Learning Environments in Design Studio Culture

The paper reports on a study of design studio culture from a student perspective. Learning in design studio culture has been theorised variously as a signature pedagogy emulating professional practice models, as a community of practice and as a form of problem-based learning, all largely based on the study of teaching events in studio. The focus of this research has extended beyond formally recognized activities to encompass the student’s experience of their social and community networks, working places and study set-ups, to examine how these have contributed to studio culture and how there have been supported by studio teaching. Semi-structured interviews with final year undergraduate students of architecture formed the basis of the study using an interpretivist approach informed by Actor-network theory, with studio culture featured as the focal actor, enrolling students and engaging with other actors, together constituting an actor-network of studio culture. The other actors included social community patterns and activities; the numerous working spaces (including but not limited to the studio space itself); the equipment, tools of trade and material pre-requisites for working; the portfolio enrolling the other actors to produce work for it; and the various formal and informal events associated with the course itself. Studio culture is a highly charged social arena: The question is how, and in particular, which aspects of it support learning? Theoretical models of situated learning and communities of practice models have informed the analysis, with Bourdieu’s theory of practice, and his interrelated concepts of habitus, field and capital providing a means of relating individually acquired habits and modes of working to social contexts. Bourdieu’s model of habitus involves the externalisation through the social realm of habits and knowledge previously internalised. It is therefore a useful model for considering whole individual learning activities; shared repertoires and practices located in the social realm. The social milieu of the studio provides a scene for the exercise and display of ‘practicing’ and the accumulation of a form of ‘practicing-capital’. This capital is a property of the social milieu rather than the space, so working or practicing in the company of others (in space and through social media) becomes a more valued aspect of studio than space or facilities alone. This practicing-capital involves the acquisition of a habitus of studio culture, with the transformation of physical practices or habits into social dispositions, acquiring social capital (driving the social milieu) and cultural capital (practicing-knowledge) in the process. The research drew on students’ experiences, and their practicing ‘getting a feel for the game’ by exploring the limits or boundaries of the field of studio culture. The research demonstrated that a notional studio community was in effect a social context for supporting learning; a range of settings to explore and test out newly internalised knowledge, demonstrate or display ideas, modes of thinking and practicing. The study presents a nuanced interpretation of how students relate to a studio culture that involves a notional community, and a developing habitus within a field of practicing that extends beyond teaching scenarios.

An integrated psychology virtual research ethics committee

Research and professional ethics are an integral part of every Psychology degree, as this is seen as a key graduate learning outcome for students leaving to become clinicians working with clients and patients. The development of these skills is embedded in teaching, but they culminate in the final year of a degree when final year students must gain formal ethical approval for their final research project. Decision as to the ethical appropriateness of research are made by a Departmental Research Ethics Committee, which considers all research project proposals submitted by staff and students within the department. One of the challenges of this practice is the scale of work involved for committee members (Doyle & Buckley, 2014) who are all faculty members, and the tracking of applications and decisions, alongside the quality assurance required to ensure that all applications are treated fairly and equally. The time involved in performing this work is often underestimated by Universities, and the variety and complexity of decisions requires extensive discussion and negotiation. Traditionally, these decisions are reached by committee discussions, however this presents logistical difficulties as it requires meetings with quorate attendance. The University of Westminster launched a virtual tool in 2014 to facilitate the management of the Research Ethics Committee, to help track the progress of applications and to allow discussions to occur and be managed virtually. The Department of Psychology adopted the tools in September 2014 to deal with all ethics applications. Here we report on how this virtual committee has affected the role and practices of a working committee that deals with over 300 applications per year, and how an online ethics procedure has facilitated an integrated developmental approach to ethical education.