breaks down the community that students lack the empowerment to improve their environments, yet in most design studios, students have dedicated desks that they reversed in the design studio settin

PAGE 45

45 appears that if there are more communal areas of the design studio that are poorly maintained, the space will only continue to degrade in quality unless it is improved. Further, the diffusion of responsibly phe nomenon suggests that this effect will be exacerbated in larger groups. These studies suggest that the attitude of design students towards their studio space will greatly rest on two factors: the condition of the space they inherit, and the degree of to wh well as their common shared spaces. The Design Process The purpose of the design studio is to facilitate education. Its pedagogical by rior design, and landscape architecture education (Salama & Wilkinson, 2007). Donald Sch n was fascinated with the way the design studio was structured, ca in applying often tacit knowledge to a problem and reflecting on its con sequence. the core experience of learning architectural design. Design education is organized around manageable projects of design, individual or collective, which are more or less (Sch n 1985, p. 31). He felt that the act of design was similar to a string of cognitive experime nts being continually performed, working out solutions to a spatial problem: Each party [master practitioner and student] engages in designing, or in helping the other to design, and each engages in communication with the other about the designing in which the are engaged. Each party engages, in several senses, in on the spot experiment ation and reflects, in several Sch n 1985, p. 76) Even though Sch n was e ducated as a philosopher, he saw the applicability of t he in ne, law,

PAGE 46

46 business, social work, education, and town planning. Each of these professions applies scientific knowledge to practical problems; thus, students could benefit from their education emulating professional practice. In fact, when Sch n published his research by problem solving to problem Sch n 1985, p. 5). Sch n was not the only academic of that time to analyze the cognitive process of project based learning. process similar to Sch n in de veloped and tested outside of the context of a design studio. Kolb theorizes that learning starts with concrete experience, which leads to reflective observation, then to abstract conceptualization, and then to active experimentation. Just like flection in however, their focus was primarily on cognition not on the physical act of designing. Joh n Zeisel (2006), whose educational background was rooted in sociology and architecture, surveyed environmental behavior literature to propose a framework for research o f Schn or Kolb. He described the design process as being cyclical in nature, narrowing possible solutions with each iteration. This notion is supported by Sch node with binding implications for further moves. Thus there is a continually evolving system of implications within which the designer reflects in

PAGE 47

47 conceptual framework for this study because it provides a valuable means to identify the ways students and studio instructors learn, teach, and practice design. Conceptual Framework Operationalization The conceptual framework proposed for this study provides a lens to investigate and explore design studio culture, however, it purposefully avoids a rigid structure. The design studio is not a traditional learning setting; the process of learning design is not linear. On the contrary, it is an individual task with each student attempting to find his or her voice through a trial and error process. Instructors similarly have individual approaches to facilitating design learning. There are other more practical reasons why the conceptual framework for the design studio avoid s a rigid structure each and every design problem is unique, having different programs and different deliverables. Further, the purpose of the study is to describe the qualities of the ideal studio, regardless of design discipline. One must be open to unex pected outcomes. A heavily focused conceptual framework would simply be inappropriate for the qualitative approach of this study because it could exclude potential insights. The conceptual framework of design studio culture will therefore be operationalize d through a descriptive and comparative case study to understand the systematically a situation, problem, phenomenon, service or program, or provides information abo ut, say, the living conditions of a community, or describes attitudes deeper understanding of design studio culture through a mixed method approach

PAGE 48

48 focusing of qualitati ve findings, supported by qualitative measures. The themes from the findings will ultimately describe the ideal design studio.

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY creates this place that is specifically ours. Because we spend so much time here we Interior Design Student, University of Florida do come here, there is no t to Landscape Architecture Student, University of Florida A comparative case study of two design studio cultures addressed the research questions posed in this study and allowed for the recognition of common themes as well as disti an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly ev as structured) and qualitative (also classified as unstructured) of data sources (Yin, probl 12). This study therefore combines multiple quantitative and qualitative research methods with varying degrees of structure to begin capturing the phenomenon of design studi o culture. Focus groups, interviews, surveys, and observations were employed to gain insights from students and instructors who use the design studios as well as the unit heads who provide the vision and direction for their departments. The following chapt er begins with a review of the rationale for case selection as well as an orientation to the research setting. The chapter concludes with a review of the various research

PAGE 50

50 instruments, the data collection procedure, and a summary of how the data were analyz Case Selection The design studio cultures of the Departments of Interior Design and Landscape Architecture within the College of Design, Construction, and Planning at the University of Florida were investigated in this study. These specific design studio cultures were selected for comparison because each faces unique challenges in adapting their spaces to meet current educational needs. The facilities of each department received poor rankings from their respecti ve accreditation boards, yet both programs are nationally ranked indicating that despite the condition of the facilities, their faculty provide a quality education for their first rate students. On a more pragmatic level, each department has similar operat ing budgets, allocated square footages for studio space, and comparable numbers of undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty. Both departments share a commitment to sustainable practices, such as advocating for digital presentations as a means of conserving paper. Finally, each department has a selective admissions process for students to enter upper division therefore the unit heads and faculty spend their energies grooming the best and brightest students for entry level professional practice. While there are many similarities between the two academic units, there are some notable differences. The undergraduate degree for landscape architecture is a five year program, while the undergraduate degree for interior design is a four year program. Th is degree program is spent studying abroad in Paris, France. Additionally, the landscape architecture accreditation body, the American Society of Landscape Architects ( ASLA),

PAGE 51

51 allows for the digital submission of accreditation materials, while the interior design accreditation body, the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) does not. This means that while interior design strives to be a paper free studio, it ca nnot currently be 100% paper accreditation requirements and each studio instructor has his or her individual teaching style. The researcher feels that these differences demonstrate the across various design disciplines, teaching methods, and cohort personalities after all, the language of design is universal. The following section describes the facilities of the Departments of Interior Design and Landscape Archite cture, including the design studios used by the cohorts investigated in this study. Research Setting Architecture Building The design studios for the Departments of Interior Design and Landscape Architecture studios analyzed in this study are located withi n the Architecture Building located on the main campus of the University of Florida in Gainesville. The Architecture Building is divided into two wings based on function: a faculty office wing, and a studio wing featuring exterior corridors and an outdoor atrium ( Figure 3 1). The studios within the Architecture Building were originally built on a 3 with studio spaces located between structural piers. Both departments have demolished at least a portion of the dividing walls in the original studio l ayouts, thus creating larger connected studios for their students (Figure 3 2). Department of Interior Design Facilities newly installed carpeting and recently acquired desks f or students to use. Also, the

PAGE 52

52 Figure 3 1. Architecture Building located at the University of Florida. Figure 3 2. Studio module. department received digital sketch tablet computers through a research grant and secured plotters for each space. The l

PAGE 53

53 1 compares the interior design cohorts and their studio spaces. Table 3 ID Cohort A ID Cohort B Total Students 32 16 Number of Spaces 1 2 Total Area (ft 2 ) 2333 2333 Area per Student (ft 2 /Student) 73 146 Desks per Student 1 2 Projectors 1 1 Digital Tablets 3 2 Plotters 2 2 Desk Type Tables Tables Balcony Yes Yes Floor Finish Carpet Carpet Ceiling Finish Exposed Exposed Interior Design was originally two separate spaces that the department co nnected by demolishing a portion of the wall that divided them. Even though the spaces were connected, a large portion of the original wall still exists which divides the cohort. In addition to that physical division, the space had been conceptually divide d into a collaborative zone for lectures and presentations, and individual workspaces (Figure 3 3). When the data was collected for this study, the cohort was completing group projects. As such, their desks were organized into groups of three wherever poss ible (Figure 3 4). In one of the spaces, systems furniture had previously been installed which cannot be reconfigured (Figure 3 5). However, in the other spaces, the freestanding desks can easily be arranged into any configuration. The students of Interio r Design Cohort B were divided into two groups, each with their own studio space of the same size with the same number of plotters, tablet computers, and available desks in each of the spaces. Figure 3 6 shows the layout of other space was similar to the one illustrated below.

PAGE 54

54 There were far fewer students in this cohort than other studios in this study; therefore each student had two desks for their use (Figure 3 7). A small collaboration space was created in the middle of t he room with two square tables (Figure 3 8). Figure 3 3. Interior Design

PAGE 55

55 Figure 3 4. View into Interior Design Figure 3 5. Systems furniture in Interior Design

PAGE 56

56 Figure 3 6. I nterior Design

PAGE 57

57 Figure 3 7. View into Interior Design Figure 3 8. Central collaboration space in Interior Design

PAGE 58

58 Department of Landscape Architecture Facilities The Department of Lan to the finishes of their spaces than the Department of Interior Design, however they have altered the spatial configuration of one of their studio spaces fairly significantly. Additionally, the stud ents in the landscape architecture cohorts had less space than their interior design counterparts. Finally, Landscape Architecture space was located in the faculty office wing of the Architecture Building as opposed to the studio wing. Ta ble 3 2 compares the landscape architecture cohorts and their studio spaces. Table 3 LA Cohort A LA Cohort B Total Students 36 21 Number of Spaces 1 1 Total Area (ft 2 ) 2333 867 Area per Student (ft 2 /Student) 65 40 Desks per Student 1 1 Projectors 1 0 Digital Tablets 0 0 Plotters 1 0 Desk Type Drafting Desk Drafting Desk Balcony Yes No Floor Finish Concrete VCT Ceiling Finish Exposed Acoustic Tile Landscape Ar chitecture was originally two separate spaces that the department connected by demolishing a large portion of the wall that divided them (Figure 3 9). This creates a dedicated area for lectures and presentations (Figure 3 10) as well as p laces for shared resources such as storage closets, printers, a sofa, and kitchenette. The flooring finish was exposed concrete and the furnishings are drafting height wood desks (Figure 3 11). While data was collected for this study, construction on one w all prohibited a portion of the space from being used.

PAGE 59

59 Figure 3 9. Landscape Architecture

PAGE 60

60 Figure 3 10. Collaboration space in Landscape Architecture Figure 3 11. Drafting height tables and construc tion wall.

PAGE 61

61 Landscape Architecture study in that it is located in the faculty office wing of the Architecture Building, not the studio wing. As such, their space was not originally designed to be a studio. In addition, it has the highest density of students, limiting the square footage for shared resources such as plotters and printers (Figure 3 12). Because the area is small, very little collaborative space exists in this studio (Figure 3 13). The flooring is vinyl composition tile while the ceiling is suspended acoustic tiles. The drafting height desks are wooden, similar to those in Landscape Architecture 14). Figure 3 12. Landscape Architecture oor plan.

PAGE 62

62 Figure 3 13. View into Landscape Architecture Figure 3 14. Drafting tables in Landscape Architecture

PAGE 63

63 Research Instruments This comparative case study employs a mixed method design to analyze physical a nd social dimensions of design studio culture (Figure 3 15). The quantitative research methods used in this study included both a student survey as well as physical and behavioral observations. The qualitative research methods employed in this study includ ed student focus groups and individual faculty member interviews. The following section diagrams the development of the specific research instruments. Figure 3 15. Research instruments by framework dimension. Student Survey A student survey was develope d to capture the full range of the student studio experience including: demographics, satisfaction with studio space, satisfaction with academic program, amount of time devoted to studio work, how often students occupy

PAGE 64

64 studio space outside of class time, a nd the types of belongings students keep in studio. In short, the student survey was developed to quantitatively capture the breadth of point likert type scale for rating satis faction with open ended questions for participants to qualify their answers. The researcher pilot tested the survey on fellow graduate interior construction, pacing, and ease of completion. Their comments informed the final student survey (Appendix A) Student Focus Groups While the student survey was developed to gather as much information regarding e, it was not developed to capture their entire cultural experience. Some dimensions of design studio culture are best addressed through qualitative research methods. Focus groups are ideal for ascertaining the feelings and views of a group of like minded individuals who use the same setting (Stewart, Shamdasani, & Rook, 2007). Students in the design studio fit within these parameters as they share the same space, are highly homogenous, and have strong interpersonal bonds (Hill, 2007). The student focus gro ups were specifically used to gain insight into how the studio is utilized for the three design activities, where work is completed, and why it is completed there. The focus group allowed for a deeper exploration of issues that surfaced in the student surv ey: physical features and spatial qualities that they would ideally like to see the ir design studio possess. The student focus group protocol can be found in Appendix B.

PAGE 65

65 Faculty Interviews Faculty interviews were the primary tools used to gather perceptions of design studio instructors and unit heads regarding their respective studio cul tures. The interviews allowed faculty to identify areas of their studio space that meet their needs, areas that need improving and how they view t heir current cohort of students, particularly in terms of their cohesiveness, competition, and work ethic. Th e interviews focus ed primarily on fleshing out the barriers that they have run into as facilitators of their physical features and spatial qualities that they would like to see t heir ideal studio. The department chairs possess a unique view of design studio culture, attempting to balance the needs of both instructors and students, while ensuring that the facilities represent the image and identity of their respective disciplines. While addressing all dimensions of design studio culture, their interviews particularly focused on their perceptions of how well their spaces communicate the image and identity of their program. Studio instructors and unit heads can often provide an impor tant longitudinal context to counterbalance the idiosyncrasies of individual cohorts. They are able to comment on changes to the studio environment over time, especially speaking to the inclusion of new technologies positively and/or negatively impact ing t h eir teaching methods. Additionally, all of the questions were open ended to obtain in depth information about participant views of design studio culture this approach reduces g their heads are in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively.

PAGE 66

66 Observations Behavioral observations captured how users interacted with the space on a daily By o bser ving people you can witness the manner in which they interact with othe (Zeisel, 2006, p. 191). The behavioral observations Behavioral observation alon e is insufficient because it heavily relies on the observer to report all informati (Sommer & Sommer, 2002, p. 59) As they say, an image never lies. reflections of pr evious activity that was not produced in order to be measured by participants, individuals were not included in any of the photographs. Research Procedures All data were colle cted on site at the University of Florida by the researcher during the spring semester of 2010. The unit heads of the Department of Interior Design and Department of Landscape Architecture were both eager to participate in the study. They identified the co horts best suited for inquiry, and notified the studio instructors about the purpose of the study. The student survey, focus groups, and observations were coordinated with the studio instructors so as to not disrupt their lesson plans. The following sectio ns detail the specific procedures used for each research method. Student Survey It was paramount to secure the highest percentage of participants possible, as higher response rates will strengthen the validity of the findings (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). In or der to do so, the researcher coordinated with studio instructors to administer the survey during class time. The studio instructor introduced the researcher to the

PAGE 67

67 students and the purpose of the study was discussed. They were told the survey should take a pproximately 15 minutes to complete, depending on the depth of their responses, and that their identity would remain anonymous. Further, they were reassured that the questions gauged their personal views, that there was no right or wrong answers, and that they had no obligation to participate should they choose not to. The surveys were printed for convenience and then distributed to the students along with consent forms that they needed to sign and submit with their surveys. A total of 85 completed surveys were returned to the researcher resulting in a respo nse rate of 87.6% (Table 3 3 ). A copy of the UF IRB approved consent form for the student survey is in Appendix E. Table 3 3. Student survey participants and response rate. n N Response Rate Interio r Design 41 48 85.4% Landscape Architecture 44 57 77.2% TOTAL 85 105 81.0% Student Focus Groups The focus groups were conducted immediately following scheduled class time so as to not interfere with studio instruction while ensuring that students wo uld still be present to participate. Once participants were secured, the students were given consent forms to sign and return to the researcher. A copy of the UF IRB approved consent form for the student focus groups is in Appendix F. The students were tol d the focus group would last approximately 45 minutes and their identity would remain anonymous so they should feel free to openly share their views, as there were no right or wrong answers. Each focus group was interviewed in their studio so that the spac e could trigger responses for students. The focus groups were audio recorded and lasted approximately 45 minutes each.

PAGE 68

68 Steward and his colleagues cautioned that during focus groups, dominant personalities tend to speak first and their opinions may go unqu estioned by others (2007). Therefore the researcher reassured the participants that a consensus opinion was not the goal; divergent views were appreciated and necessary to capture a full range of experiences. Throughout the duration of the focus groups, th e researcher probed for differing viewpoints before moving onto the next topic of discussion. Table 3 4 shows the number of focus group participants by cohort. Table 3 4. Focus group participants. n Interior Design Cohort A 10 Cohort B 4 Landscap e Architecture Cohort A 3 Cohort B 9 TOTAL 26 Faculty Interviews The faculty interviews were conducted during regular business hours in a location convenient for the participants, typically in his or her office. Before the interview began, the par ticipant was given a consent form to sign and return to the researcher. A copy of the UF IRB approved consent form for the studio instructors and unit heads are in Appendix G and Appendix H, respectively. Participants were told the interview would last app roximately 45 minutes depending on the depth of their answers, that their identity would remain anonymous, and that there were no right or wrong answers. The interviews were divided into topic areas with a set number of issues the researcher wanted to touc h on, however the question order was not structured. This semi structured approach produces interviews that are conversational in nature, allowing the

PAGE 69

69 participants to tell their own story (Sommer & Sommer, 2002) A total of 10 intervie ws were conducted (Ta ble 3 5) Table 3 5. Total interview participants. n Interior Design Studio Instructors 4 Unit Head 1 Landscape Architecture Studio Instructors 4 Unit Head 1 TOTAL 10 Observation s The researcher observed the design studio environment i n three hour intervals, both during and outside of class times, clustered around the project milestones of concept development, production, and critiques to capture a full range of activities. There were a total of 18 hours of observation planned for each cohort; however, studios were not consistently occupied outside of class time. This resulted in a total of 40 hours of observation for this study, instead of the anticipated 72 hours of observation. In addition to behavioral observations, the studios were documented through photographs These photographs of trace artifacts were important as a backup for the reduced hours of behavioral observation. Summary This comparative case study utilized a mixed method approach involving the following quantitative and qualitative research instruments: a student survey, student focus groups, faculty interviews, and observations. Each dimension of the framework for conceptualizing design studio culture included at least one quantitative and one qualitative research method This combination reduces researcher bias while providing a rich data set for the study. Despite this approach, the case study method presents

PAGE 70

70 several limitations, which are reviewed in this section. A summary of how the data collected were analyzed concl udes this chapter. Limitations The findings of this case study are limited to the students and faculty who chose to participate. Deductions of total population feelings can be made only with the data provided. Although a number of meas ures were taken to in sure high student survey response rates, 20.0 % of the students chose not to complete the survey or were absent from class the day when it was administered The number of participants for each focus group varied by cohort, limiting the potential number of d iffering opinions. Additionally, the design studios were not consistently occupied outside of class time, which reduced the total hours of observation. It must be noted that the design studio is a constantly changing environment. A resources can change from year to year due to the recently allowed to levee a technology fee on courses. This new fee allowed both the Department of Interior Design and the Dep artment of Landscape Architecture to acquire projectors, plotters, and tablet computers. Finally, each cohort has its own unique personality and work preferences. These id iosyncrasies are less significant than their commonalities. It is for this reason that the study focuses on identifying the broad and tacit patterns of design studio culture. These common patterns are more appropriate for other design studio cultures to ad opt than patterns particular to the University of Florida.

PAGE 71

71 Data Analysis The research questions of this study generated a rich set of qualitative and quantitative data. The majority of the quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to de corresponding standard deviations. Frequency counts were utilized to tally the responses to open ended questions. All of the qualitative data obtained through the focus groups and interviews were transcribed from the original recording. The content of the transcripts was analyzed to identify common themes as well as dissenting voices (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). The observations provided independent findings that generally supported, bu t occasionally refuted, the other findings. These findings are presented and discussed in Chapter 3, organized by each research question.

PAGE 72

72 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSS ION Every class has its own personality and I think creating that overall sense of comm unity is important and it s something that we are always striving for, goal. Interior Design Department Chair, University of Florida uld be open to the elements. You could bring in indoor outdoor furniture because it Landscape Architecture Department Chair, University of Florid a The research q uestions that underlie this study were formulated as a means to understand and describe the nature of design studio culture with the purpose of identifying recurrent problems, as well as benefits, associated with the design studio. This cha pter reviews the findings of the study, organized by these research questions: 1) What are the defining characteristics of the interior design and landscape architecture design cultures at the University of Florida? 2) How satisfied are the students, instructors and unit heads with their studio facilities? 3) What are the learning activities associated with the design process and how well do the studio spaces accommodate those activities? 4) How do students, instructors and unit heads envision the ideal studio and how much do their ideal s differ from existing conditions? The mixed method approach of this case study allows for ready comparisons between two studio cultures by emphasizing qualitative findings reinforced by quantitative data. Recurrent themes in the findin gs will be highlighted as they emerge and are summarized at the conclusion of each research question. These recurrent themes form the basis for the discussion in the following chapter.

PAGE 73

73 Defining Characteristics of Design Studio Culture What are the defining characteristics of the interior design and landscape architecture design cultures at the University of Florida? While learning design is the main focus of design studio curriculum, there are many other outcomes of the design process that create the whole experience of design studio culture. Students are required to dedicate a great deal of their time to honing their craft. This in turn leads to the development of close knit cohorts, though sometimes competition and cliques can undermine cohesiveness. This section describes these defining characteristics of the interior design and landscaper architecture design studio cultures at the University of Florida. Description of Sample The total participant sample ( n = 95) included 85 students, and 10 faculty member s including unit heads. The sample was nearly equally divided between 48.2% interior design students ( n = 41) and instructors ( n = 4) and 51.8% landscape students ( n = 44) and instructors ( n = 4). The students represented upper division majors who had pass ed a selective admissions process required to enter their respective programs. The representative interior design cohorts included significantly more third year students ( n = 26, 63.4%) than fourth year students ( n = 15, 36.6%), reflecting the current enro llment pattern of the program. The representative landscape architecture cohorts included slightly more third year students ( n = 25, 56.8%) than fourth year students ( n = 19, 43.2%), reflecting the current enrollment pattern of the program. The entire stu dent sample ranged in age from 20 to 37 with a mean age of 24.3 ( SD = 3.17). The interior design students ranged in age from 21 to 33 with a mean age of 23.9 ( SD = 2.72). The landscape architecture students ranged in age from 20 37

PAGE 74

74 with a mean age of 24. 7 ( SD = 3.54). The interior design student sample was predominantly female ( n = 40, 97.6%) with only one male (2.4%). In contrast, the landscape architecture sample was more balanced with 43.2% female ( n = 19) and 56.8% male ( n = 25). All participants in t his study were unpaid volunteers and signed an IRB consent letter before participating in the study. Educational Requirements When a student starts a design related course of study, one of the first realizations is the amount of time required to successful ly complete projects. One unit head into these things. orts investigated as students reported spending an average of 9 16 hours in studio in a typical week completing projects and assignments ( n = 85). In fact, students in both design studio cultures will spend over 1000 hours in a design studio over the cours e of their academic careers during scheduled class time alone The students additionally reported working an average of 9 16 hours somewhere other than studio in a typical week completing projects and assignments ( n = 85). The distribution of student repor ted time spent in the design studio during a typical week is represented in Figure 4 1. The bimodal distribution of the data indicates that students either spent a few hours each week in studio outside of classtime, or they spent a great deal of their time in studio. All told, 25.6% of students ( n = 22) reported spending more than 20 hours in a typical week in studio outside of scheduled class time. When not working in studio, students reported working: at home ( n = 85), libary ( n = 21), coffee shops ( n = n = 8), computer labs ( n = 6), and outdoors ( n = 3).

PAGE 75

75 Figure 4 1. Distribution of student reported time spent in studio in a typical week. Sleeping bags, blankets and household appliances such as refrigerators, microwaves, and coffe e pots distributed throughout the various spaces speak to the amount of time students spend in studio. One landscape a rchitecture student you go home, you will get distracted or sleep too much. So you deflated air mattress as well as a sleeping bag lying under desks ( Figure 4 2). Students in that space grouped their appliances to create their own food stora ge and prep area (Figure 4 3 ). Light can be seen streaming through the windows of the design studios in the Architecture Building at all hours of the night, beyond those that were studied it is truly a 24 hour/7 day a week space. Cohort Dynamics Friendships and camaraderie developed in the pressure cooker of design studio ou went through this

PAGE 76

76 Indeed, all four cohorts reported being close: some were friends, some were roommates, and some were in relationships. When speaking of her cohort, one interior design student emphatically Figure 4 2. Signs of overnight stays in the interior design studios. Figure 4 3. Household appliances in ID Cohort A studio.

PAGE 77

77 Several factors contribute to the formation of these close socia l bonds found in design studio culture. First, the students are in a cohort where they take all of their core curriculum classes together over the span of their degree program. Second, the vision serves as a rite of passage for the students. Third, the design studio sequence is the heart of the curriculum of each design studio culture studied. The sheer amount of time students spend together working on projects in studio is catalysis for the se social bonds. An t feel s less like work because everyone is in it together. You The students in landscape architecture have an additional opportunity for socialization. During their first semester after they enter upper division, they embark on a multi day field trip visiting significant American landscapes. Both of the landscape cohorts mentioned the field trip as a moment where their group became more cohesive. hey get to know one another much better Field tri ps definitely help in getting people to come together as a group. The social dynamic of studio can be complicated by competition between students. Students and studio instructors alike reported that there was friendly competition. Studio instructors gene rally saw competition as a good thing, with one I do think that competition keeps people engaged in the work. It keeps people focused on getting things not just done, but done well. encourage the sharing of ideas to pre vent competition from becoming a negative

PAGE 78

78 element in the studio environment. The instructor of ID Cohort A instituted a policy We assigned everyone to occupy a wall not from a presentation standpoint, but f rom a process standpoint. We wanted to see their evolving process. So they pin up fabrics, sloppy sketches, anything on their mind as students are often guarded about their work and not int o sharing and I think the opposite is true. I think you want people to be inspired by your ideas and then take them to another level and what I find is when you hang it up on wall, none of those issues happen because you can see if you are blatantly copyin g. What instead you start to see is other students take an idea and apply in an a totally different manner and that is what you want to see, this borrowing of ideas and making them your own. (UF instructor, personal communication) Some instructors also men tioned rotating group members for team projects so the same students did not repeatedly pick each other as their team members. This helps to deter the formation of cliques while exposing the students to differing personalities and ways of working. Summary The nature of the design studio cultures at the University of Florida is nuanced and complex as it becomes the focus of their collegiate life around which all other classes and commitments revolve. Regardless of whether students work in studio to complete their projects, they spend a substantial amount of time over the course of their academic career in a studio during scheduled class time. The cohorts in design disciplines develop strong friendships, with instructors taking measures to keep competition fri endly not cutthroat. Offsite activities, especially overnight stays, strengthen social bonds between students as well as increase rapport between students and instructors. Collectively, the findings of this research question inform three of the four concep tual framework dimensions for this study (Figure 4 4). The implications of

PAGE 79

79 these findings on the patterns of design studio culture will be discussed in the following chapter. Figure 4 4. Summarized findings for research question one. Satisfaction with Design Studio Spaces How satisfied are the students, instructors, and unit heads with their studio facilities? The degree to which students, instructors, and unit heads are satisfied with their design studio spaces are reviewed in this section. The unit he ads have a unique perspective of the design studios because they must balance the needs of their faculty perceptions of their spaces follows with an emphasis on the specific fe atures of the studio environment that they like the most, as well as those that they like the least. This

PAGE 80

80 section concludes with a review of the ways that users describe their studios to outsiders, and what the implications for those descriptors are. Desi gn Studio Satisfaction Students, studio instructors, and unit heads were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with their studio spaces on a seven point likert type scale with 1 being very dissatisfied and 7 being very satisfied (Table 4 1). When compar ing the means, interior design students are more satisfied with their studio spaces than their faculty, while landscape architecture faculty are more satisfied with their studio spaces than their students. Overall, interior design students are more satisfi ed with their studio spaces than landscape architecture students are with theirs, while the landscape architecture faculty are more satisfied with their studio spaces than their counterparts in interior design. Given the small sample of faculty, there is n o statistical test for comparing means. Table 4 1. Mean satisfaction rating of overall studio environment by discipline and stakeholder group. M SD Interior Design Students ( n = 41) 4.71 1.10 Faculty ( n = 5) 3.90 1.19 Landscape Archi tecture Students ( n = 45) 3.45 1.75 Faculty ( n = 5) 4.60 0.82 The Chairs of each department are actively working on improving theirs spaces. The interior design unit head indicated that new desks, task chairs, carpet, sketch tablet compu ters, plotters, and projectors were recently acquired for its studio spaces. The landscape architecture unit head indicated that new desks had been ordered for its spaces, though they had not been delivered by the period of data collection. Despite

PAGE 81

81 these i mprovements, the current condition of their studio spaces was far from ideal: goal differently. The interior design unit head wished there was a way to incorporate unit head wanted walls to literally come down to increase flexibility and to encourage community through service learning projects as a key defining characteristic of t heir ing the balance could bring their entire class together for lectures and discussions. The instructors of both interior design cohorts were frustrated with the spatial separation of their students: one area because the space is divided. I would absolutely love the wall to be taken Cohort A greatly enjoy the convenience of having a space within the studio to engage the whole cohort for lectures, presentations, and critiques a space that the interior design instructors

PAGE 82

82 ease in which they could teach. Their views on this matter will be investigated in greater depth in the following research question. Students are the primary users of t he design studio, spending countless hours in them over their academic careers; therefore they are bound to have strong and well formed ideas about their spaces. Their mean satisfaction rating, based on a seven point likert type scale with 1 being very dis satisfied and 7 being very satisfied, are summarized in Table 4 2. It should be noted that despite their degree of satisfaction proud of them, but not because of th e way they lo Table 4 2. Mean satisfaction ratings of studio features by discipline. Interior Design ( n = 41) Landscape Architectu re ( n = 44) M SD M SD t Overall Satisfaction 4.71 1.10 3.45 1.75 3.926** Acou stics 4.12 1.58 3.98 1.49 0.434 Aesthetic appeal 3.00 1.47 2.41 1.51 1.825 Amount of space 4.71 1.25 3.82 2.08 2.365* Cleanliness 3.56 1.57 2.75 1.50 2.442* Flexibility of use 4.80 1.45 3.55 1.80 3.537** Furnishings 4.78 1.46 2.52 1.32 7.491** Layout of studio 4.68 1.35 3.80 1.70 2.660** Lighting 3.34 1.77 3.27 1.65 0.185 Maintenance 3.95 1.58 2.84 1.54 3.281** Free of o dor 5.02 1.28 3.95 1.45 3.608** Quality of ceiling finish 2.39 1.39 3.20 1.86 2.269* Quality of floor finish 5.44 1.48 3.00 1.78 6.838** Quality of wall finishes 2.93 1.46 2.64 1.74 0. 831 Security 4.80 1.60 4.43 1.68 1.048 Technology 4.80 1.45 2.36 1.53 7.541** Temperature 2.71 1.63 3.70 1.96 2.539* Views to outside 5.44 1.70 4.68 1.67 2.070* p < .05 ** p < .01. The findings showed that the interior design students were significantly more satisfied with the overall condition of their design studios than their counterparts in

PAGE 83

83 landscape architecture. When further investigating the data, interior design students were si gnificantly more satisfied than the landscape architectures students across ten of the seventeen features: amount of space, cleanliness, flexibility, furnishings, layout, maintenance, odor, quality of floor finish, technology, and views. In comparison, lan dscape architecture students were significantly more satisfied than the interior design students with the temperature and quality of ceiling finish in their studios. Both disciplines were satisfied with the acoustics and security of their spaces. Additiona lly, they were both dissatisfied with the aesthetics, lighting, and quality o f wall finish in their spaces. In addition to comparing levels of satisfaction across disciplines, it is valuable to compare the levels of satisfaction within the disciplines as e ach cohort works in different spaces. Overall, both interior design cohorts were satisfied with their studio spaces; however, there was a statistically significant difference between the landscape architecture cohorts (Table 4 3). Though the students of LA Cohort A appeared to be satisfied with their studio space, their peers in LA Cohort B were greatly dissatisfied, having a mean satisf action rating of 2.11 out of 7. Table 4 3. Mean satisfaction rating of overall studio space by discipline and cohort. M SD t Interior Design 1.065 Cohort A ( n = 26) 4.85 0.96 Cohort B ( n = 15) 4.47 1.36 Landscape Architecture 6.043** Cohort A ( n = 25) 4.48 1.39 Cohort B ( n = 19) 2.11 1.15 p < .05 ** p < .01. Stud ents in LA Cohort B were located in a subterranean space of the Architecture Building, on a different floor from the other students in their department. They described

PAGE 84

84 pri group work had to be taken out of the studio to spaces that could accommodate them such as libraries. The space was devoid of soft finishes or comfortable furnishings, makin g the long hours in studio almost unbearable. In short, the students saw no benefit to working in the space. In fact, during the ir Barely any of us have any equipment in here. You can see nothing is here. Whenever class is over, Observations of their space certainly back up their claim. The researcher was unable to conduct any behavioral observations outside of regularly scheduled class times as the studio was empty. Their space lacked the signs of habitation that other studios possessed such as design materials or personalized workspaces. In many ways, their space appeared abandoned (Figure 4 5). Figure 4 5. Interior of LA Cohort B studio. The satisfaction ratings reviewed in this section provide important insights into how users perceive their spaces. In general, interior design students were more satisfied

PAGE 85

85 with their spaces than their landscape architecture counterparts. The students of LA Cohort B in particular where greatly dissatisfied with their space. However, the satisfaction ratings reviewed thus far do not paint a complete pictur e For instance, what really matters to a design student? What qualities of the current studio spaces work well, and which do not? The following section looks at the specifi c features that students greatly liked, as well as the ones that were a source of great frustration. Most Liked Features Students identified through free response the three features of their studio environment that they liked the most in order to capture a more holistic view of their perceptions. Personal workspaces ( = 24, 58.5%), views to outside ( 22, 53.7%), and the quality of floor finish ( = 18, 43.9%) were the most frequently mentioned features by interior design students (Table 4 4). Views to o utside ( = 24, 54.5%), the layout of studio ( 14, 34.1%), and the balcony ( 12, 27.3%) were the most frequently mentioned features by landscape architecture students (Table 4 5). The qualities of these features that shape student perceptions and sat isfaction are discussed in greater depth in this section. The interior design students overwhelmingly liked their individual workspace including their desks and task chairs, because they were comfortable for computer use. They found that the desks were an improvement over the wood drafting height desks they used in lower division studios, which were similar in style to the desks that the landscape architecture students used (Figure 4 better for model building, drawing, an d rendering because it was durable and level. They were also satisfied with their newly donated carpet flooring because it was more comfortable than the concrete floors they experienced in lower division studios.

PAGE 86

86 Table 4 4. Frequency count of self report ed favorite studio features for interior design students. ( n = 41) % Personal workspace 24 58.5 Views to outside 22 53.7 Quality of floor finish 18 43.9 Furnishings 14 34.1 Technology 12 29.3 Layout of studio 7 17.1 24/7 access 5 12.2 Se curity 4 9.8 Studio culture 4 9.8 Balcony 3 7.3 Collaboration space 1 2.4 Flexibility of use 1 2.4 Fridge 1 2.4 Lighting 1 2.4 Privacy 1 2.4 Quality of wall finish 1 2.4 Missing 4 9.7 Table 4 5. Frequency count of self reported favori te studio features for landscape architecture students. ( n = 44) % Views to outside 24 54.5 Layout of studio 14 34.1 Balcony 12 27.3 Collaboration space 9 20.5 Personal workspace 6 13.6 Technology 5 11.4 Kitchenette 4 9.1 Lounge furnishi ngs 4 9.1 Acoustics 3 6.8 Amount of space 3 6.8 Studio culture 3 6.8 24/7 access 2 4.5 Aesthetics 2 4.5 Lighting 2 4.5 Location in building 2 4.5 Security 2 4.5 Privacy 1 2.3 Quality of floor finish 1 2.3 Quality of wall finish 1 2.3 Missing 32 72.7

PAGE 87

87 The department chair indicated that she had received great feedback about the new flooring from the faculty. Interviews with the faculty supported her statement as all mentioned liking the carpet and its acoustical properties compared t o the concrete floors. Figure 4 6. Comparison of workspaces across disciplines. Landscape architecture students liked the layout of their spaces. LA studio space had a dedicated collaboration area for gatherings, lectures, and presentations w hile in interior design studios lacked a comparable gathering space (Figure 4 7). The faculty were also satisfied with the space because of its overall convenience and flexibility. Observations supported this finding as lectures and critiques were observed in the space during class time. Outside of class time, students used the area for computer work because they found them to be more comfortable than their wood drafting height desks. This does not mean that the drafting desks went unused.

PAGE 88

88 Students were obs erved using them for hand drawings and renderings; however, they were dissatisfied with the surface of their drafting desks because the wood top was uneven for model building. They were also frustrated that they had to provide their own chair because they Figure 4 7. Comparison of collaborative spaces across disciplines. Both the interior design and landscape architecture students liked having views to the outside. All studio spaces had a least one wall of glass to let in the plenty of natural light (Figure 4 8). Additionally, landscape architecture students liked their balcony spaces, which were used as learning labs to test green roofs. These spaces went largely unused in interior desig n studios, with one student calling the balconies a 9). Students and faculty appear to prefer table height desks to drafting height because the majority of projects are completed digitally. Seating should be ergonomic and com fortable for long hours of studio work. Balcony spaces were appreciated because it allowed students to quickly gain access to the outdoors for some fresh air, but the spaces tended to be poorly maintained and lacked seating. Finally, carpeting

PAGE 89

89 was clearly preferred to concrete floors due to acoustics, comfort, and aesthetics. While some features of the studio are clearly preferred to others, there are some features that are a source of frustration for students. Figure 4 8. Comparisons of views across d isciplines. Figure 4 9. Comparison of balconies across disciplines.

PAGE 90

90 Most Disliked Features In order to capture a more holistic view of their perceptions, students identified the three features of their studio environment that they liked the least. The lighting ( = 26, 63.4%), temperature ( 13, 41.5%), aesthetics ( = 13, 31.7%), and lack of storage ( = 13, 31.7%) were the most frequently mentioned features by interior design students (Table 4 6). The technology ( = 15, 34.1%), amount of space ( 13, 29.5%), aesthetics ( 12, 27.3%), and lighting ( 12, 27.3%) were the most frequently mentioned features by landscape architecture students (Table 4 7). The qualities of these features that shape student perceptions and satisfaction are discussed in greater depth in this section. Table 4 6. Frequency count of self reported least favorite studio features for interior design students. ( n = 41) % Lighting 26 63.4 Temperature 17 41.5 Aesthetics 13 31.7 Lack of storage 13 31.7 Amount of sp ace 7 17.1 Quality of wall finish 7 17.1 Acoustics 6 14.6 Cleanliness 6 14.6 Lack of collaboration spaces 3 7.3 Wire management 3 7.3 Lack of work surfaces 2 4.9 Privacy 2 4.9 Technology 2 4.9 Balcony 1 2.4 Quality of ceiling finish 1 2 .4 Missing 14 34.1

PAGE 91

91 Table 4 7. Frequency count of self reported least favorite studio features for landscape architecture students. ( n = 44) % Technology 15 34.1 Amount of space 13 29.5 Aesthetics 12 27.3 Lighting 12 27.3 Wire management 1 1 25.0 Temperature 8 18.1 Location in building 7 15.9 Cleanliness 6 13.6 Furnishings 6 13.6 Privacy 5 11.4 Acoustics 4 9.1 Quality of floor finish 4 9.1 Lack of storage 3 6.8 Layout of space 2 4.5 Personal workspace 2 4.5 Lack of coll aboration spaces 1 2.3 Quality of ceiling finish 1 2.3 Quality of wall finish 1 2.3 Views 1 2.3 Missing 18 40.9 Both interior design and landscape architecture students reported the aesthetics of their studios among their least favorite features The studio spaces tend to be devoid of any character defining features as their walls are painted off white and the ceiling is exposed concrete with ducts and pipes snaking overhead (Figure 4 10). The only dose of color in any of the spaces is the carpet ing found in the interior design studios. A probably the roughest I have seen anyw here in terms of the quality of the furnishings,

PAGE 92

92 the faculty were more accepting Figure 4 10. Comparison of aesthetics across disciplines. was the amount of space in their studio. When comparing the density of students (Table 3 1), the ID Cohort B has the most space per student at 146 ft 2 /s tudent then the ID Cohort A at 73 ft 2 /s tudent next the LA Cohort A at 65 ft 2 /s tudent and finally the LA Cohort B at 40 ft 2 /s tudent The students of the ID Cohort B have over 3.5 times the amount of space than the students of the LA Cohort B, supporting their perceptions. The interior design and landscape architecture students identified lighting as a lea st favorite feature in their studios. In all of the spaces, ambient lighting was provided by overhead fluorescent lamps, which lacked diffusers. The exposed lamps produced glare and strained eyes (Figure 4 11). Many students and faculty were also dissatisf ied with the lack of integrated task lighting. The windows of the landscape architecture studios have been outfitted with blinds, however interior design studios have no way to control the incoming sun, making projector use difficult. Compounding this prob lem,

PAGE 93

93 there is no way to control or dim the fluorescent lighting within the studio space it is either on or off. Figure 4 11. Comparison of lighting across disciplines. The interior design students identified the temperature of their spaces as their se cond least favorite feature. Users cannot regulate the temperature in any of the spaces within the Architecture Building, including studios. The spaces are typically too hot or too cold. Studio doors were regularly observed propped open to let outdoor air in to regulate the temperature. Landscape architecture students rated their access to technology as their least favorite feature. LA Cohort B does not have access to any technology resources such as projectors or plotters in their space, so this finding i s not surprising. Although neither of the landscape architecture cohorts have access to sketch tablet computers in their spaces, they did have equipment to support traditional media such as a light table for tracing. This equipment however appeared to be u nderutilized, collecting miscellaneous unclaimed drawings (Figure 4 12).

PAGE 94

94 Figure 4 12. Comparison of technology across disciplines. While access to technology can provide opportunities for experimentation, it is not a panacea. Instructors and students a re not able to harness the full power of the new effectively. devices like scanners and output devices like printers and plotters located in the studio because transporting the drawings to and from studio risks damaging the paper or smudging the renderings. Also, the Architecture Building has exterior corridors, ther efore in instances with inclement weather, students are unable to relocate to a computer lab to scan or print without destroying their work. The design process requires many tools and supplies to represent ideas such as paper, pens, markers, and modeling m aterials. The lack of storage is a problem in all studio spaces, which frequently results in piles of materials accumulating in the spaces

PAGE 95

95 (Figure 4 productivity and teaching because piles of extraneous materials limit the flexibility of the space. Further, the furniture cannot be easily reconfigured when students store their supplies underneath their desk which is the only location they can store them. Beyond function and aesthetics, some faculty felt that the clutter resulting from the lack of to train students to do the same. Maybe tha They want to come in and see what you are doing and put down a sheet of paper environm (UF instructor, personal communication) Figure 4 13. Comparison of storage issues across disciplines.

PAGE 96

96 Students do no t like the aesthetics of their design studios finding them too i ndustrial looking. The suspended and exposed fluorescent lighting only contribute to this undesired aesthetic. With exception of the blinds over the windows in the studio of LA Cohort A, all of the spaces lack lighting controls. The spaces were typically t oo hot or too cold for the students as doors were typically left open to regulate the temperature. Flexibility is important to students and faculty alike. A studio with too many students creates spatial gridlock. Furthermore, lack of adequate storage limit s the flexibility of the space. Finally, access to technology is king in our digital world. Landscape architecture students most frequently mentioned their lack of technological resources as their least favorite feature. The students in LA Cohort B were so dissatisfied with their studio they did not use it they did not see any value it the space. Current Studio Descriptors Words carry weight evoke strong imagery. How would you describe yourself t o others? Joyful or pleasant? Realistic or pessimistic? Average looking or beautiful? Space can be soaring or intimate, industrial or refined. Students, instructors, and unit heads were asked to think of five adjectives or short phrases to describe their c urrent studio spaces. These descriptors quickly communicate the overall nature and character of their studio. Figures 4 14 and 4 three or higher. A quick glance at the figures shows that interior design students described their spaces in more positive terms than their peers in landscape architecture. Students primarily described the characteristics of the physical space, using words = 15, = 4), = 4, = 7), and = 14). Students cannot control whether their space is bright, larger, or

PAGE 97

97 outdated; however if a space is cluttered, they can certainly tidy it up. A recurring finding ance to take charge of their environment. Graduate Teaching Assistant for ID Cohort Y a professional administration wa s able to provide us with much nicer desks now than we use to have. But t he rest of it is up to the s tudents. While most descriptors provided by students focused on the physical space, a few responses focused on the culture of the studio environment with interior design students = 3) and landscape architecture stud ents describing = 6). Conversely, the majority of f aculty described the culture of their studios as opposed to the physical characteristics of the descriptors mentioned by faculty focused on the st Summary The previous section has established that the interior design students appear to be more satisfied with their studio spaces than the landscape architecture students, finding them comfo rtable with good access to technology resources. The instructors of LA Cohort A as well as the students enjoy the shared space in the center of their studio, finding it flexible enough for many functions including lectures, presentations, critiques,

PAGE 98

98 Fi gure 4 14. Descriptors of studio with frequency counts of three or higher from interior design students. Figure 4 15. Descriptors of studio with frequency counts of three or higher from landscape architecture students.

PAGE 99

99 computer work, and general socia lizing. LA Cohort B strongly dislike their studio space finding it lacking technology, flexibility, and comfort. Indeed, those three factors are beginning to appear as key drivers of user satisfaction. Furthermore, it is also becoming apparent that the stu dents are not taking responsibility of their space. They dislike features of their environment that they actually have control over. Collectively, the findings of this research question inform three of the four conceptual framework dimensions for this stud y (Figure 4 16). The implications of these findings on the patterns of design studio culture will be discussed in the following chapter. Figure 4 16. Summarized findings for research question two.

PAGE 100

100 Analyzing the Design Process What are the learning activ ities associated with the design process and how well do the studio spaces accommodate those activities? As described in the literature review, the design studio is not simply a classroom, workshop, or workplace it is all of these and more. It is specifica lly a space for the learning and teaching of design. This section looks at the specific behaviors associated with the design process, which involves imaging, presenting, and testing (Zeisel, 2006) The imaging phase is the simply the act of conceptualizing a solution to a problem in other words, brainstorming. The presenting phase involves the designer creating a physical representation of his or her solution developed during the imaging phase. reviewed for effectiveness and appropriateness. This process is cyclical in nature with the designer reverting back to the imaging phase to address issues brought up in the testing phase. In both design studio cultures, the overall structure of a project is similar; starting with initial concept development, leading to design development with a mid point review, and culminating with a final design presentation, which is often juried by faculty, clients, and experts. These activities associated with a proj 8). This example is an oversimplified view of the design process; in fact, a simple napkin sketch used to communicate the most basic idea is aligned with the pr esenting phase. In other words, the process is organic and continually in motion, regardless of formalized project milestones. Nevertheless, it is a valuable means to tangibly conceptualize the design process. The following sections identify the activities associated with the design

PAGE 101

101 process, with a focus on the specific qualities of the studio environment that serve as opportunities and/or barriers to the studio users. Table 4 8. Activities associated with the phases of the design process. Design Phases Pr oject Activities Imaging Concept Development Programming Pre Design Research Schematic Diagrams Presenting Design Development Drawing Rendering Modeling Testing Reviews Desk Crits Midpoint Critique Final Pres entation & Juried Critique The Imaging Phase The imaging phase of the design process is the most difficult of the three phases to investigate because it produces nothing tangible to study. Indeed, by definition the imaging phase is a cognitive exercise i t is simply the act of thinking about a solution to a problem. Therefore, to address this activity, students identified the places that they like to work during the initial concept development phase of a project. Some students preferred working in the desi gn studio to brainstorm because they had access to their design materials, had space to spread out, and could isolate themselves from distractions. It was mentioned, however, that if too many people are in studio for this process, the space becomes too dis tracting. This was due to the fact that students reported needing opportunities for concentration and introspection. Additionally, students expressed an innate need to be inspired; however, they did not For me, the idea tion stage is hard to do in studio. I actually need to be outside of here to do it.

PAGE 102

102 needing to be somewhere other than studio because they found the environment distracting, stressful, and uninspiring. Instead o f deliberately searching for inspiration, some students let inspiration find them. This occurred by casually perusing magazines, books, and the internet for images that sparked their curiosity. Students reported wandering around their studio, the Architect ure Building, and the university campus for inspiration from unexpected sources. The outdoors naturally served as a great source of inspiration for landscape architecture students. Whether working in studio or elsewhere, students primarily sought inspirat ion alone. Some looked within while others literally looked around. Some students needed such solitude that they were only able to find inspiration while showering, trying to fall ividual as they are. Because of the idiosyncratic nature of the imaging phase, the studio will likely encouraged through inspirational and engaging environments. The Presenting Phas e The presenting phase of the design process is characterized by physically representing the ideas that was developed during the imaging phase. This is traditionally achieved thorough drawing, rendering, and modeling. In many instances, the presenting phas featuring rows of tables, with students hunched over models and drafting boards. This is still the case in studio, especially in the earlier stages of design education. Students literally nee d to get the feel of what it means to design; they need to be able to physically form space. Once students have developed the foundations of design, they

PAGE 103

103 are often allowed to use computers to digitally complete their projects. All cohorts reported that onc e they passed selective admissions, they were allowed to choose the method of design communication they are comfortable with, yet they also needed to consider that that some studio instructors had a preference for traditional media over digital, or vice ve rsa. Their final decision to complete a project by hand or on the When designs are presented through traditional means such hand drawings and physical models, students tend to work from studi o because the large size of the materials makes transporting them difficult. The introduction of portable computers and digital media frees up the need for large drafting desks. For example, an interior design Students also reported working in computer labs because they personally lacked the necessary computer programs and/or their computers were not powerful enough to handle the digital modeling. While students liked that t he computer lab was a resource available to them, they did not like the isolation of working in there. The idea of not t feel s less like work becau se everyone is in it together y Additionall y, all students reported working in at least one group or team project in studio. Taken together, students were more inclined to work from home for individual and digital projects, and more inclined to work in studio for team projects and hand drawing, ren dering, and modeling. Regardless of project parameters, there are invariably students who prefer to work exclusively outside of the studio, most often in I need to focus so home provides the quite time

PAGE 104

104 who prefer t ersonally I like to come to studio because at home, there are dimension of working in studio cannot be ignored as seen in the opportunities and barriers to wor king in studio (Table 4 9). Table 4 9 Opportunities and barriers to working in studio. Opportunities Barriers Separation of work and home Peer feedback Friendships Natural lighting Other environments distracting The space to draw and render by hand Comp uter allows one to work at home Undiffused fluorescent lighting Easier to stay at home if there already If few classmates work in class there is less incentive to come in to studio Group projects present their own constraints. For instance, there was an expressed need for acoustically private breakout spaces that could be used for group projects or quiet work. Furthermore, all cohorts stated there was a lack of work surfaces and seating for group work. This was especially the case for ID Cohort A as grou ps were observed meeting on the floor because there was otherwise not enough work surfaces to spread papers out. Finally, students expressed frustration with the upkeep of the few shared work surfaces. Specifically, students had used public tables for priv ate activities, and left their materials on them preventing others from using the tables (Figure 4 17). While students cannot buy more work surfaces or build breakout spaces in their studio, they can control their existing workspaces. Why then do students not respect the public collaborative spaces in studio? Conversely, why do students not hold their classmates accountable for their actions? For the presenting phase of the design process, students ultimately need a place to create their projects. These pr ojects can be completed by hand, or on a computer. Desks need to be large enough to accommodate drafting boards yet adaptable enough

PAGE 105

105 for computer use. Similarly, input and output devices are needed in studio to get ideas into and out of computers. Multiple and flexible spaces are needed to support individual as well as collaborative work styles so that all users of the space are comfortable. Indeed, comfort and convenience appear to be the overriding factors influencing a o or at home to complete their projects. It is important to note, however, that the single greatest advantage of the design studio appeared to be the fact that students had a desk and a space at all. From a practical standpoint, having a personal desk allo wed students to leave their work without having to pack up at the end of the day. Figure 4 17. Collaboration tables left with cutting boards and paper scraps after use. The Testing Phase The previously discussed phases of the design process focused pr imarily on the needs of the students as they conceptualize solutions to design problems and then

PAGE 106

106 communicate those solutions through drawings, renderings, and models. The studio instructor, as well as outside critics and classmates, enter the design proces s during the These reviews can be formal or casual, individual or collective. They occur both in and out of the studio, with formal critiques regularly featuring outsid e jurors. It should be noted that since the testing phase involves outside appraisals, the activities associated with it occur almost exclusively during regularly scheduled class time. The following section identifies the activities associated with the tes ting phase of the design process, with a focus on the specific qualities of the studio environment that serve as opportunities and/or barriers to the studio users. Instructors valued flexibility in studios because every day is different some projects might require the instructor to lecture a great deal, whereas other class periods might be heavy on desk crits. Similarly, students like to sit together for group work, which means they need to be able to reconfigure their space around the project parameters. I nstructors also valued having the convenience of projectors installed in were happy with the newly introduced tablet computers because they provided new ways of critiq uing digital work. Even though the tablet computers are a welcome tool, LA Co hort A were quite happy with their open communal space in the center of the studio as it does indeed allow for a permanent and dedicated presentation space.

PAGE 107

107 Critiques are a cornerstone of design studio culture, emotional validation to students, and offer a checkpoint for overall class progress for instructors. First, students want their entire class to be able to display their work at the same time the few critique spaces at the University of Florida that are large enough to accommodate an entire projects at once are so awkwardly and inadequate that one cannot view the breadth of student work in one view. Additionally, students liked spaces with natural light and views to the exterior. They also wished the critique spaces could be more accessible a ore exposure not just to the College but to all of UF. I t would only increase the status of our programs here Mid point critiques and final presentations in particular are an influential part of the studio exp erience for students. These moments where their work receives constructive criticism serves as a point of validation that they are doing the right thing. The Gallery in the Architecture Building was seen as the most prestigious place to hold a critique, ho wever it was rarely available because the School of Architecture regularly booked the space. Students across all four cohorts were frustrated and resentful that critiques did e School of] Architecture has the Gallery every week of the year and we are forced to pin up in a Gallery in a lower cause people can Faculty members also had strong opinions on their favorite critique spaces, and interestingly the traits that they valued in a critique space were identical to the traits that

PAGE 108

108 liked spaces that were full of natural light with views to the outsi de. As indicated in the prior research question, unit heads saw critiques as an opportunity to reach out to the community, as well as build relationships with practicing professionals by asking well respected designers to serve as jurors for final presenta tions. In general, faculty did not like holding critiques in their studios due to the lack of pinnable surfaces. Furthermore, they did not like any of the critique spaces in the Architecture Building. While students liked the prestige associated with the Gallery, podge and awkward The only critique space that the students and faculty all reported liking on campus was a glass enclosed bridge connecting the Architecture and Fine Arts Library to its neighboring building (Figure 4 18 ). In fact, of the spaces on campus available for critiques, it possessed the highest amount of desired spatial qualities mentioned by all users As o It is definitely worth noting that the testing phase in cludes any moment of appraisal, not only critiques. A designer reflecting on his or her work, or asking another for feedback also serves as part of the testing activity. Students saw the opportunities afforded by working in the design studio a valuable par You can turn to people if you get stuck, but if you are at home, you are just stuck. and unit heads alike felt that these casual appraisals from peers were an indispensible

PAGE 109

109 and often overlooked aspect of design educat ion. In fact, eight out of the ten faculty interviewed for this study felt that the strongest designers in their programs were those that worked in studio because it allowed for those casual yet critical points of interaction: Figure 4 18. Most freque ntly mentioned favorite critique space on campus. go home alone and just do production, but I think in the early process, to be able to really articulate your thoughts to put them out them and hear yourself say it and get feedback from your fellow students, I think it really (UF instru ctor, personal communication) I t appears that faculty and department chairs need their studio to serve two distinct but not necessarily mutually exclusive functions. They need their studios to act like a traditional university classroom with presentation c apabilities such as a projector, computer, light controls, and a way to sketch concepts for everyone to see. They need their studios to easily facilitate both formal and informal critiques by having abundant

PAGE 110

110 pinnable surfaces, natural light, and views. For both functions, it was extremely important to have a space large enough to fully engage the entire class. Not only is it more convenient, but also it builds a stronger sense of community. Summary This section reviewed the ways in which the studio space di rectly facilities activities associated with the imaging, presenting, and testing phases of the design process. Because of the idiosyncratic nature of the imaging phase, the studio will likely vity can be encouraged through inspirational and engaging environments. The presenting phase can be thought of as the production of ideas through drawing, rendering, and modeling; therefore students ultimately need a place to create their projects. Studios should be comfortable and convenient to encourage students to work there. The testing phase informal and formal critiques. Instructors desired flexibility in the la yout of the studio space as well as methods to easily lecture through integrated computers and projectors. There was also a strong desire to be able to demonstrate ideas through drawing. The favorite critique spaces of students and faculty were light fille d with views to allow for visual breaks. Also, there was a strong desire to have a space large enough to accommodate every project at once to capture the whole experience of the cohort. This section has reviewed with ways in which studios facilitate the ac tivities associated with the design process. Collectively, the findings of this research question inform two of the four conceptual framework dimensions for this study (Figure 4 19). The implications of these findings on the patterns of design studio cultu re will be discussed in the following chapter.

PAGE 111

111 Figure 4 19. Summarized findings for research question three. Ideal Environment How do students, instructors and unit heads envision the ideal studio and how much do their ideals differ from existing condit ions? The previous sections of this chapter reviewed interior design and landscape architecture student and faculty perceptions of existing studio spaces at the University of Florida. This section shifts the focus by describing how the participants of the study envision their ideal design studios environments. The first section reviews the physical features of the ideal design studio while the second section looks specifically at the socio cultural climate.

PAGE 112

112 Physical Features of Ideal Design Studio Tables 4 10 and 4 11 summarize the adjectives or short phrases interior design and landscape architecture students use to describe their ideal studio spaces. Interior design students listed a wider range of descriptors than landscape architecture students. This c ould possibly be attributed to the fact that as interior designers, they are conditioned to speak in nuanced terms about interior environments. The three most frequently mentioned ideal studio descriptors by interior design students were multi functional ( = 17, 8.3%), contains storage ( = 16, 7.8%), and aesthetically appealing ( = 13, 6.3%). The three most frequently mentioned ideal studio descriptors by landscape architecture students were multi functional ( = 28, 14.1%), spacious ( = 18, 9.0%), and supports technology ( = 18, 9.0%). Several of these most frequently mentioned ideal design studio descriptors were also the most frequently mentioned features that students disliked in their existing design studios, namely: aesthetics, amount of space, li ghting, storage, and technology. Table 4 10. Ideal studio descriptors from interior design students ( n = 41). % % Multi Functional 17 8.3 Inviting 5 2.4 Storage 16 7.8 Stimulating 5 2.4 Aesthetically Appealing 13 6.3 Efficient 4 2.0 Clean 11 5.4 Good acoustics 4 2.0 Organized 11 5.4 Light filled 4 2.0 Professional 11 5.4 Engaging 3 1.5 Well lit 11 5.4 Warm 3 1.5 Flexible 10 4.9 Learning Lab 2 1.0 Adjustable lighting / temp 9 4.4 Modern 2 1.0 Collaborative 8 3.9 Secure 2 1.0 Comf ortable 8 3.9 Well maintained 2 1.0 Supports technology 8 3.9 Accessible 24/7 1 0.5 Personalized 7 3.4 Friendly 1 0.5 Spacious 7 3.4 Home like 1 0.5 Inspiring 6 2.9 Views 1 0.5 Open 6 2.9 Welcoming 1 0.5 Individual Workspace 5 2.4

PAGE 113

113 Table 4 11. Ideal studio descriptors from landscape architecture students ( n = 44) % % Multi Functional 28 14.1 Adjustable lighting / temp 4 2.0 Spacious 18 9.0 Community 4 2.0 Supports t echnology 18 9.0 Inviting 4 2.0 Clean 17 8.5 Storage 4 2.0 Comfortable 17 8.5 Accessible 24/7 3 1.5 Light filled 15 7.5 Secure 3 1.5 Open 10 5.0 Good acoustics 2 1.0 Views 8 4.0 Home like 2 1.0 Aesthetically Appealing 7 3.5 Stimulating 2 1.0 Individual Workspace 7 3.5 Collaborative 1 0.5 Modern 6 3.0 Efficient 1 0.5 Well lit 6 3.0 Inspiring 1 0.5 Creative 5 2.5 Learning Lab 1 0.5 Ergonomic 5 2.5 Missing 21 10.6 Students, faculty, and department chairs envisioned their ideal studios serving multiple functions. Each user group expressed a desire for a kitchenette to limit students for casual interactions. They also desired dedicated presentation and collaboration spaces. Faculty in both departments wanted a l earning lab where students could practice their craft in real life. An interior design studio instructor wished students had access to a kit of systems furniture components so they could understand how it was constructed, while a landscape architecture stu dio instructor wished students had a small plot of land for each student to plant and maintain as a way of expressing their personality while learning the gr owth cycle of plants. Table 4 12 summarizes the various space types desired by the stakeholder grou ps in both design studio cultures. Some of these desired space types can be found within the design studios studied. For example, the studio space of LA Cohort A has a kitchenette, which included a microwave and a full size refrigerator. Physical observati ons showed that this limited the amount of household appliances brought in by students, especially in

PAGE 114

114 comparison to the studio of ID Cohort A where small refrigerators, microwaves, and coffee makers were found distributed throughout space tucked away in c orners and under desks Additionally, while none of the studios had an official lounge, two did have sofas (Figure 4 Table 4 12. Space types desired in ideal design studio by discipline. Interior design stakeholders Landscape architecture stakeholders Breakout space Collaboration space Decompression space Fitness/recreation area Kitchenette Learning lab Loft Lounge Nap room Plot room Presentation space Game room Kitchenette Presentation space Kit chenette Learning lab Loft Lounge Presentation space Figure 4 20. Lounge furniture in studios. All students desired a space for recreation, decompression, and relaxation. Students in LA Cohort A told stories of watching television shows, movies, and sports on their studio projector. One instructor recounted a story of the local student run paper reporting that a riot had broken out in the Architecture Building, when in all actuality,

PAGE 115

115 students had simply lit their models on fire in the atrium to blow off steam in the midst of finals week noting Many of the physical features that students envisioned in their ideal design studio were also reported as their most liked features (if the space possessed them) or their most disliked features (if the space lacked them) of their existing design studio: aesthetically pleasing, adjustable lighting, personal workspace, plenty of storage, access to technology, and vie ws to the outside. like with comfortable finishes and furniture because of the amount of time they spend in studio. Some students, particularly in interior design, desired a space that was more professional looki ng: doing. looking, but not entirely office similar rift reflected through faculty interviews with some wanting a professional looking space, I think for upper division, yes. I think it helps, particularly like with th e seniors I teach transitioning to the work world envisioned a space where think that he students to be so concerned about maintaining the precious quality of the space, that they are inhibited in their creative explorations. But at the same time, we are training quality (UF instructor, personal communication) On the other hand, some faculty wanted a space that was somewhat professional looking, but not entirely office Sterility does not equate to professional and a lot of

PAGE 116

116 the so called professional studios I have seen around the country are very As you can see, user preferences on the image of their ideal studio are varied and complex as they communicate the cultural values of each design studio culture. Socio Cultural Climate of Ideal Design Stud io Participants from all stakeholder groups expressed a desire to capitalize on their placement within an interdisciplinary college by incorporating other academic units into their projects. An interior design studio instructor stated that: Cross discipli there are a lot of barriers between the programs, but if we were to do it, I think we would need a week of team building exercises to establish why we are doing it and what is my contribution to the team? Then hash out responsibilities up front to trul y have a dynamic that functions. (UF instructor, personal communication) By sharing, we would all learn. Some students stated that the y would be satisfied with inter departmental socials if collaborative projects were too difficult to arrange. One student discussed the possibility of building relationships with other academic disciplines outside of the college as an opportunity for incre People may not even know that the University of Florida has a landscape architecture or an interior design program. Not that many students make stuff that you can look at that you would want to look at. Indeed, one department chair ne thing that I admire about our current faculty is the ability to connect to larger constituency groups which sometimes brings the cri tique in to the community.

PAGE 117

117 In addition to connecting to larger groups and academic units, faculty also saw their ideal studio as being more cohesive and collaborative across cohorts in their own discipline. This interior design studio instructor stated: Yo u know th not near enough around here between the 2nd year interior design students and the 3rd year. I encourage all of the freshmen I teach in the history c lass to participate in his is where you are going to be in three years. These are people you need to know and you c an ask them questions about pin up or whatever. them. (UF instructor, personal communication) Students learn much fr om each other as they do from their faculty. Breaking down physical and organizational barriers to create opportunities for interaction is critical to create a stronger sense of community in the studio culture of the department. Summary The previous secti on reviewed the ways that the students, faculty, and administration envisioned the ideal studio. Both groups of students envisioned this space as being multi functional, having storage, aesthetically appealing, spacious, and supporting technology. The idea l studio would incorporate dedicated presentation areas and collaborative zones. A kitchenette would also be included with areas to relax and socialize. There was a desire to balance the image of the studio between being professional, while not being so of fice like that it discouraged creative exploration. Both departments saw an ideal studio where interdisciplinary connections were commonplace and their own academic units were engaged across all cohorts. Collectively, the findings of this research question inform three of the four conceptual framework dimensions for this study (Figure 4 21). The implications of these findings on the patterns of design studio culture will be discussed in the following chapter.

PAGE 118

118 Figure 4 21. Summarized findings for research question four.

PAGE 119

119 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Designs for design schools should go beyond satisfying the standard expectations and criteria for performance health; safety; security; functionality; workflow; efficiency; as well as social, psychological, and cult ural performance to serve as role models for the students aspiring to become design professionals, and the community at large. Jack L Nasar, Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, & Thomas Fisher Designing for Designers The design studio is unique in the university system it is a space, a place, a time of day, a state of mind it is a culture. The design studio represents the epicenter around which the lives of architecture, interior design, and landscape architecture students revolve. Before the introduction of desig n b ased technology operated on lap top computers, students had more incentives to work in the design studio; however, now they can work on their projects anywhere they choose sometimes in the studio and sometimes elsewhere. Their propensity to work wherever they are comfortable is a review (Alsop, 2008; The Economist, 2008). If design students can now work anywhere, are studios still an integral part of design education? The findings of this study showed that, in general, students seem to like working in the design studio. Furthermore, they really enjoyed having a space on campus to call their own. They realize that their peers outside design majors must haul their belong ings with them from class to class throughout the day (and evening). Yet, the convenience of having dedicated studio spaces does not guarantee that students will use it if it does not meet their needs. For example, a particular group of landscape students who were assigned to a subterranean s primary studios were

PAGE 120

120 so dissatisfied with their space that they did not use it and worked individually from home, or met with their groups at alternate locations. Vacating the design studio for off site locations is a less than ideal scenario. From the faculty perspective, students who worked in the studio simply produced the best designs. An I have always found that those students that work in studio and are able to collaborate with other people usually create more dynamic projects (1987) who both state that it is essential for students to learn from each other. If students do not have the shared experience of working in a design studio, then they miss out on many learning opportunities. Ultimately, students cannot be forced to work in studio, but there is clear value to doing so. In this age where students can work wherever they li ke, the design studio should possess key physical and social dimensions to give students a reason to want to work there. This chapter discusses the physical and social environment of the ideal design studio based on the findings of this study. The concept ual framework for design studio culture organizes this discussion in relation to supporting literature. Further the present chapter includes a postscript to the study that highlights changes to the studios that have occurred since the data were collected i n the spring of 2010. Finally, the chapter concludes with an interpretation of the evolving studio changes as well as recommendations for further research. The Ideal Design Studio Each research question from the preceding chapter concluded with a summary o f its key findings presented within the conceptual framework for design studio culture (Figures 4 4, 4 16, 4 18, and 4 20). A summary of findings (Figure 5 1) shows that a

PAGE 121

121 Figure 5 1. Summarized findings for comparative case study.

PAGE 122

122 variety of functions occur in the spaces, indicating that the ideal design studio will need to meet a multitude of needs that are at times contradictory. Perhaps this should not be surprising, given the myriad educational standards guiding the disciplines of architecture, int erior design, and landscape architecture (NAAB, 2009; CIDA, 2011; and LAAB, 2010). This section reviews the ideal design studio within each dimension of this Socio Organizational Clim ate The findings for this dimension of design studio culture suggest that instructors should shape their curriculum to mediate negative competition within the cohort. Furthermore, technological resources cannot be fully utilized if students and faculty are not properly trained to use them. Students and faculty alike in interior design and landscape architecture desired greater interaction between cohorts in their programs and with other allied disciplines in the College. Students, in particular, wished for greater collaboration and outreach opportunities within th e larger university community. While competition is an intrinsic part of design studio culture, unit heads and studio instructors have the power to help mediate unhealthy competition within student groups whereby teams were assigned an area in the studio for the duration of the project to display their concept sketches, inspiration images, and possible material and furniture selections. The purpose of the process walls was to facilitate the sharing of ideas and promote a more positive form of competition. From his perspective, this teaching your ideas (1985) posit that if students hide and protect their ideas, then they lose the ability to learn from each other

PAGE 123

123 Therefore, classroom policies like process walls could help students t o develop a stronger design sense while also mediating negative competition. Furthermore, that instructor indicated that the class he required to use process walls appeared to be the most cohesive cohort that he had taught. While admittedly anecdotal, thes e findings suggest that an environment with policies that positively channel competition may produce a more cohesive cohort and hopefully results in a stronger process and product. Students desire the latest and greatest technological resources because th ey expect that employers will be looking for candidates with cutting edge computer skills. The findings show that simply having access to new technology does not guarantee a positive result. For instance, the interior design students and instructors had ne wly acquired digital sketch tablet computers, but did not know how to best leverage this technology for their needs. This finding supports the research of Meneely and Danko (2007) and suggests that the introduction of new technology must be thoughtfully in You spend so much time trying to get comfortable with the technology...i just easier to take the pencil and just draw. Students and faculty across both design studio cultures desired gr eater interaction within their own disciplines as well as with other sister disciplines. While one instructor persuaded his freshman design students to get involved in student groups within the college as a way to meet upperclassmen, students can only do s uch much through extracurricular activities. This landscape architecture student in particular saw the importance of having social interaction across cohorts as being integral to his learning

PAGE 124

124 can get a living laboratory set up where we can come together as a discipline, all levels, and work on a not only with specific programs but across majors was a recurren t theme throughout this study and impacts all aspects of the studio culture. While users seem to be asking for more social interaction within their disciplines as well as with others, it is a difficult goal to achieve given the existing conditions of their as separated insular spaces with controlled access. A student can therefore only access his or her own assigned studio space opportunities to wander through studios and discover what others are working on are lost given justifiable security concerns. The research of Wineman, Kabo, and Davis (2008) demonstrated that casual social s haring and achievement. The easiest way to achieve this goal is to collocate all of the studios within a discipline and remove as many physical barriers as possible. Students from different cohorts would then be able to wander between the connected spaces. Additionally, if support spaces such as communal social areas, food service, and restrooms are distributed throughout the building, then occupants will naturally cross paths to get from one space to another. In summary, the aforementioned findings focused on aspects of the social learning environment. Namely, this dimension of studio should: encourage idea sharing to mediate unhealthy competition; leverage technology as an educational tool for teaching and learning; and integrate cross cohort collaboratio n into the curriculum to fortify a

PAGE 125

125 sense of community. Further, the physical learning environment of the ideal design disciplinary and cross cohort interaction as a means to encourage idea sharing as well as cross disciplinary interaction. Personal Characteristics of Design Students The academic experience for design students is defined by the cohort that they will spend at least 1000 hours with over a minimum of four years. T hese bonds are different than friendships. In many ways, a studio cohort might be compared to a secret society, and only those individuals who have passed initiation also known as selective admissions into upper division can fully understand what it means to be a part of it. One instructor appropriately described the lower division preparatory classes for Students saw competition with their peers as a necessary evil, and even went into studio with the expressed purpose of, in the words of one landscape architecture student We are all different designers and have different outco own personality based on its unique group dynamics, making any concrete recommendations for this dimension difficult. In summary, the findings for the personal characteristics of students dimension of design st udio culture deal with both the social and the physical learning environment. The social learning environment of the ideal design studio should include field trips and other off campus activities to remove students from the competitive studio environment.

PAGE 126

126 The physical learning environment of the design studio is already an ideal space to cultivate strong interpersonal bonds between students. Physical Features of the Studio Setting The findings for this spatial dimension showed that the existing spaces did n ot fully meet user needs as outlined by the GSA Hallmarks guiding productive workplaces. By definition, the hallmarks describe the qualities of the ideal workplace: To be an effective strategic tool for the organization and serve varying occupant needs, w orkplaces must incorporate the GSA Hallma This section, therefore, specifically discusses the hallmarks in relation to the ideal design studio. The GSA does not provide a relative weighting of its hallmarks ; ho wever, the findings suggest that students privilege certain hallmarks over others. For the most part, the design studios met the guidelines of the Healthfulness and Reliability Hallmarks. In fact, the landscape architecture students were so confident with the security of their spaces, that they were comfortable storing their bicycles in studio (Figure 5 2). The studios mostly met the guidelines of the Spatial Equity Hallmark as users were universally satisfied with the natural light and views afforded from their I think acoustics are very can always put a jacket on even in July if the air conditioning is too do a damn thing about the acoustics. architecture students were nearly as satisfied with the acoustics of their space as interior design students were with theirs, even though the carpet flooring in the int erior design studios produced a significantly quieter environment. There was no clear indication why landscape

PAGE 127

127 architecture students appeared to be satisfied with their acoustics perhaps they had a higher tolerance for noise, accepting it as part of the st udio environment. Figure 5 2. Bicycles stored in landscape architecture studios. The design studios partially met the guidelines of the Flexibility, Comfort, and Connectivity Hallmarks. Flexibility was of importance for students and faculty alike, as e ach design project is different, switching from group to individual and from digital to traditional media. In essence, the studios spaces are flexible: they are large open rooms filled with freestanding furniture. However, the overall lack of tackable surf aces limits the functionality of the space for critiques. Furthermore, the need for dedicated storage cannot be overstated. Piles of clutter limit the flexibility of the studio, while storage bins placed under desks become obstacles to move furniture freel y. Comfort was another Hallmark of key importance, particularly for students who found that the cold temperatures and overhead glare created an overly stressful environment. The findings showed that students are more inclined to work from home for individu al and digital projects because it is a more comfortable environment.

PAGE 128

128 Connectivity is arguably the most important hallmark for students and faculty alike. Having input and output devices in the studio were greatly preferred because transporting media to a nd from the studio increases the possibility that it can be damaged. Furthermore, students did not like working in computer labs because they were removed from their familiar environment, their materials, and their peers. Regardless student preferences, in structors reported that having presentation equipment installed and integrated into the space was essential. While the GSA does not assign r elative values to the hallmarks this particular study found flexibility, comfort, and connectivity to be key consi derations, especially for students. The landscape architecture students that used the subterranean studio did not use their space outside of scheduled class time because it specifically lacked those qualities. Their space was the most crowded studio of any studied, which made it uncomfortable and limited its flexibility. Additionally, the space contained no technological resources. Together, these factors relate to the Spatial Equity Hallmark: Is it fair that they have less space and resources than their pe ers? During their focus emotional roots they seemed to almost feel as though they were being punished. In a sense, their story can be seen as a reflection of the research of Vil nai Yavetz, Rafaeli and Yaacov (2005). Their space did not function and was not aesthetically pleasing; therefore symbolically, they felt that the department did not value them. The design studios did not meet the guidelines of the Sense of Place Hallmark as all users were dissatisfied with the aesthetics of their spaces and the message they communicated. At a minim um, users wanted consistent furnishings and once again,

PAGE 129

129 ample storage for materials. Beyond uniting the overall appearance, there is no clear approach to fulfilling this hallmark as each design studio culture is unique. There was no consensus between the users as to whether studio spaces should mirror a professional than ntity reflects, in many ways, mirrors the tensions illustrated by Boyer and Mitgang (1996) and Monaghan (2001). Ultimately, the sense of place for a studio setting will be determined by the way that the other six hallmarks are assembled. All users did, how ever, seek to create a strong sense of place by showcasing student work. This finding supports Martens (2008) claims that including in its In summary, the findings for the physical features of the studio naturally address the physical dimensions of space and form. At the broadest level, the ideal design studio should certainly meet the GSA Hallmarks of a Productive Workplace as described in their text, Innovative Wor kplaces: Benefits and Best Practices (2006). The operationalization of the hallmarks is largely dependent on the resources and constraints of the department in question; however, there are elements within each hallmark that could be applied to any design s tudio culture. To ensure that the ideal design studio meets the Spatial Equity Hallmark, departments must ensure that students have access to the same resources and comforts, including natural light and views. To ensure that the ideal design studio meets t he Flexibility Hallmark, departments should utilize freestanding and easily reconfigurable furniture. Additionally, the studio space should be kept free of obstacles, by maximizing storage and contains surfaces to display process work and final projects.

PAGE 130

130 T o ensure that the ideal design studio meets the Comfort Hallmark, departments should provide ergonomic and comfortable seating for users, acoustically absorbent finish materials, and occupant adjustable lighting and temperature controls. To ensure that the ideal design studio meets the Connectivity Hallmark, departments should provide input and output devices in studio, and consider deemphasizing the need for computer labs by providing software licenses for necessary computer programs. To ensure that the i deal design studio meets the Sense of Place Hallmark, departments should utilize consistent furnishings to create a more cohesive image and showcase student work to create a sense of pride. Design Studio Attitudes and Behaviors The findings for this dimens ion of design studio culture suggest that multiple space types are needed to accommodate the activities associated with the design process. The imaging phase warrants a space that is inspiriting; yet the presenting phase warrants a space that is functional Further complicating matters, the testing phase warrants a space that is large enough for students and instructors to gather and share concepts and critiques. Indeed, the ideal design studio should serve myriad functions, which presents a dilemma: can on e space meet a wide range of contradictory needs? To support the imaging phase of the design process, students indicated that they needed isolation from distraction so they could focus. Due to this phase of the process, a space should stimulate creative t hinking if it is to be effective. Yet many students did not use the studio for ideation as it was not seen as either a space that allowed for focused concentration or inspiration. On the other hand, instructors saw value in opening students up to new view points during the concept development phase through unexpected interactions with students from different cohorts and disciplines. Taken

PAGE 131

131 together, these findings support the research of Martens (2008), Miller (2005), and stimulating and conducive to serendipitous social connections. Many of these organizations went as far as to include recreational opportunities so employees could socialize, meet new people, and de stress (van Meel & Vos, 2001; Beiler & Ryzik 2011). Students recognized that studio environment should support these social needs as well. The design studio has historically been, and in many senses continues to be, seen as a workshop: it was a space to build model s, draft, and occasionally create mock ups of building systems (Salama, 1995). Technology has altered the way students approach design problems yet their spaces seem to be minimally adapted to reflect these changes. Landscape architecture students appeared to show a greater proclivity for traditional media than their interior design peers but the reason for this preference is not clear. It may reflect the particular cohort under study or it might be attributed to a larger trends. In general, students were more inclined to work from studio for group projects and traditional media. Group work in particular presents a unique set of challenges for the design studio, as students need to be able to openly talk about their projects. A workshop style studio without breakout spaces or soft finishes creates an acoustically undesirable environment for groups. Participants desired a studio that accommodated a variety of work styles including zones for collaborative and concentrative work, mirroring the findings of the P OE conducted on an architectural firm (Shepley, et al. 2009) indicating that the ideal design studio should take cues from design firms.

PAGE 132

132 Design projects demand a large time commitment from students, so much so that the studio becomes their home away from home. Students use it as their dining room, kitchen, living room, even their bedroom. Taken together, these findings suggest that it would be valuable to integrate more home like features into the space such as kitchenettes, lounges, and possibly even a ga me room. These features would additionally increase opportunities for the serendipitous social connections desired in the imaging phase ( Beiler & Ryzik 2011; Martens, 2008; Miller, 2005; Wineman, et al., 2008; and van Meel & Vos, 2001). It should be noted that the studios of the Architecture Building were not explicitly design ed a time before laptop computers and plotters, when projects were completed by hand at drafting statio ns, using traditional media. Wood for models was cut and glued together. Drawings were completed with paint and solvent based markers. In the worst case scenario, a studio could create a toxic environment. Indeed, one instructor recounted that a colleague who had been teaching design studio for 30 years developed leukemia, markers say they are not toxic, but that is, of course, at certain levels of exposure. But when you hav e 8 hours per day, and 30 students all hovering over their desk, all with poor ventilation, the particle makes the studio a more healthful environment; however, the space still attracts its fair s hare of clutter. The findings showed that students do not take responsibility for their space by often misusing common areas and generally not up keeping shared spaces. Multiple

PAGE 133

133 factors were found to contribute to this finding. First, students reported tha t they creates in the word of one a culture of accumulation. T h e environmental psychology phenomenon, diffusion of responsibility (Darley & Latan, 1968), is clearly at work in these environments considering the number of students in the studio This finding also supports the research of Wilson and Kelling (1982) in t hat mess and clutter beget more mess and more clutter. There was, however, no clear explanation as to why students use common work surfaces for private purposes. Regardless of the reasons, when this happens, students do not hold their classmates responsibl e for their actions. to students to inform their design projects. This requires that they can easily bring the cohort together in a central location and that they have acces s to marker boards and projectors. Furthermore, students need the ability to digitally present their projects using projectors, as well as plenty of surfaces to display drawings. Indeed, ever surface in the design studio should be pinnable. Participants fr om all user groups desired critique spaces with ample natural light and views to the exterior. This finding was unexpected as it was assumed that having spaces with views would increase possible distractions. vi sual relief, to be able to look up and let y our eyes have a view outside and let your mind wander for a moment The critique is seen as the moment of truth for students. To learn design is to practice design, yet as Schn (1985) illustrated how does one practice what they do not yet know how to do? The critique is therefore the moment of truth when students find

PAGE 134

134 out whether their designs were successful, and where they stand in relation to their peers. In other words, the mysteries of the design process a re revealed to students through the critique. An unexpected finding from the study was degree to which students wanted their critiques and their work seen by outsiders. Design education demands a lot from students, and they frequently felt isolated from th eir peers in other majors and the greater university community. The strong interpersonal bonds that define the cohort buffer against the pangs of isolation; however, those bonds are forged from the fabric of the design studio. They expressed a need to show off their work to others from outside the college as a means to justify the dedication that their program beyond the college as a way strengthen the image of the progr am and build morale among the students. Students liked the gallery because it was visible to the other disciplines and was viewed as the most prestigious space in the building. The School of Architecture was able to reserve the gallery for the majority of the school year for its purposes, limiting the opportunities that other disciplines had to exhibit their work. Due to this, the interior design and landscape architecture students felt their work and by extension their time and their chosen profession were perceived as inferior to their peers in architecture. Taken together, students want a critique and exhibition space that is visible to the disciplines within the college as well as to the university because they feel it legitimizes their profession and va lidates their dedication. In summary, findings for the attitudes and behaviors dimension of design studio culture deal with both the social and the physical learning environment. The social

PAGE 135

135 learning environment of the ideal design studio should: celebrate and venerate student work as a means to create a stronger sense of community; and create a system of accountability so that students maintain their spaces. The physical learning environment of the ideal design studio needs to serve many conflicting functi ons. For instance, the ideal design studio for the imaging phase should: be inspiring and engaging; and provide opportunities for serendipitous social interaction. The ideal design studio for the presenting phase should include a variety of space types inc luding areas for: collaborative working; concentrative working; food storage and preparing; socializing; and sleeping. The ideal design studio for the testing phase should: be large enough for the instructor to address the entire class at once; provide ins tructors and students with presentation tools and pinnable surfaces; provide views to relieve eye strain; and be a showplace for students work. Design Recommendations The social and physical learning environment of the ideal design studio produces a multi tude of contradictory needs. For instance, how can one space be a showplace for student work while also allowing for food storage and prep? The answer to this predicament might be as simple as: The studio cannot serve all the needs of all the users through I think that the studio should be part of a network of spaces So that there is a definite studio space but there ought to be spaces where the students can get away from their desks and just chill out for a little while a nd talk and interact with people from not only from other years Perhaps the design studio should only be used for the imaging and presenting phase of the design process with certain act ivities of the testing phase such as presentations and critiques relocated to other spaces.

PAGE 136

136 The studio should facilitate design education. All of the activities and attitudes described in this comparative case study directly and indirectly inform design e ducation. Whether it is conceptualized as a one size fits all space, or a network of spaces, all of the recommendations outlined below should ultimately be considered in the ideal design studio if it is to fully meet the needs of students, faculty, and uni t heads. The social learning environment of the ideal design studio should (1) e ncourage idea sharing to cultivate healthy competition ; (2) l everage technology as an educational tool for teaching and learning ; (3) i ntegrate cross cohort collaboration into the respective design programs as a means to build a stronger sense of community ; (4) c reate a system o f accountability to encourage the students to maintain their spaces ; (5) c elebrate and venerate student design work as a means to promote pride, collegia lity and cohesiveness Before summarizing the physical learning environment of the ideal design studio it must be mentioned that the studio model works: it gives students an opportunity to work together, share ideas, and learn from each other. This study has shown, however, that if the space does not meet their needs, then students will not use the studio. In order to encourage students to want to use the design studio for their projects, then it should ace. How a design studio culture meets those will be dependent on the existing conditions of their spaces; however, this study did produce design recommendation s in addition to the Hallmarks. The physical learning environment of the ideal design studio sho uld (1) e nsure that students have equal access to resources and comforts, including natural light and views ; (2) p rovide views in critique spaces to relieve eye strain ; (3) u tilize freestanding

PAGE 137

137 and easily moveable furniture ; (4) e nsure that the space is fr ee of obstacles by maximizing storage ; (5) p rovide users with a variety of s pace types, including areas for collaborative work, concentrative work, food storage and preparing, socializing, and sleeping ; (6) b e large enough for the instructor to centrally a d dress the entire class at once ; (7) p rovide instructors and students with presentation tools and surfaces to display and review student work ; (8) p rovide ergonomic and comfortable seating options ; (9) u se acoustically absorbent finish materials ; (10) p rov ide inpu t and output devices in studio ; (11) c onsider deemphasizing the need for computer labs by providing software licenses for necessary computer programs ; (12) u tilize consistent furnishings to create a cohesive image ; (13) s howcase student work to cre ate a sense of pride ; (14) b e visible and accessible to outsiders to encourage cross disciplinary and cross cohort interaction ; (15) b e inspiring and engaging ; and (16) p rovide opportunities for serendipitous social interaction A Postscript and Recommend ations for Future Research Since the data were collected in the spring of 2010, several changes have occurred in the studios that were studied for this thesis research. First, the front solid walls of all of the studios in the Architecture Building were re placed with full height window walls. A great percentage of the glass is frosted, with a band of clear glass at standing eye height. This allows passersby to view into the spaces while bringing even more light into the studios. The installation of the wind ow walls was underway when the data were collected, explaining the construction in one of the landscape architecture studios. Additionally, the mismatched furniture has been replaced with new uniform desks and chairs. Taken together, their space certainly looks more unified and clean in appearance than it did during the timeframe of the study. Presently the desks include

PAGE 138

138 space to store large format media, which may well reduce the prevalence of stacks of materials throughout the space (Figure 5 3). Figur e 5 3. New desks and window wall in landscape architecture studio. Specially, the studio of LA Cohort A has undergone fairly drastic changes. First, the central collaboration and presentation zone has shifted to the far side of the space and one of the wa lls that defined that central zone has been removed to open up the overall studio (Figure 5 4). Second, the wall opposite of the new digital presentation space has been partially demolished to connect two previously separated landscape architecture studios Newly installed sliding doors now provide instructors acoustical privacy during class time and, when opened, allow students to freely socialize with another group of peer from their discipline, when working outside of class time (Figure 5 5).

PAGE 139

139 Figur e 5 4. Changes to LA Cohort A studio space.

PAGE 140

140 Figure 5 5. Sliding doors connecting landscape architecture studios. Interestingly, many of these changes support the spirit of the design recommendations arising from this study. For instance, the furnitur e is now more unified in appearance, cross cohort socialization is now easier to achieve, and, perhaps most importantly, design work and process now is visible to outsiders given the glass storefronts. However, in the case of the renovated landscape archit ecture studio, the new space lost its central collaboration area. It would be valuable to see how the students and instructors have perceived these changes. For instance, do they feel they gained a greater sense of community? Now that students have inherit or will students hold their classmates more accountable for the upkeep of public spaces? It must be remembered that the implications of the findings are limited by the scope of the study. In order to strengthen the conclusions, the study should be replicated across multiple cohorts and multiple disciplines over a longer duration of time. It would particularly be valuable to replicate the research at diff erent universities to

PAGE 141

141 determine which findings have the greatest universality. For instan ce, do institutions with studio environments allowing for more opportunities for social interaction create a actually used more frequently by their students? Additionally, the faculty in this study, as well as Dutton (1987) and Schn (1986) claim that student learning is maximized in design when they work on their projects in a social en vironment. It would be valuable to assess this conjecture. After all, if student performance does not significantly improve through the use of the design studio, then perhaps the investment in these spaces can be minimized. Yet the findings of this study suggest that the physical and social dimensions of these spaces are quite instrumental to the teaching and learning of design. Summary It could be easy for students to take the design studio for granted. After their initial delight, the realities of proj ect deadlines and professor expectations set in, clouding the vision but one must not lose sight of the uniqueness of the design studio. It serves as n the university campus. It is more than a homeroom though; it is really a second home an office, a classroom, a workroom, and a gallery It is a hybrid space. Students were regularly observed socializing, eating, napping, meeting for group projects, bouncing ideas of their peers, and even working on projects and assignments for courses in these spaces The space becomes the hub both in physical and social terms, around which life for design students revolves.

PAGE 142

142 APPENDIX A STUDENT SURVEY

PAGE 143

143

PAGE 144

144

PAGE 145

145

PAGE 146

146

PAGE 147

147

PAGE 148

148

PAGE 149

149

PAGE 150

150

PAGE 151

151

PAGE 152

152

PAGE 153

153 APPENDIX B STUDENT FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL

PAGE 154

154

PAGE 155

155 APPENDIX C STUDIO INSTRUCTOR IN TERV IEW PROTOCOL

PAGE 156

156

PAGE 157

157

PAGE 158

158 APPENDIX D UNIT HEAD INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

PAGE 159

159

PAGE 160

160 APPENDIX E STUDENT SURVEY CONSE NT FORM

PAGE 161

161 APPENDIX F STUDENT FOCUS GROUP CONSENT FORM

PAGE 162

162 APPENDIX G STUDIO INSTRUCTOR CO NSENT FORM

PAGE 163

163 APPENDIX H UNIT HEAD CONSENT FO RM

PAGE 164

164 LIST OF REFERE NCES Alsop, R. (2008). The trophy kids grow up: How the millennial generation is shaking up the workplace San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Beiler, J. & Ryzik, M. (2011, February 10). A Rare Look Inside Pixar Studios. New York Times. [Video file]. Retrieved Feb ruary 10, 2011 from http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/video a rare look inside pixar studios/ Boyer, E., & Mitgang, L. (1996). Building community: A new future for architecture education and practice Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Brand, J. (2009, April). Are gen generations white paper. Retrieved Ju ne 13, 2011 from http://www.haworth.com/en us/Knowledge/Workplace Library/Documents/Are Gen Y Brains.pdf Carmel Gilfilen, C. & Portillo, M. (2010). Cre ating mature thinkers in interior design: Pathways of intellectual development. Journal of Interior Design, 35 (3), 1 20. Carlhian, J. (1979). The cole des Beaux Arts: Modes and manners. Journal of Architectural Education, 33 (2), 7 17. Chewning, J. (1979). William Robert Ware at MIT and Columbia. Journal of Architectural Education. 33 (2): p. 25 29. Ching, F. (2007). Architecture: Form, space & order (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Cobb, H. (1985, September). Architectural education: Architecture and the university. Architectural Record, 173 (9), 43 51. Council for Interior Design Accreditation. (2011). Council for Interior Design Accreditation Professional Standards 2011. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http://www.accredit id.org/professional standards Crosbie, M. (1985). Building on a humanistic base: Department of Architecture, University of Pennsylvania. Architecture: The AIA Journal. 74 (8): 64 71. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativi ty: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention New York: Harper Collins Publications. Damonte, B. (2011). City College New York School of Architecture: Rafael Violy Architects. Bruce Damonte Architectural Photography. Retrieved from: http://brucedamonte.com Reprinted with permission from Bruce Damonte, September 8, 2011.

PAGE 165

165 Darley, J. & Latan, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psy chology, 8 377 383. Durn Narucki, V. (2008). School building condition, school attendance, and academic achievement in New York City public schools: A mediation model. Journal of Environmental Psychology: 28 (3), 278 286. Dutton, T. (1987). Design and stu dio pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 41 (1): 16 25. Economist, The. (2008, April 12). Nomads at last: A special report on mobility. Retrieved July 25, 2011 from http://www.economist.com/nod e/10950394 Egbert, D. (1980). The Beaux Arts traditions in French architecture Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gatewood, R., Gowan, M., & Lautenschlager, G. (1993). Corporate image, recruitment image, and initial job choice decisions. The Acad emy of Management Journal, 36 (2), pp. 414 427. Gifford, R. (1976). Environmental numbness in the classroom, Journal of Experimental Education: 44 (3), 4 7. Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Colville, WA: Optima l Books. Gropius, W. (1926). Dessau: Bauhaus Int. : Workshop [Image]. Retrieved from ARTstor Digital Library: http://www.artstor.org Halstead, D. (1974). Statewide planning in higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. G overnment Printing Office. Hasell, M. & Hylton, M. (2010). Architecture building rehabilitation report. (Unpublished Report). College of Design, Construction and Planning. University of Florida. Haworth Knowledge & Research Team. (2010, May). Collaborative spaces: Haworth collaboration white paper. Retrieved June 13, 2011 from http://www.haworth.com/en us/Knowledge/Workplace Library/Documents/Collabor ative Spaces.pdf Hill, C. (2007). Climate in the interior design studio: Implications for design education. Journal of Interior Design. 33 (2): 37 52. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

PAGE 166

166 IBM Institute for Business Valu e. (2010). Capitalizing on complexity: Insights from the global chief executive officer study. Retrieved on July 25, 2011 from http://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ec m/en/gbe03297usen/GBE03297USEN.P DF Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kottak, C. (2006). Cultural Anthropology (11th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill Inc. Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology: A step by step guide for beginners (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board. (2010). Accreditation Standards And Procedures. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http://www.asla.org/accreditationlaab.aspx#_LAAB_Documents Martens, Y. (2008). In D. Shiem Shin Then & E. Finch (eds.) Unlocking creativity with the physical workplace. Healthy and C reative Facilities CIB W070 Conference in Facilities Management (pp. 303 312). Edinburgh: In House Publishing. Meneely, J. (2010). Educating adaptable minds: How diversified are the thinking preferences of interior design students? Journal of Interior De sign, 35 (3), 21 32. Meneely, J. & Danko, S. (2007). Motive, mind, and media: Digital sketching in the creative culture of design. Journal of Interior Design, 32 (3), 69 90. Miller, A. (2005). Fun in the workplace: Toward an environment behavior framework r elating office design, employee creativity, and job satisfaction (Master Thesis, University of Florida). Retrieved July 27, 2007 from http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/etd.html Monaghan, P. (2001, June 29). The 'i nsane little bubble of nonreality' that is life for architecture students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http://chronicle.com/article/The In sane Little Bubble of/7505 Nasar, J., Preiser, W., & Fisher, T. (2007). Designing for designers: Lessons learned from schools of architecture New York, NY: Fairchild Publications, Inc. National Architectural Accreditation Board. (2009). 2009 Conditions f or Accreditation. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http://naab.org/accreditation/2009_Conditions.aspx Neuman, D. (2003). Building type basics for college and university facilities Hoboken NJ: John Wiley. Ornstein, S. (1992). First impressions of the symbolic meanings connoted by reception area design. Environment and Behavior, 24 (1), 85 110.

PAGE 167

167 Pile, J. (2000). A history of interior design London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd. Pixar Animati on Studios (2011). Pixar Corporate Overview. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/about_us/overview.htm Portillo, M. (1996). Uncovering implicit theories of creativity in beginning design students. Journal of Interior Design, 22 (2),15 24. Puybaraud, M., Russell, S., McEwan, A., Leussink, E., & Beck, L. (2010). Global workplace innovation: Generation y and the workplace. Retrieved on July 18, 2011 from http://www.haworth europe.com/en/content/download/8985/545674/file/Oxygenz Report_2010_EN.pdf Salama, A. (1995). New trends in architectural education : Designing the design studio Raleigh, NC: Tailored Text. Salama, A. & Wilkinson, N. (Eds.). (2007). Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future Gateshead, UK: The Urban International Press. Schn, D. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials London: RIBA Publications Ltd. Scott Webber, L., Marini, M., & Abraham, J. (2000). Higher education classrooms fail to meet the needs of faculty and students. Journal of Interior Design, 26 (1),16 34. Shepley, M., Zimmerman, K., B oggess, M., & Lee, Y. (2009). Architectural office post occupancy evaluation. Journal of Interior Design, 34 (3), 17 29. Sommer, R. & Sommer, B. (2002). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford Universit y Press. Steelcase. (2010). Rethinking higher education spaces. 360 Magazine, Issue 60. Retrieved December 20, 2010 from http://www.steelcase.com/en /Resources/overview/Documents/360_Education_Lo w Singles_Mech.pdf Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P., & Rook, D. (2007). Focus groups: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Sweeney, R. (2005). Reinventing library buildings and services for the millennial generation. Library Administration and Management, 19 (4) 165 175. Tylor, E. (1958, [1871]). Primitive Culture New York: Harper & Row. U.S. General Services Administration. (2006). Innovative workplaces: Benefits and best practi ces. Washington, DC. Retrieved February 15, 2011 from http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/Innovative_Workplaces 508_R2OD26_0Z5RDZ i34K pR.pdf

PAGE 168

168 U.S. General Serv ices Administration. (2009). The new federal workplace: A report on the performance of six Workplace 20 20 projects. Retrieved February 15, 2011 from http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/GSA_N EWWORKPLACE.pdf U.S. General Services Administration. (2011, January 26). Public Buildings Service. Retrieved February 15, 2011 from www.gsa.gov/pbs van Meel, J. & Vos, P. (2001). Funky offices: Reflections on offic 334. Vilnai Yavetz, I., Rafaeli, A., & Yaacov, C. (2005). Instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism of office design. Environment and Behavior, 37 (4), 533 551. DOI: 10.1177/0013916 504270695 Weinstein, C. (1981). Classroom design as an external condition for learning. Educational Technology: 21 (8), 12 19. Wilson, J. & Kelling, G. (1982, March). Broken Windows. Atlantic Magazine. Retrieved January 11, 2009 from http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/198203/broken windows Wineman, J., Kabo, F., & Davis, G. (2009). Spatial and social networks in organizational innovation. Environment and Behavior, 41 (3), 427 441. D OI: 10.1177/0013916508314854 Whitford, F. (1992). The Bauhaus: Masters & students by themselves London: Conran Octopus. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquir y by design: Environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning (Rev. Ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

PAGE 169

169 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH James Douglas Wall was born and raised in Rockledge, Florida where he discovered t He is apparently a skilled shape shifter. After a variety of major changes, he ultimately graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in August 2006, with a major in anthropology. He then pursued a graduate course of study in interior design, because apparently five years of college was not enough. He graduated in December 2011 with a Master of Interior Design. He hopes to secure employment in this turbulent economy designing thoughtful int eriors that are fabulous enough to impress Lady Gaga. Should you wish to hire him, or know someone who might, please contact him directly at : jdw82@ufl.edu