Anomalous Categories

There are two anomalous categories that have been omitted from the studio frame- work, ‘Defining the Studio’ and ‘Digital Technology’. These were significantly dis- cussed during the interviews, but do not make up any discussion of what a studio actually is.

Defining the Studio

This category consists of discussions around how to define the studio, grouping anything related to the studio’s purpose (a high level definition) and whether the interview participants thought the studio was worthwhile; in essence, it is a representation of their perspectives of the studio, not a set of features. Some of the interview participants highlighted that studios are too complex to be captured by simple definitions or description, and that there was no perfect space.

A studio has multiple purposes and is “a mix between the working space and social space” (A2), with most of the participants having discussed the importance

of having other people in the studio (A1-A5, A7-A10, A12-A15). Generally, all

participants preferred to use studios, with only one participant (A12) expressing an

indifference to their use. Participant A12observed a trend where people attempt to

replicate the studio setting that they had at university into a professional setting, or in their own teaching style. This participant summarises this by saying: “people teach the way they were taught, in the same way that people speak the language that they grew up speaking. We are a product of our environment” (A12).

Other key aspects which were discussed were that the studio prepares you for work environments, and also that it is a creative space. One last important factor discussed was that the studio is not necessary – people can work without one, yet a studio was still a preferred environment for almost all of the interview participants.

Digital Technology

This is all about how digital technology can be beneficial or detrimental to a studio – primarily the computer and similar devices. This is an anomalous category, because unlike the others, it does not affect the definition of the studio; a studio can exist with or without any form of digital technology. Activities can be purely pen and paper-based for example. Indeed, studios were around centuries before the first computer. However, this topic cropped up in many of the interviews, and the interview participants felt strongly about this topic. Some participants (A6, A8-

A9, A15) particularly noted how digital technology allows for easier access and the

ability to perform work outside of the studio, but at the same time acknowledged that social interactions within a studio are not repeatable with digital media.

Some of the participants (A6, A7, A14) thought that computers were indispens-

able, with several others also discussing significant benefits that computers provide, whilst conceding that their use is a trade-off. Participant A14 remarked that they

were a “massive help just in every single way”, but the majority remarked on how detrimental they are to the studio experience, with participant A4 stating

that “using the computer has taken us away from working in teams”. Although participant A6 discusses the benefits of digital technology in a design context, he

also shares this negative view on the ubiquity of technology: “people, sometimes, their first port of call is their computer [. . . ] there is a danger that people always use a computer for everything when, sometimes, there may be a quicker or easier way of doing it”. Computers can also create a culture of isolation, with all of your work and activities hidden behind a screen. Participant A13 supports this by

saying: “when you are looking at things on the screen you tend to be looking at one thing at a time” – I refer to this as ‘Monitor Vision’ or ‘Tunnel Vision’. Sim- ilar thoughts have been expressed by others outside of this investigation, in the field of Architecture: “We fear that computers may devalue the art and craft of architecture, decrease collaboration, isolate students, and emphasize product over process” (Koch et al., 2002, p.11). However, one advantage of using digital tech-

nology discussed by participant A13 revolves around her experience with an online

element to the course she teaches on, stating that her students post work online and provide peer-critique to each other; they do not assess “the quality of what they give in the feedback but the fact that they are doing it and engaging with other people’s work” (A13), the asynchronous nature of peer-critique in this particular

way also“probably works better online because there is a bit of time for reflection” (A13).

Throughout the interviews it was made very clear that, despite being necessary for an activity or providing other benefits, the participants thought that computers are detrimental to studio culture (A1, A4-A5, A7, A13-A15). The points raised by

the participants were often made independent of discipline specific activities, and as such are just as relevant to other disciplines (including software engineering), as they were not talking about a specific design activity being inhibited, but general interactions, communication and awareness. As software engineers, we obviously will not be moving away from computers, but this begs the question: what can we do to avoid the negative effects of computer work in collaborative environments? A further interesting question is: what innovation will replace the computer monitor, will our attention still be monopolised in a single direction, on a small flat surface, i.e. a screen?