Investigating Architecture Studio Culture in the UK: A Progress Report

Abstract

This paper investigates the current position of studio culture in architecture higher education in the UK and sets out a report on research in progress. The effects on studio learning and teaching of pressures on space, budgets, student finance and employment opportunities are all considered, together with changes in the demographics and characteristics of the student population, and in teaching and learning technologies, approaches and attitudes. The research focuses on attitudes of current students and academics and their understanding of studio culture.

Keywords:

• Studio Culture
• Architecture
• Higher Education
• UK
• Peer Learning
• 24/7 Studio

Introduction

This research sets out to explore attitudes, primarily students' but also those of Heads of School and other senior academics, towards the place of studios in teaching and learning within architectural education in the UK and to explore contemporary understandings of studio, ‘at once an activity, an environment and a culture’ (McClean, 2009, p.2). It is being carried out at a time when studio pedagogy and its accommodation are increasingly coming under pressure from a variety of factors.

There appears to be a long held ‘conventional wisdom’ that studios ‘are a good thing’ just as Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Visiting Board reports discuss ‘studio culture’ as part of a common currency without feeling the need to define what is meant by it. This research explores students' attitudes towards the studio as a ‘learning experience’. It also aims to enhance understanding of what ‘studio culture’ might be. In a context of a variety of potential threats to studio accommodation empirical research has been carried out to demonstrate the value of the studio environment in the student learning experience.

University space charging, centralised room booking systems and diminishing capital spending are reducing the number of schools able to offer individual dedicated workspaces to architecture students and putting pressure on schools to optimise the way in which accommodation is occupied. Studio has been challenged through questions about 24-hour opening (Koch et al., 2002, pp.6–7), the ways in which studio pedagogy has been found to perpetuate gender bias, and its resistance to diversity and widening participation agendas.

The introduction of Building Information Management (BIM) and 3D printing into design, management and supply systems is beginning to change the way the studio is organised and construction is delivered. The shift from the predominance of the drawing board to that of CAD and laptop, together with a renewed recognition of the value of ‘making’, has affected space requirements. The predominance of the internet, social networking, mobile phones, virtual learning environments have all given impetus to a ‘devolved studio’ or ‘dispersed studio’, both in time and space, and a move from the physical to the virtual world.

Parallel to the pressures on studio accommodation is the transformation of student funding. Any student enrolling on an undergraduate programme in England and Wales from October 2012 pays between £6–9,000 per annum, although rather than pay up front as they did prior to the new system, the fees are repayable when the graduate's earnings reach a given threshold. At the same time government funding for the majority of university student teaching is being phased out. Student expectations are predicted to be high as they seek returns on their personal investment. It is anticipated that this will affect architecture students to a greater degree than others due to the generally four or five year course length combined with low graduate salary levels (Wright, 2011).

The sector has already seen what might be termed the end of the ‘real full time student’ with many students now working long hours in low paid jobs to service their lifestyles, debts and expenses. These students are unable to work the long hours in studio that widely characterised the discipline until relatively recently. They instead seek to maximise their access to tutorial support, peer interaction and to facilities and resources during the limited time they can spend in school.

Furthermore, the prolonged economic downturn continues to cause high unemployment in the construction sector so that many students have been unable to find employment in the ‘year out’ between undergraduate and postgraduate study. However, ‘whilst studio teaching as conventionally conceived is straining under the pressure of the prevailing resource climate, it is perhaps such contextual conditions that represent the agent for constructive change’ (McClean, 2009, p.4).

Context

In 1979 Denise Scott Brown wrote ‘in many schools, studio is underfinanced and therefore poorly planned and prepared: projects are often outlined by instructors on a napkin during lunch on the day the class begins, and presented to the students verbally’ (Scott Brown, 1979, p.70. Furthermore, ‘there is little effort to relate studio to other coursework, and in fact studio tends to have a negative impact’ on other parts of the course (Scott Brown, 1979, p.70). With the development of research programmes, mainly in science and technology, intended to align architecture departments to an academic orientation and away from professional practice, the ‘new architectural scientists regarded studio as a know-nothing, archaic, authoritarian remnant of the Ecole des Beaux Arts’ (p.71).

The napkin may have long ago succumbed to the professionalisation of academia, but the perceived or actual impact of studio on the other subject areas continues to cause coursework academics to feel marginalised.

Social cooperation and collaboration

The UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) Benchmark statement describes the word ‘studio’ as meaning:

much more in architecture education than a convenient workroom. It evokes an image of creative cooperative working in which the outcome: the architectural design and the educational benefit in terms of skill development, is greatly superior to that which could be achieved by the individual student working alone.

(Borden et al., 2010, p.13)

Architectural design is a social process. ‘Communication with others is at the heart of design just as it is central to teaching and learning’ (Vowles, 2000, p.223). In architectural design:

drawing — whether with a pencil, a camera, modeling materials, a computer or whatever — is a key tool of communication first of all with yourself, or between co-designers, and then with partners, colleagues, clients, students, users, and of course, with a public, real or imagined.

(Vowles, 2000, p.224)

Williams et al. (2007) have argued that ‘learning is socially constructed and architectural practice involves social practice’ (p.11). Therefore, ‘authentic learning requires dialogue with others’ (Challis, 2002, p.109).

However, the default for design as taught in architecture schools posits the student as sole author of their work. The idealist German tradition inherited from the Bauhaus prefigures ‘the attention paid to star designers … the striving for freedom from constraints’ and ‘the historicist nature of architectural theory, and the tendency to polarize education and practice all echo the Hegelian beliefs that history moves through the work of a few great individuals, …that history is moving towards maximizing the freedom of every person’ (Fisher, 2000, p.70). David McClean's (2009) doctoral thesis sets out the case for the development of individual independent learners in UK architectural education through their relationships as a cohort. In that study the importance of the peer group as a vehicle for studio-based learning and pastoral support emerged strongly. The American Institute of Architecture Students paper on studio culture (Koch et al., 2002) concluded ‘it is clear that students would be better served by learning about the value of collaboration and the negative effects of competition’ (p.12).

The RIBA Validation Board process results in quinquennial reports on every validated programme. Recent reports have tended implicitly to applaud good quality large studios as a ‘crucial peer learning opportunity’. Our review of the Board Reports found that there is an implicit belief that ‘studio culture’ is a good thing that needs to be preserved and developed. However, the validation system terms of reference do not define the parameters of studio culture.

Consuming time

The AIAS Report (Koch et al., 2002) questions whether having access to studio 24 hours a day, seven days a week and thus being able to work on projects at any time develops a culture that devalues scheduled time, and therefore time management. Koch et al., further argue that when graduates are in employment ‘where every hour counts, the transition can be an overwhelming adjustment’ (p.8).

The RIBA Visiting Board Report to Birmingham School of Architecture (RIBA, 2009) was ‘sharply critical of the hot-desking room booking system which meant that studios fulfilled several disparate functions during the working week’ (p.22). The Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff Visiting Board (RIBA, 2008) applauded ‘studios [that] are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week’ with ‘the obvious benefits of such flexibility’ (p.21).

Meanwhile the Board to Brighton (RIBA, 2007, p.18) understood:

why the School is opposed to 24 hour studio access and recognises the issues about work-life balance which underpin this. Nevertheless the Board hopes that student requests for extended access to studios might be favourably considered, particularly some access at weekends, which could be of real benefit to students from less well-off backgrounds who have no option but to take part-time employment during their studies.

Christine Percy (2004, p.143) notes the complex influences resulting in ‘an increasing exodus of students from the design studios’ to the IT suites and/or students' homes. She cites various reasons for this including the growth in student numbers that precludes dedicated individual workspaces in many studios and the growth of dependency on specialist software. However, she points out ‘above all, the students themselves were pushing the agenda of independent learning’ and ‘managing their own learning needs, orchestrating their access to studios and staff around their complex domestic timetables’ (p.143).

Studio learning

Studying architecture at university is acknowledged to necessitate a fundamental shift in learning mode, thinking and attitude on the part of students in their transition from school. Rodrigo (2010) argues that first year design students experience a ‘fundamental challenge to established ways of thinking’ that are ‘conditioned by processes of linear, rational thinking and rote learning’ (p.2) found in the school curriculum. Contrary to design understood as problem solving, a process based on analysis and rational thinking, Steve Harfield (2009) argues that designers essentially construct the problems they seek to solve. Furthermore, ‘in order for students to develop an effective design process they must learn how to use drawing as a tool of thinking’ (Williams et al., 2007, p.15).

Percy (2004) shows through research into various types of design learning that ‘the dominant pattern of learning through designing is essentially constructive rather than deductive. Students gain cognition and understanding through attending to their practice’ (p.144). She found that ‘where the practice of designing takes place in the public domain of the studio’ staff bring to design reviews ‘the history of the casual, open-ended, and serendipitous moments of intervention and informal dialogue that have taken place with the students in the design studios’ (p.146).

Thus the informality of the studio as a workplace is uniquely conducive to the design learning process. ‘Studio surfaces are notoriously littered with inspirations, precedents, concepts, and drafts. In the studio, the process — not just the product — takes center [sic] stage’ Turckes and Kahl, 2011). The studio at best can be a place for experimentation where ‘a culture of critical collaboration reframes the concept of failure. In the design studio, mini failures are endemic— but they are known by less pejorative names: prototyping, modeling, tinkering, discovery’ (Turckes and Kahl, 2011).

Contemporary students

The student of the sixties (‘Boomers’), seventies and eighties (‘X-ers’), is very different from the ‘millennial student’ (born after 1982). As discussed by Jonas-Dwyer and Pospisil (2004) millennials exhibit distinct learning preferences (Table 1).

Table 1 Characteristics of millennials Adapted from Brown (2000); Frand (2000); Oblinger (2003); Raines (2002); in Jonas-Dwyer and Pospisil (2004)

Millennial Characteristics	Learning Preferences	Communications Preferences	Teaching & Learning Strategy
Confident “Computers aren't technology”	Technology	Electronic	e.g. Include opportunities for e-communication and interaction
Hopeful-optimistic “Reality no longer real”	Entertainment & excitement	Positive	e.g. Include opportunities for experiential and authentic learning activities
Inclusive (team-oriented) “Staying connected” “Zero tolerance for delays”	Teamwork	Mutual respect — being treated with respect	e.g. Include group activities Allow friends to work together
Goal & achievement oriented “Doing rather than knowing”	Structure	Motivational and goal focused	e.g. Include opportunities for experiential and authentic learning activities Set goals and provide frequent feedback
Civic-minded	Experiential activities	Respectful — treating others with respect	e.g. Build in opportunities for community related learning

They are however, predominately taught by faculty staff of the previous generations whose values differ considerably, and whose grasp of technology, social networking, and current pedagogical models may be less developed. In architecture, the widespread use of visiting staff not long out of university themselves, helps to bridge the gap. However, this resource is now under threat due to the emphasis on academic performance measured primarily by research output in the form of publication.

Increases in student numbers in the UK, lately driven by a government target of 50% participation by school leavers in higher education has resulted in a quadrupling of numbers between the late sixties and 2000 (Blanden and Machin, 2004; McClean, 2009).

Widening participation has been part of the UK political agenda since the Robbins report of 1963. The overall increase in numbers and a concomitant increase in ‘diversity within the student body, including ethnicity, socio-economic background, prior educational experience’ which has lead in turn to concerns ‘relating to academic standards and resource requirements’ (McClean, 2009, p.10).

There have been several studies of gender as an influence on pedagogy in architecture (Ruedi Ray, 2001; Anthony, 2002; de Graft-Johnson, 2003; inter alia). That women leave the profession in greater numbers is clear. In 2000 Vowles wrote:

The uncritical acceptance of the inherited legitimating procedures of representation and professional initiation rituals of architectural education helps to reproduce a model of architectural practice and of the role of the architect as a self-selecting elite of immaculately conceived creative individuals.

(Vowles, 2000, p.226)

However, while women make up just 16% of the profession they account for 28% of unemployed architects, according to data from the Office for National Statistics in January 2012. Moreover, the RIBA Future Trends survey found that the proportion of women architects overall had fallen from 28% to 21% in the last three years (Hopkirk, 2012).

Furthermore, students, and graduates are increasingly embracing models of collaborative practice, a move away from the ‘virtuoso soloist’ or celebrity architect, towards self-styled, loosely collaborative group identities — FAT, Foreign Office Architects, muf, UNStudio amongst them.

Methodology and process

The project has been carried out through a number of channels and with a variety of participants. The core research team is Professor Jim Low and Hannah Vowles. During 2010–11 and 2011–12 an elective module in ‘studio culture’ has been offered as part of Birmingham School of Architecture's M.Arch programme. In the first year of the scheme three students opted to work with the team for approximately one day per week over two terms and funding was successfully applied for under the University's Student Academic Partner scheme (SAP) to pay them for their time. Holly Rose Doron, part-time M.Arch student from this group has continued working with the team, and during 2011–12 a further three students have joined.

The study was designed to gain most of its intelligence on the architecture school design studio from the students themselves. To this end it was decided to hold focus groups with students at various schools and from the initial findings to devise a questionnaire aimed at students across the UK. This was supplemented by interviews with Heads of School from some of the same institutions where the focus groups were carried out, to understand better the type of school and some of its policies, constraints, attitudes and ethos.

The schools for the focus groups and interviews (Table 2) were chosen partly on practicalities of accessibility for the student facilitators and partly as representative of various types and size of institution, sitting within different types of Faculty or Department with diverse demographics within the student body, and a range of programme and studio provisions.

Table 2 Institutions where interviews and focus groups were carried out

Mission Group	Programme Provision & Structure	Interview	Focus Group(s)	Studios	Faculty
1 Million +	Parts1,2 & 3;UG-3 FT & 4PT;PG-2FT & 3PT		▯	Studios allocated by daily timetable; open 07:00–23:00	Art & Design
2 University Alliance	Parts1,2 & 3;UG-3 FT & 5/6 PT; PG — 2 FT & 3/4 PT	▯	▯	Separate UG and PG studios; 24 hr access	Built Environment
3 Russell	Parts1,2 & 3;UG-3 FT; PG -I year in practice + 1 FT	▯	▯	Some personal workspaces; year/unit studios; 24 hr access	Arts
4 Russell	Parts 1 & 2; UG — 3FT; PG — 2FT	▯	▯	Shared open studios; 24 hr access	Stand alone school
5 Post ′92	Parts1,2 & 3;UG-3 FT & 5PT;PG-2FT & 3PT	▯		Studios allocated by daily timetable; open 07:00–21:00	Engineering, Science & Built Environment
6 Russell	Parts1,2 & 3;UG-3 FT;PG-2FT	▯		Dedicated 1^st yr studio, others shared open access; 24 hr access	Architecture & Engineering
7 Russell	Parts1,2 & 3;UG-3 FT (or 4 Sandwich); PG-2 FT	▯		Open 07:00-midnight	Built Environment
8 Million +	Parts1,2 & 3;UG-3 FT & 4PT;PG-2FT & 3 PT	▯		Dedicated 1^styr studio, others shared open access; open 08:00–21:00	Architecture & Design
9 Russell/ UA	Parts1,2 & 3;UG-3 FT;PG-2FT	▯		Shared open studios; restricted opening hours	Architecture & Environment / Art & Design

Pilot questionnaire and focus groups

The initial task undertaken by the students was a literature review, the findings from which were then used to inform the compilation of a pilot questionnaire for architecture students in order to understand student attitudes to studio. The questionnaire used a simple Microsoft Word form that was disseminated to all first years and many second and third years of the M.Arch cohort at Birmingham. The completed forms were returned, anonymised and analysed.

The questionnaire was organised into four sections:

1. Personal information.

2. Course information.

3. Attitudes to studio.

4. Approaches to independent study.

The students drew up a coding system to analyse the results of the questionnaire. Findings were at two levels — data capture, and aspects of the questions that needed to be amended due to ambiguous syntax, opportunities for additional questions, and the problem of there being too many qualitative questions with increased risk of misunderstanding. It was also clear that it would be necessary to implement the actual questionnaire through an electronic online system for wider dissemination and ease of analysis.

From an analysis of the findings of the questionnaire the students set up and carried out focus group meetings with students at two schools of architecture to further clarify the aims and objectives of the online questionnaire. Jim Low and Hannah Vowles carried out similar focus groups at two other schools. With a view to designing the focus group methodology the team met with Matt Badcock, Senior Lecturer at Birmingham City University School of Social Sciences to discuss how to organise and conduct focus groups.

The outcomes of the discussion were to:

• Define terms and avoid presupposition.

• Select themes to drive discussion, consider using data or statistics from the questionnaire.

• Use provocative statements to prompt conversation e.g. how would you cope with no studio space?

• Decide on three different scenarios for three separate sub-groups — advocate for and against.

• For each group, organise six to seven students around a table in a room with a window, have refreshments, test out sound equipment, arrange furniture.

• Decide how much the facilitator will intervene.

• Consider using students as facilitators to avoid obvious power relations between staff and students.

• Listen.

The three students facilitated the focus groups in the first two Schools of architecture. Groups of six to eight architecture students (from all years) in each School were given a question to discuss relating to studios, derived from responses to the pilot questionnaire. The focus groups lasted approximately one hour. There were three related questions asked of each of the three focus groups at the first institution. At the second, it was only possible to hold a single group and two main questions were used. There were two groups held at the third institution, and one at the last institution, both of these were facilitated by the academics. It was decided that the facilitator would intervene as little as possible, only to keep the discussion flowing and to keep it on track.

The three questions used to prompt the focus group debate were:

1. What do you think is meant by studio culture? Is it a community, an event, a social group?

2. Is it more important to have access to academic staff or to have studio space?

3. Would you subscribe to an architecture course with no dedicated studio space?

Interviews with Heads of Schools

In parallel to the focus groups and questionnaire Jim Low and Hannah Vowles carried out interviews with eight Heads of Schools of architecture (see Table 2 above). The interviews were informal and semi-structured around four contextual questions:

1. Does your School pay space charges?

2. Has your School experienced increased/decreased staff student ratios?

3. What do you use the studios for?

4. Does each student have a dedicated workspace?

and four questions about perceptions:

1. The studio can be seen as a space, an event, a community, a culture. Discussion about studio culture.

2. What are the effects of technological innovation and change e.g. digital information, the internet, CAD, smart phones, BIM, etc. on studio culture, space, events and community and on use patterns?

3. What are the effects of increased student numbers, increasing student debt and increased student need to work, together with decreasing budgets, on studio culture, space, events and community and on use patterns?

4. What is the School ethos and how is it realised through the ‘studio’?

Hand-written notes were taken of the discussions.

Online questionnaire

The findings from the focus groups, the pilot questionnaire and the interviews with Heads of Schools were analysed and cross referenced to design a revised questionnaire to be disseminated online via all Heads of Schools and various contacts in schools to students of architecture in every school in the UK. The timing of disseminating the questionnaire in January 2012 coincided with the annual National Student Survey, and incurred the likelihood that final year undergraduates and postgraduates would be preoccupied with their thesis design projects. The survey was therefore primarily targeted at students from second year undergraduate and first year of postgraduate studies via the Heads and other contacts. The questionnaire was designed and compiled to elicit more detailed responses through scaled and targeted questions.

Discussion

Pilot questionnaire

A key issue informing the questionnaire and its analysis was that studio culture is evolving within a higher education sector and economy that is changing very rapidly. Evidently, studio policy in schools needs to be adaptive and flexible to respond to pressures.

One of the findings to emerge early on from the pilot questionnaire was a difference in perception of need between undergraduate and postgraduate students, with undergraduate students spending more time in studio due to the effectiveness of peer learning, progressing work, and learning ‘how to work’. At postgraduate level this was not so important, especially having spent a year out in practice, and there was more socialising outside of studio.

There was also a marked difference in the configuration of undergraduate (open plan or divisible with flexible partitions) and postgraduate studios (small fixed rooms). Some respondents preferred the open plan while others found the small room quieter, less distracting. Two respondents who described their undergraduate studio as large, open plan with good facilities and their postgraduate studio as small with poor facilities, nevertheless rated their overall academic experience at undergraduate level as negative, and as positive at postgraduate level, implying that space and facilities are not the most significant criterion for a successful studio. Further analysis of the online survey responses has clarified the relative importance of space, facilities, tutor contact and peer interaction.

From the pilot questionnaire it appears that working in studio around other students develops confidence in producing, working up and sharing ideas; it is informal and maximises opportunities for chance encounters with other students and different directions. Being relaxed and comfortable removes tension that inhibits work. Ownership of space was important to some students — “not having a desk, I don't feel like I am part of the uni…it doesn't feel like I am in a place of work…”

It appeared that ‘density’ was of key importance — with a mix of years exchanging ideas in an ‘owned’ space. Studio is not necessarily a good place to produce work as such, but it is important for contact with peers and tutors. Both Part I and Part II students can find studio distracting. Common complaints centred on noise, loud music, Internet, singing, talking, and poor environment such as ventilation and heating controls. Both undergraduates and postgraduates found design-based discussion most productive in studio, and that having access to social spaces in studio was important. Those respondents that rated highly the communication on their course also rated highly their overall experience on the course, and vice versa. This was replicated in the online questionnaire suggesting that communication may be a key issue for all students.

Focus groups

The discussions at Institutions 1 and 2 were carried out by the SAPs students, and were recorded and transcribed; at Institutions 3 and 4 they were carried out by academics and hand written notes were taken.

Institution 1

At the first school there were three focus groups carried out, each discussing a different question.

Figure 1 Constituency of the three student focus groups at Institution 1

The initial findings were:

• Contact with tutors (and students above you) is important. “…when you're stuck on something for the whole week, you're stuck that's it. I can ask one of my friends that are doing architecture as well but it's not as useful as you would [find] if you asked a tutor or someone that's above you or in the year above or something.” [sic]

• Studio culture is about student interaction. “You can't get that borrowed experience… walking through a studio you'll see someone's image… you'll hear the conversation and walk off… That's the point of being in a creative environment.” “The people create the culture and the events as well.”

• It is important to interact with different years for benchmarking, inspiration etc. “I think it's really important… for us to see the year above because that's where you target yourself and set your own goals. Because university I don't think is about prescriptive learning. It's about learning things for yourself. You've got to see where you've got to go.”

• Studio ownership is important. “For our undergraduate, in our studio space we actually had our own spaces as well, like we could leave stuff there.”

• Strong studio culture needs to be embedded from first year in order to continue it and make the most of it.

• Studio culture is a means of preparing for the workplace (working in teams, relationships, deadlines etc.) — virtual studios do not have this quality. “At work….you usually work in an open plan office surrounded by architects and all sorts of different people that you interact with in the process of design…design is…an interaction process….with other people” “….for me the studio is essential, if not for the space, for the energy….its just essential.”

• Students felt that if architecture is about designing spaces for people; they questioned how space can be designed in isolation from others, and the studio provides the ideal community.

Part-time students wanted more opportunities for peer learning but felt it was difficult to achieve where opportunities for tutor contact were of necessity tightly timetabled.

Institution 2

Following are the key points that emerged from the single focus group at the second institution, where two main questions were discussed:

• Studio culture was mostly perceived as peer collaboration and learning. “I find it sort of a social hub of minds so that you're always constantly evolving your ideas….”

• A large number of people sharing studios can lead to increased competition and intimidation, echoing negative aspects of the issue of ‘density’ found in the pilot questionnaire.

• The studios were previously split into rooms for units, but are now open plan. Part II students previously used to individual rooms didn't think there was much of an increase in communication between units. The Part I students on the other hand, had only worked in an open plan environment and said there was quite a lot of interaction between units.

• There was a noticeable culture of tutors comparing the school to other schools, with a competitive drive to have their own identity. “….each school wants to have its own identity and own idea of what approach students can have to architecture and how open it is for the students and how focused they want to make them….”

• The 24/7 studios were much valued and used. The school had fought for this but was now considering whether it promoted unhealthy lifestyles.

• The students value face to face interaction with both tutors and students, although they also see the benefits of considered email feedback.

Figure 2 Constituency of the single focus group at Institution 2

Institution 3

At Institution 3 the students were in their first year of postgraduate study, a year spent in practice with one week of studio attendance three times during the year. These are the main findings from the discussion which took place within the two focus groups.

Figure 3 Constituency of the two focus groups at Institution 3

• Students felt that staff were important to keep them on track, but they gained “more ideas from students”. They “share the results of a tutorial” with each other, especially “references”.

• It was essential to be in studio in their undergraduate programme because “tutors are bad at communicating”.

• The students were working on a project and missed the frequent interim submissions of full time studio. However, “working remotely, you're not so drained, you can take it or leave it.”

• They also felt that they came to know each other though regular exposure to each other's work in studio. “You can tell whose work it is.” The school encourages students to work in studio, “you learn from each other.” They felt their “work/life balance can be poor because of 24 hour access — it is a way of life” and “you end up with weird sleeping patterns.” “You get inducted into architecture through working in the studios.”

• They commented that 3^rd year tutors “tried to wean us off tutorials.” “Now they ask us how we want to run the tutorial” a move from ‘passive’ subject to ‘active’ agent.

• The students agreed that in 1^st year they had to come in because “if you were at home you wouldn't know what to do.” 1^st years were guaranteed a workspace. In later years they worked in studio at the beginning and at home at the end of a project. Although “in the last month of 3^rd year the studio is [always] full at 3am.”

• All the practices they worked in were open 24/7. One commented “If I switch off my computer at 5.30 and I go ‘Bye guys’ it's like ‘You have a life outside?’”

• This discussion became very animated. One commented “Architecture is a vocational course but the way we work isn't professional” and “the difference is that lawyers log their time to bill the client, we do it to work out future resourcing models — how many hours did it take for a certain type of work, to get it done.”

Institution 4

At Institution 4 two main questions were discussed during the single focus group held and the following are the main points from the discussion:

• Students come to this School because of the studio accommodation. The undergraduates work together in a large contemporary light open access studio. They “can see everyone's work” and “learn through osmosis … from each other.” It's “social learning” and “feels like a family.” “You are not taught what you need to do, you learn how to do things in the studio.”

• Students “who work in the studios appear to do better.” However, “when you want to finish work you have to draw-up at home.” There was a discussion about “students who don't come in” to their detriment. • Students “take for granted the 24-hour access.”

• Because everyone uses “a laptop means you don't need the drawing boards.” They felt it was “crucial to keep the drawing boards” otherwise the School could lose the studio space. They were worried about “the introduction of a centralised booking system” and “the invasion of our space” by other courses. “Room utilisation surveys appear to come at the wrong time — in the morning.” There was concern about an increase in student numbers and the threat to studio space.

• Students “go through trends from mixed media to CAD to hand drawing.” They “want to retain hand drawing” and go to “tutors who push hand drawing.” There was a discussion about the perceived need for CAD in order to get jobs but they agreed that offices want graduates who can draw. “Offices use different software” and can teach you, but they can't teach you to draw, and you need to draw “to be able to communicate with the client.” Students appreciated those who can hand draw — “you get a better picture of space … you know things by eye.”

• “If it is a choice between staff and studios — staff are more important.”

Figure 4 Constituency of the single focus group at Institution 4

It was expected that there would be differences between the outcomes of the student and academic facilitated focus groups along the lines of power relations indicated by Matt Badcock. However, it appears that by choosing questions that prompted animated discussion, by deciding that the facilitator would intervene as little as possible, and then only to keep the discussion flowing and to keep it on track, any power effect has been minimised.

One of the main distinctions to emerge in the findings from the focus groups and the paper questionnaire were between undergraduate and postgraduate responses. Undergraduates are learning how to learn in studio, from each other and from tutors, starting off as passive subjects and moving gradually to active agents. Postgraduates are expected to be fully-fledged active partners in their education. This is reflected in studio use. There was evidence of postgraduates using the studios more strategically and intermittently, mainly influenced by other factors competing for their time and attention.

Towards the end of the focus group sessions, the students were asked the same question; what was more important — staff or space? But, with the exception of one group, they could not answer. They could not visualise a course without one or the other. The two seem to act as a symbiotic relationship. The students would develop ideas together, which would then be presented to tutors and refined, which in turn would be shared with the other students. This dependency on tutorials seemed to diminish for postgraduate students with independence and more freedom in methods of communication usually being promoted. The pilot questionnaire revealed that Part I students generally get more tutor contact than Part II students. However, Part II students seemed to gain more from their tutorials, a reflection of their growing effectiveness in actively directing their studies.

Interviews with academics

The following are snapshots of initial findings:

1. The studio and studio culture is central to all Schools.

   • “…it is the core of what we do — it is a selling point of the School.” “….We promote the concept of the studio where things happen and research staff are available. The studio is in the culture, the studio is not just a space.” One Head reported that he felt there had been a decline in the use of the studios and attributed the drop-off of studio culture to the use of computers. But in the last few years a resurgence in materials and ‘making’ has brought students back into the studios and there is a lot more drawing being done. The School has created a fabricating space within the studios.

2. All Schools were required to use central room booking systems and as a result had lost dedicated accommodation for seminars and lectures.

   • This had required a change of culture. However the Universities did recognise the need for dedicated studios. One School had a facilities manager with responsibility for health and safety and arranging space allocation on a weekly basis. Weekly management team meetings “bartered” for space.

3. Studios are used for a wide range of activities including reviews, presentations, tutorials, exhibition space, as a workspace for making things and a social meeting space.

   • The versatility of studio space is highly valued in all institutions visited. Often there is a concern about health and safety issues regarding what goes on in the studios. One School employed (paid) students to keep the studios tidy. All Schools had established regimes for the allocation and management of the studio accommodation. Generally all Schools except one gave first year students their own studio accommodation. Some Schools admitted that sometimes they felt they still did not use the studios efficiently. One School reported a system of using studios for different years and modes depending on the day of the week with the result that the students never saw the work of other years, courses or modes.

4. Only two Schools had space charges but they were at Faculty level.

   • Two others thought that as a result of university room utilisation surveys space charges may be introduced in the future. Universities continue to carry out room utilisation surveys in a bid to find further efficiencies in the use of accommodation. Three of the Schools reported that their accommodation was under intense pressure. One School had had space charges for fifteen years but they were abandoned two years ago in favour of a roughly calculated per capita charge.

5. Four Schools provided 24-hour studio access seven days per week, with swipe card access.

   • These Schools reported the facility was used extensively and was generally respected. However, one School was proposing to close the studios at midnight. Access would be from 6.00 am until 12.00 pm. The students had not objected to this proposed change. The other Schools were open variously from 8.00 am until 9.00 or 10.00 pm, some were open at weekends, others Saturday only.

6. The student staff ratios across the Schools ranged from 1:8 for one Part II programme to 1:20 in studio for one School's Part I and Part II programmes.

7. At five Schools students were perceived to be generally from affluent backgrounds and even with the recession debt was not a problem.

In one School where it was reported that some students had jobs even here the students were described as being more middle-class. One School noted very different cultures of use between local UK, non-local UK, EU and overseas students, with local UK students preferring their own established networks to building networks in the School. Another had a high proportion of ‘inner city kids’.

Although currently the Universities acknowledge the need for dedicated studio accommodation there was an underlying uneasiness that this attitude could yield to financial pressures.

In an email survey of 39 UK schools of architecture by David McClean (2012) in May 2012, 10 had 24/7 opening (26%) and 25 did not (64%). Four schools provided 24/7 access for some students, in two cases for Part II only.

Online questionnaire

The online questionnaire was designed and compiled to elicit more detailed and nuanced responses than the pilot through scaled and targeted questions. The questionnaire was disseminated in January 2012 through a contact list of academics within each school to publicise the questionnaire via email. It concluded late February 2012 with over 450 respondents. The survey, like the pilot, was organised around four sections — personal information; course information; attitudes to studio; attitudes to independent study. The respondents came from 16 schools at undergraduate level (325 respondents) and 20 at postgraduate (134 respondents), with 29 schools represented in total, over half of all UK schools. Although targeted at second year undergraduates and first year of postgraduates, in the event there were respondents from across the whole spectrum (Tables 3 & 4).

Table 3 What year of undergraduate study are you currently in? Please select the answer that most closely equates to your year of study

Year	Number	%
UG/Part I/Year 1	92	30.9%
UG/Part I/Year 2	119	39.9%
UG/Part I/Year 3	70	23.5%
UG/Part I/Year 4	11	3.7%
UG/Part I/Year 5	1	0.3%
UG/Part I/Year Out	5	1.7%

Table 4 What year of postgraduate study are you currently in? Please select the answer that most closely equates to your year of study

Year	Number	%
PG/Part II/Year 1	53	42.7%
PG/Part II/Year 2	52	41.9%
PG/Part II/Year 3	1	0.8%
PG/Part II/Year 4	4	3.2%
Post Part II/MA/MPhil/PhD/Part III	9	7.3%
Other (please describe below)	5	4%

The survey consisted of approximately fifty questions. Postgraduates were asked to reply to most questions twice, once with respect to their experience at undergraduate and again about their current experience. Most questions had space for comments. At the time of writing the research team had begun to look at a small selection of issues primarily around collaborative, group and informal peer learning. There were a number of questions aimed at understanding students' learning relationship with their peers. Students in the focus groups emphasised peer learning as being of fundamental importance in developing as a student architect. It was surprising that this appears not to be repeated to quite the same extent in the online questionnaire.

For instance, responses to questions in the online survey about the actual number of hours spent in studio appeared to contradict the findings of the pilot questionnaire that Part I students spent more time in studio due to effectiveness of peer learning. Here, more undergraduates said they spend between ten and twenty hours in studio each week (40%) whereas 32% of postgraduates said they spent over thirty hours. Comments from respondents reveal, on the other hand, that this does not necessarily reflect the number of hours spent working on studio projects, since several undergraduates say they work long hours at home, and some postgraduates said they go to studio to avoid the distractions of home. Furthermore, 33% of Part II students had access to individual workspaces, with only 17% of Part I. However, responses from Heads of School indicated that first years and undergraduates get priority in the allocation of dedicated workspaces.

In answer to the question ‘How often do you pin up your work for discussion and sharing ideas with other students independently of tutors?’ just over a third of undergraduate respondents and just over a quarter of postgraduates said they do this ‘quite frequently’. Asked ‘Where do you think your design-based discussion is more productive?’ the ‘studio’ was ‘most productive’ for 65% of undergraduates (61% for Part II), whereas ‘home’ the next highest rated answer was only ‘quite productive’ for 36% of Part I respondents (31% for Part II).

In answer to a scaled question ‘What do you think are the key factors for a successful studio?’ where respondents were asked to rate each, the ‘most important’ factor for 80% for postgraduate respondents and 93% for undergraduates was ‘good quality tutors’. This was followed by ‘access to equipment’ 74% (undergraduates 80%), ‘own workspace in studio’ 73% (undergraduates 60%), ‘access, e.g. opening hours’ 70% (undergraduates 77%), availability of tutors 62% (undergraduates 72%) and ‘studio environment’ 60% (undergraduates 56%). ‘Fellow students’ only rate as the ‘most important’ factor for 56% of postgraduate respondents (undergraduates 51 %).

However, when asked to rate ‘factors that mean you work in studio’ choosing all that apply, out of those reasons given to choose from ‘group work’ was the highest rated for Part II students and second highest for Part I. ‘Other’ influences given in the comments box were “overall atmosphere” “company of other students” “talking to other people about ideas, getting ideas, developing drawings and social working culture is important to my design work” “getting work done generally — bouncing off the vibes of those around you” “the most important aspect of studio work is that it is a work environment specifically designed for that purpose. It is a place full of people doing similar work where you feel that you belong.” “easier to stay focused and develop ideas than at home and can share/borrow ideas from others” “gets you in a productive mood. Having other students around you if you need help or critique” “division between work and home life.”

An ostensibly minor issue that appears to have a significant impact on the level of studio occupation and use is the availability of individual and adequately sized secure storage, with several respondents saying that it would make the difference between being able to use the studio effectively and opting to work elsewhere.

One undergraduate respondent commented “[studio] needs to be available outside of timetabled, formal sessions to provide a productive workspace open to all year groups and courses to encourage interaction.” One postgraduate considered that “a studio isn't just about being taught it's more a collaborative effort in the sharing of ideas between people. It's a place of conversation more than anything else.” There is recognition here of the value of the studio as a community being more than the sum of the individual students.

When asked how much they learn from other students (Tables 5 & 6) 38% of undergraduate respondents learnt ‘a great deal’ from other undergraduates and 21 % of them learnt ‘a great deal’ from postgraduates. Of these respondents respectively 42% learnt ‘a fair amount’ from other undergraduates, and 30% of them learnt ‘a fair amount’ from postgraduates. For the postgraduate respondents the picture is broadly similar.

Table 5 How much do you think you learn from other students? (Undergraduate respondents)

	A great deal	A fair amount	An average amount	Not much	Nothing	Response Count
Other UG students	38.0%(106)	41.6%(116)	14.0%(39)	5.7%(16)	0.7%(2)	279
PG students	21.4%(60)	30.4%(85)	16.8%(47)	17.5%(49)	13.9%(39)	280

Table 6 How much do you think you learn/learned from other students at Part I and at Part II? (Postgraduate respondents)

	A great deal	A fair amount	An average amount	Not much	Nothing	Response Count
Part I	37.7% (40)	38.7% (41)	13.2% (14)	8.5% (9)	1.9% (2)	106
Part II	40.6% (43)	41.5% (44)	10.4% (11)	4.7% (5)	2.8% (3)	106

When asked about the benefit of various kinds of discussions with other students (Tables 7 & 8) many students commented that they would value the opportunity for more interaction with students from other years and levels. They felt intimidated by having to go to another room or studio to meet other students or look at their work and said that mixed studios would be very beneficial. For both undergraduates and postgraduates the only topic that did not offer ‘a great deal of benefit’ was ‘presentation methods’. The pattern was similar for both levels of respondents with undergraduates getting slightly more benefit across the board for all areas.

Table 7 How do the following discussions with other students benefit you/your studies? Please rate each (undergraduate respondents)

	A great deal	A fair amount	Sometimes	Not much	Not at all	Response Count
Sharing ideas	51.4% (148)	36.8% (106)	9.4% (27)	2.1% (6)	0.3% (1)	288
Sharing references/ precedents	46.5% (134)	34.4% (99)	14.9% (43)	3.5% (10)	0.7% (2)	288
Gaining outside opinions	52.4% (151)	32.3% (93)	15.3% (44)	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	288
Gaining knowledge	45.8% (132)	36.1% (104)	13.9% (40)	2.8% (8)	1.4% (4)	288
Technical	36.1% (104)	36.1% (104)	19.4% (56)	6.9% (20)	1.4% (4)	288
Software advice	41.0% (118)	30.9% (89)	20.5% (59)	6.3% (18)	1.4% (4)	288
Presentation methods	28.8%(83)	33.7% (97)	26.4% (76)	9.0% (26)	2.1% (6)	288

Table 8 How did the following discussions with other students benefit you / your studies on your Undergraduate/Part I course? Please rate each (postgraduate respondents)

	A great deal	A fair amount	Sometimes	Not much	Not at all	Response Count
Sharing ideas	43.4% (46)	34.9% (37)	15.1% (16)	5.7% (6)	0.9% (1)	106
Sharing references/ precedents	44.3% (47)	33.0% (35)	15.1% (16)	6.6% (7)	0.9% (1)	106
Gaining outside opinions	47.2% (50)	29.2% (31)	15.1% (16)	7.5% (8)	0.9% (1)	106
Gaining knowledge	38.7% (41)	35.8% (38)	19.8% (21)	4.7% (5)	0.9% (1)	106
Technical	32.1% (34)	30.2% (32)	21.7% (23)	12.3% (13)	3.8% (4)	106
Software advice	41.5% (44)	30.2% (32)	16.0% (17)	9.4% (10)	2.8% (3)	106
Presentation methods	30.2% (32)	33.0% (35)	16.0% (17)	16.0% (17)	4.7% (5)	106

It is evident that all respondents thought they derived significant benefit from all the suggested forms of contact and interaction with their fellow students. It is also clear from the data on access to studios, learning from peers, preferred place of work, and so on that more refined analysis is required to understand the ways in which students at various stages in their architectural studies approach studio project work, and the influences on where, how and when they work on it.

Conclusion

This paper has shown how studio culture endures as both a rich and intensive medium of teaching and learning, lending weight to the conventional wisdom that studios are ‘a good thing’, and is also a productive and rewarding subject of research.

The context of the studio in UK architecture education is evolving due to changing economic, financial, technological and social conditions. It has come under pressure from several quarters, including space charging, student numbers, the impact of the virtual or dispersed studio, student fee increases, student lifestyle aspirations and employment.

Preliminary results of the research process show that students have strong feelings and well developed ideas about studio culture. The online questionnaire has been designed to build on the findings of the exploratory research and further analysis will provide detailed quantitative and qualitative data on students' experience of and attitudes towards studio culture.

Staff and students continue to recognise the intrinsic value of peer learning that is facilitated by interaction in studio, especially in undergraduate studies where studio learning can support the fundamental shift in thinking necessary in the transition from school pedagogy. The online survey has begun to produce a more complex picture of the influences both on student working habits and on their perceptions. Postgraduate students appear to be less dependent on studio for learning, having progressed from ‘passive’ to ‘active’ tutorials, but still appreciate the less formal but still valuable social and quasi-professional interaction it provides. There was a recognition that mixed studios would be very welcome, bringing together students at the various stages of their studies to their mutual benefit.

Studio culture is seen by senior architecture academics as central to architecture education. Following an exodus from the studio into IT suites and student homes, there has been a recent resurgence in the use of studios for making and drawing. The studio remains a fundamental part of students' learning as a constructive process of dialogue with peers and tutors, at best a means of preparing for practice through working in groups, both formalised timetabled contact with academics and peers and the serendipity of informal dialogue and collaborative exchange. There is evidence that much student learning takes place between students, independent of tutorial input, and that students who interact with peers and academics in the studio thrive better than those who work in isolation. Many students were clear that it is the symbiotic relationship between staff and students that is crucial to learning; that only having access to one or the other would not offer the same rich learning experience and that this in effect happens in the studio.

Conversely, it is also evident that the studio can foster a competitive, intimidating culture and unresolved issues of detrimental, unprofessional and biased working habits remain, reproduced through studio practice both in academia and in employment. Both students and academics have strong opinions for and against the 24/7 studio. Whilst it offers flexibility that fits around the complexity of contemporary student lifestyles balancing other responsibilities and aspirations, it can also distort the value that students attach to time. This devaluation of scheduled time does not assist in the development of the time management skills that are required for employment.

For academics devising and operating studio policy it seems that key issues in the degree to which students make use of the studios available to them work in tandem. For instance, there is consensus that students learn a great deal from one another and that this happens when they are easily able to meet, work together and socialise with their peers and also with students from other years and levels in the studio. A key factor affecting the degree to which they can work in studio to take advantage of this is whether or not they feel they can leave their work there safely rather than carry it back and forth. Some felt that secure lockers large enough to take models made all the difference between working in studio and feeling that the only option was to work at home. Similarly, many students felt that having open access and open plan studios available to mixed groups of students both during and outside of scheduled teaching hours also nurtured a productive studio culture.

This paper has looked at the overall aims and ambitions of the research project but has only provided brief snapshots of the online survey of UK architecture students. Further analysis of the data collected in the online survey will facilitate understanding of attitudes of particular groups and demographics towards aspects of architecture education in the studio when year of study, mode of attendance, age, gender and ethnicity are used to filter responses, as well as taking into account more detailed information about the particularities of provision at the various participant Schools, and the commitments, responsibilities and lifestyle choices that compete for students' time.