Designing Indeterminacy: User-led Creation of Liminal Spaces at Work Ian Sang Yun Lee MDes, Emily Carr University of Art + Design 2018 BBA, Yonsei University 2015 A CRITICAL & PROCESS DOCUMENTATION PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF DESIGN EMILY CARR UNIVERSITY OF ART + DESIGN 2018 © Ian Sang Yun Lee 2018 Abstract In the midst of a time where many concurrent shifts in cultures and technologies are shaping the future of work in unexpected ways, Designing Indeterminacy looks at the interior design of the contemporary workplace and considers its limitations. Through practice-led research this project attempts to understand everyday work experience of users. Participatory design methods are used to investigate the spatial limitations that knowledge workers today are facing in the contemporary work environment; a lack of user autonomy caused by the prescribed use of designed workspaces, and insufficient spatial integration of work-life concerns. The theoretical underpinnings of Liminality and Indeterminacy and their conceptual and lived connections to the workplace design are explored and considered as a means of mitigating such issues. Through hands-on making, the intersections of Liminality and the interior design process of workspaces are materialized. Designed artifacts enable a look into the ways that undetermined in-between spaces can empower users to better navigate their workplace. The designed artifact, its conceptual meaning and potential use are discussed with the intention to facilitate conversations and concerns around issues opened up and addressed throughout the research. 2 Keywords Interior Design, Workplace Design, Liminal Space, Indeterminacy, Research Through Design, Practice-led Research, Participatory Research 3 Table of Contents List of Figures Fig. 1 Montessori School, Herman Hertzberger (1960-1966) / Delft, Netherlands Abstract Introduction 2 8 Review of Previous Work Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/ photos/krokorr/5473863079 Conclusions Implications 66 Future Work 68 References 69 Fig. 2 Splitting: Four Corners, Gordon Matta-Clark (1974) / San Francisco Museum of Modern Art / Installed view from “Gordon Matta Clark: You Are the Measure” at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago Choice in the Workplace 14 The Role of Users and Spatial Indeterminacy 18 Work-life Integration and Liminality 21 Fig. 3 Crammed Open Plan Office 24 Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Materialized Indeterminacy and Liminality Appendices 72 Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/ photos/artoridiocy/2417714986 Fig. 4 Private Corner Space Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Primary Research Methodology 26 Participatory Research 28 Research Through Design 40 Fig. 5 Appropriated Entertainment Nook Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 6 Personal Tasks at Work Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 7 Dream Workspaces, Collected from Participants Photograph by participants, 2017 Fig. 8 Spatial Need for Personal Tasks Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 4 Fig. 9 Co-creative Activity Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 10 Non-binary Relationship of Work and Life Graphic by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 11 First Object: A Kit Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 12 Second Object: Small Cubes Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 13 Second Object: Small Cubes Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 21 Work-Life Relationship Diagram Translated into a Floor Plan Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 22 Remainder Photograph by Ian Lee, 2018 Fig. 23 Remainder, Exploded Isometric, Panel Construction Graphic by Ian Lee, 2018 Fig. 24 Remainder, Openness Variations Graphic by Ian Lee, 2018 Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 25 Remainder, Equipment Variations Fig. 15 Third Object: Large Cubes, Interaction Fig. 26 Remainder, Moving Boundaries Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Photograph by Ian Lee, 2018 Fig. 14 Third Object: Large Cubes Fig. 16 Retrospective Mapping Graphic by Ian Lee, 2018 Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 27 Remainder, Situated at Emily Carr University of Art + Design Fig. 17 Fourth Object: Office Probe Photograph by Ian Lee, 2018 Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 18 Fourth Object: Office Probe, Interaction Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 19 Scale Model of the Studio Space Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 20 Overlapped Tracks Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 28 Remainder, Configurations Graphic by Ian Lee, 2018 Fig. 29 Remainder, Situated in the Workplace Graphic by Ian Lee, 2018 Fig. 30 Research Through Design Graphic by Ian Lee, 2018 5 Acknowledgements Hélène Day Fraser, my thesis supervisor, whose guidance and support made this thesis project possible Keith Doyle, Louise St. Pierre, and many more faculty and staff at Emily Carr University of Art + Design who kept me inspired throughout this Masters program The most amazing cohort anyone could ask for - Eugenie, George, Avery, Arhea, Theunis, Emily, Jordache, Kanak, Jesi, Truong, Roxanne, Nasim, Roy, Sam, and Shruti 6 Introduction Introduction Introduction Creating many office spaces as an interior designer, I have always been intrigued by how people interact with the built environment of their workplace. In recent years, I have seen a rapid growth in demand for new, alternative types of offices such as co-working spaces. As pleased as I am to witness how the workplace is evolving and being redefined due to disruptive new cultures and technologies, there are still some important questions to ask. This thesis paper summarizes my exploration into such questions about the future of the workplace. well teams work” (Augustin, 2014, p.15). The design of the workplace has evolved to support two key factors that seem to foster creativity and innovation for knowledge workers – the ability to interact with others to share ideas, and autonomy over when, where, and how to work (Stanford University, Northeastern University, & WRNS Studio, 2017). The newly built headquarters of multinational technology companies are equipped with all sorts of spaces to accommodate different modes of working; from spacious café spaces where employees can have casual conversations, to sequestered phone booths for more private tasks. Changing Workplace While this change is a giant leap from past perspectives on office spaces that were most concerned with how best to fit as many workers and desks as possible, there is still a key issue within the contemporary workplace that needs to be addressed: the role of user. From a room full of cubicles to an open plan office filled with natural light, the image that comes to our minds when we think about the contemporary workplace has vastly changed over the last decade. Knowledge-intensive industries have identified that office space is “not just an amortized asset but a strategic tool for growth” (Waber, Magnolfi, & Linsay, 2014), and a meaningful physical environment that “definitely has an effect on how and how 8 9 Introduction 10 Introduction In Search of True Autonomy Work-Life Integration The abstraction of users became prevalent in architectural discourse and practice in conjunction with functionalism (Hill, 2003). Designers and architects who take on a functionalist perspective accept the idea that each space should be defined by a single function. They assume that users are predictable and that any given space is only ever used as was originally planned by the architect or designer. The latest ‘dream offices’ described above are not entirely free from this claim; such office spaces are still designed with strictly predetermined purposes. In this construct employees are expected to experience the space in a conforming way. Do users really have autonomy when the use of all the different spaces in the workplace has been already prescribed? How can we, designers, encourage users to be creative in altering and creating their workspaces? Fueled by changing work style and mobile technologies, the contemporary workplace is a mass of blurred boundaries between work and personal life (Knoll, 2016). Employees are constantly connected to the world outside the office, and by engaging in “personal interests, relationships and wellbeing”, they stay “more inspired, fulfilled, healthy – and thus most productive – at work” (Stanford University, Northeastern University, & WRNS Studio, 2017). However, the relationship between work and life is far from a rigid dichotomy. Workers routinely go through numerous crossovers and junctions where work tasks and personal activities intersect and overlap. Having one space for work and another for personal activity cannot address the complexity that users experience in navigating the workplace today, as “the lines separating the worlds of work, life and play continue to fade” (Knoll Workplace Research, 2016, p. 1). How can a built environment of the workplace better support the employees’ everyday experience that is a tangled mixture of work and personal life? 11 Introduction 12 Introduction Indeterminacy and Liminality in Space Research Design Making an attempt to address the questions proposed, this project explores Indeterminacy and Liminality in the context of the physical workplace. Although both concepts are often understood in social and cultural contexts, Indeterminacy and Liminality have relevant implications in architectural context – in relation to the difficulties that users often face in contemporary office spaces. In architecture and urban planning, the importance of an indeterminate approach that creates flexible, soft, dynamic and transforming systems has constantly increased (Kol & Zarco, 2014). Moreover, liminal space has become a more commonly understood concept in interior design, as demand for such in-between space is on the rise (Coalesse, 2018). What would Indeterminacy and Liminality look like in the built environment of the workplace? Acknowledging and challenging the established design of the contemporary workplace, this practice-led research is not a problem-solving process, but an extended question-asking activity. In response to the concerns expressed above, this project aims to generate new perspectives pertaining to how we see and interact with the workplace. This thesis document is broken down in to three sections. The first section consists of a literature review that seeks to unravel various layers of context of the design of the workplace, and expose alternative perspectives on spatiality. The second section discusses participatory research used to gain an understanding of the employees’ experience of the workplace. Through observation, probes and a co-creation activity, this section asks and analyses how the workplace is lived by users. The third section speaks to experiences of research through design and attempts to synthesize and materialize the findings and insights gained throughout the project. 13 Review of Previous Work Review of Previous Work Review of Previous Work This section summarizes the findings from secondary research. To gain thorough understanding of the contemporary design of the work environment, previous works from both scholarly and non-scholarly sources were reviewed. Studies from the workplace design industry were used to grasp a broad overview of how the workplace is designed and experienced today, and to get hold of the recent issues and controversies concerning the workplace that practitioners and users are facing. To prevent potential bias that such sources may have in regard to the profit organizations they are affiliated with, previous academic studies were used to validate each finding from the non-scholarly research. Furthermore, theoretical underpinnings of the concepts including Liminality and Indeterminacy were investigated from many perspectives throughout secondary research. Choice in the Workplace In recent years, more practitioners as well as employers are realizing that there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to designing physical workplace. In- 14 stead, they now try to offer a variety of spatial options that employees can choose from. The best workspaces are the ones that “have a plurality of choice within a culture that empowers workers to make those choices” (as cited in Steelcase Research, 2016, p.108), says John Hamilton, a director of the global office furniture manufacturer Coalesse. In fact, it has been a while since some of the scholars started paying attention to this new topic: Choice and Control. According to Michael J. O’Neill (2010), environmental control is “the capability of individuals, groups or entire organizations to modify features of the physical workplace, and choose location, time, and how to work, to better support their work needs and business goals” (p. 118). He proposes that enhanced environmental control is related to improved individual and organizational performance. The impacts of enhanced environmental control are not limited to increased performance, but also include outcomes such as the alleviation of psychological stress and faster business processes. O’Neill explains control can be provided through a wide variety of architectural, interior, and furniture design features, providing people with the ability to modify features themselves or take advantage of different locations to work when needed. He concludes stating that “fundamentally, 15 Review of Previous Work environmental control is about giving people choice over how and when they use the physical workspace in pursuit of their work goals, as opposed to being controlled by the space and organizational policies” (p. 119). So Young Lee and Jay L. Brand’s study on effects of control over workspace (2005) quantitatively confirms the positive impact of environmental control and choice, surveying over 200 employees in five different manufacturing companies in the United States. The study reveals the positive correlation between personal control over workplace and job satisfaction as well as performance. The study highlights the importance of offering workers a variety of spatial options to support different types of works. More recently, multiple field research done by industry practitioners have found evidence of strong relationships between personal choices in workplace and employee satisfaction as well as performance. Steelcase (2014) found out in its global study of 12,480 workers that while 88% of highly satisfied and engaged employees answered that they have greater flexibility to make choices about where and how they work, only 14% of highly dissatisfied and disengaged workers responded in a positive manner about their capacity to have flexibility. Such stark contrast indicates a potential correlation between the freedom to choose one’s 16 Review of Previous Work work environment and the employee experience. In order to stay satisfied and engaged with their work, employees have to be able to “move around the office easily, change postures and choose where they want to work in the office based on the tasks they need to do” (p. 23). Researchers at Gensler, a leading architectural design firm, have recently conducted a survey of 7,200 office workers across the metropolitan areas in the U.S., UK, and Asia simultaneously. One distinctive theme that encompasses the result of the study is employees’ choice, being described as one of the most important factors in workplace satisfaction and performance in all three regions. In Gensler U.S. Workplace Survey (2016), results reveal that employees who are categorized as ‘innovators’ have more choice in when and where to work, with support of variety of spatial options. The result of Gensler UK Workplace survey (2016) shows that “having not only variety, but also the freedom to work wherever and whenever it’s most effective, are key performance drivers” (p. 4) for workers. Gensler Asia Workplace Survey (2016) confirms that “employees who can choose their own work settings are 1.5 times more likely to work in a balanced environment, and also report higher scores across performance indicators” claiming that the employees’ freedom “in when and where to work, 17 Review of Previous Work paired with a variety of spaces in which to work” (p. 4) should be prioritized. Workplace research studio at the international design firm Knoll (2016) proposes a prototypical office plan, Immersive Planning, designed to empower employees to choose their own workplace, along with a series of quantitative studies on the employee experience. The plan categorizes the floor into six different zones – Primary, Refuge, Enclave, Team Meeting, Assembly, and Community zone – with each zone supporting different experience for workers. Primarily connected by open pathways, the plan offers divers seating options which give users the ability to choose how they want to work. Community zones where employees can rest or socialize are arranged with large and small gathering spaces. Refuge and Enclave zones that facilitate different sizes of focused work are carefully laid out over the floor plan. The Role of Users and Spatial Indeterminacy Jonathan Hill (2003), an English architect and educator at the Bartlett School of Architecture, suggests three types of user in architecture: passive, reactive and creative. 18 Review of Previous Work The passive user is predictable and unable to transform use, space and meaning. The reactive user modifies the physical characteristics of a space as needs change but must select from a narrow and predictable range of configurations largely defined by the architect. The creative user either creates a new space or gives an existing one new meanings and uses. (Hill, 2003, p. 28) He points out that in many cases, users are assumed to be either passive or reactive by architects. This tendency can be ascribed to two primary reasons: functionalist perspective and abstraction of users. Stemming from determinism, functionalism accepts the idea that the actions of users are predictable, and that “a one-to-one compatibility of a function and a space is necessary” (p. 15). In this perspective, “each function has a specially assigned place within dominated space” (p.15), and users are expected to use each functional space exactly as intended by the architects. The abstraction of users is “prevalent in architectural discourse and practice” (p. 18), and takes many different forms in a process of designing spaces. The user is often described as an actor in a relationship with the architect as a director of a film. In this analogy, the architect directs the entire experience and behaviours of a user 19 Review of Previous Work in a space. As a result, a sequence of spatial experience is assumed to be shared by all users. However, Hill says “users are far from uniform and the experience of the user is unlikely to conform to that of the architect” (p. 18). He suggests the importance of recognizing the user as creative, stating that the user “either creates a new space or gives an existing one meanings and uses contrary to established behaviour” (p. 88). In a more recent study, Hatleskog (2014) also claims that “space is not simply defined by architects and planners,” and as such, “architectural practice ought to take into account not simply structure, but use, interaction and context” (p. 10). According to Hatleskog, the negotiation of space is what creates spatial agency. According to Kol & Zarco (2014), however, the deterministic perspective described above has been challenged, in recent years. Kol & Zarco claims that as cities are rapidly expanding, and as changing political, financial, technological and cultural forces are affecting the program of the architectural design, the importance of an indeterminate approach that creates flexible, soft, dynamic and transforming systems is increasing. Rem Koolhaas’s work provides a good example of this. Looking into vacant terrain, or a void, as a means to design Inde- 20 Review of Previous Work terminacy in the landscape of cities, it encourages “dynamic coexistence of activities and to generate through their interference, unprecedented events” (as cited in Kol & Zarco, 2014, p. 203). For Koolhaas, a void, or in his words an ‘erasure’ and ‘freshly created absence’, is an exploration to “imagine nothingness,” that brings “more efficiency, subtlety, and flexibility” (as cited in Kol & Zarco, 2014, p. 196). The created absence, characterized by “a maximum program and a minimum of architecture,” implies undetermined possibilities – because “where there is nothing, everything is possible. Where there is architecture, nothing (else) is possible” (as cited in Kol & Zarco, 2014, p. 196). Koolhaas’s view suggests a possibility of indeterminate space where the future can be designed through the contexts it is situated within. Work-life Integration and Liminality in the Workplace The workplace today is a mass of blurred boundaries. Driven by changing workstyles, the experience economy and the influence of startup culture, the lines sepa- 21 Review of Previous Work rating the worlds of work, life and play continue to fade. (Knoll Workplace Research, 2016, p. 1) In response to this complexity, people look for alternative locations for many different work and personal activities within and outside the office. The results from Knoll’s 4-year global survey shows that in 2016, 67% of the participants said they leave the building in search of private space, compared to 33% in 2012. Similarly, 60% of the participants said they go to corridor and circulation space such as staircase in 2016, showing a spike from 38% in 2012. An extensive field study by Harriet Shortt (2015), a lecturer at the University of the West of England whose research focuses on organizational space, offers empirical evidence on this matter. Participants of the study state that the in-between spaces such as stairwells and toilets are vital to everyday work life in shared workspace, providing them with hidden spaces away from “rules prescribed by the organization” (p. 644). This demonstrates the importance of ‘transitory dwelling places’ at work – as opposed to the designed, defined and frequently managed dominant spaces. Shortt finds the archetype of those In-between, transitory spac- 22 Review of Previous Work es in the concept of liminal space. The word Liminality stems from the word limen meaning ‘threshold’ in Latin. Anthropologist Victor Turner defines Liminality as a period of margin; an ambiguous, transitional situation between states where “anything may happen” (Turner, 1975, p. 13). In the spatial context as well, Liminality is understood as transitory, temporary threshold spaces of ambiguity. Fred Koetter (1980), an architect and professor at Yale School of Architecture, defines Liminality as “the realm of conscious and unconscious speculation and questioning – the ‘zone’ where things concrete and ideas are intermingled, taken apart and reassembled” (p. 69). Shortt (2015) defines Liminality in the physical context as following: Characteristically, liminal spaces of the physical kind, be they beaches or corridors, share some of the important conceptual elements set out within the temporal ‘state’ of liminality … physical liminal spaces too are in-between borderlands where boundaries, to some extent, are blurred and difficult to clearly define, making them semi-private, semi-public. (p. 639) 23 Review of Previous Work Materialized Indeterminacy and Liminality Precedents of materialized Liminality in the spatial context span different disciplines including architecture, design and art. While these works are not blatantly described as ‘liminal’ by their creators, they share similar traits of the liminal space. Fig. 1 Montessori School, Herman Hertzberger (1960-1966) / Delft, Netherlands “Montessori primary school, Delft, Netherlands, 1960-66” by kroko is licensed under CC BY 2.0 24 In Lessons for Students in Architecture, Herman Hertzberger (1991) introduces the concept of Polyvalence. A polyvalent space, according to him, can be used for every purpose without changing itself, contrary to a singular function-based space. A polyvalent space offers the wide range of possibilities for individuals to take the ownership of the space and lets them experience it in their own ways. Montessori School in Delft, Netherlands, designed by Hertzberger (1960-1966) best illustrates how the polyvalent space could be realized in a built environment. (See Fig. 1) Hertzberger claims that the polyvalent space inspires and kindles imagination as to how one would most like to use spaces. This links back to Turner’s definition of Liminality (1975), an ambiguous space where anything may happen, as well as the concept of indeterminate architecture as Kol & Zarco (2014) writes. Review of Previous Work A series of work by Gordon Matta-Clark seems to explore the liminal space in the form of site-specific installation. Situated at the intersection of architecture and sculpture, his work offers interesting insights on the form of materialized Liminality. Matta-Clark’s altered building structures (See Fig. 2) establishes qualities of the liminal space of uncertainty and ambiguity which create the fluid experience for the viewers (Muir, 2014). Matta-Clark’s works hint at the possible ways to find and visualize the spatial and conceptual gaps and marginality in existing building structures, which draws a connection to Liminality defined by Fred Koetter – the space of speculation and questioning. The building cuts, un-doing of architecture, also reflect the idea of Rem Koolhaas, that “where there is nothing, everything is possible. Where there is architecture, nothing (else) is possible” (as cited in Kol & Zarco, 2014, p. 196). Informed by these perspectives and approaches Designing Indeterminacy has sought to empower users to better navigate their workplace. The following section will detail the methods used in this project to materialize undetermined in-between spaces in the built environment of office spaces. Fig. 2 Splitting: Four Corners, Gordon Matta-Clark (1974) / San Francisco Museum of Modern Art / Installed view from “Gordon Matta Clark: You Are the Measure” at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago “Gordon Matta-Clark Splitting: Four Corners” by Erik Wenzel is licensed under CC BY 2.0 25 Primary Research Primary Research Primary Research Methodology Practice-led research through design has been employed throughout this project. This process of inquiry involves “the identification of research questions and problems,” as well as a significant focus on creative practice (Sullivan, 2009, p.48). Practice-led research asserts that knowledge is present in the designed object itself (Cross, 1999). According to Hatleskog (2014), it is “a means of developing knowledge through creating an artifact” where the thinking process is expressed through the designed object and exposed through the act of designing (p. 7). In this mode of investigation practitioners question, explore, and engage through the act of design and making. The process builds theory related to the practice, and allows for new knowledge and insight to be gained (Niedderer & Roworth-Stokes, 2007, p.10). the field of architecture as a means of pushing past “simply imagining what the city of the future may look like,” and moving the practitioner to “consider how that city is inhabited” (Hatleskog, 2014, p.10). Research through design and participatory methods complement one another in this project. The following section will describe participatory research that was conducted in parallel with the hands-on making activities. This body of work and the feedback collected from participants about made objects informed subsequent steps and design decisions. While research through design has been foundational to the project, participatory approaches have also played an integral role, providing key insights about the workplace from users themselves. Hatleskog (2014) suggests the importance of grounding designed artifacts in existing situations in practice-based research. He notes that this is especially relevant in 26 27 Primary Research Participatory Research Participatory research enabled a deeper understanding of the user experience in the workplace. Elizabeth Sanders and Ulay Dandavate suggest that the user experience can be investigated in three ways – look at what people do, listen to what they say, and let them express what they think and what they dream of (as cited in Mattelmäki, 2006, p. 29). Pulling on this insight, three participatory methods were used in the project. In each case the designed activities sought to ask and analyse how the workplace is lived by employees. Office workers were invited to participate in an observation, probes and a co-creative workshop. The participatory research phase empirically highlighted some of the difficulties users face in their everyday lives at work. This included a lack of user autonomy caused by the prescribed use of designed workspaces, and insufficient spatial support for work-life integration. Moreover, feedback and responses to the participatory study suggested the potential of liminal space as a means for addressing such issues. 28 Primary Research The three sections below: observation, probes, and co-creative workshop will discuss and provide more detail about the various aspects of the participatory research methods used for the project. 1. Observation The first method, an observation of an office space, was conducted as a means to better understand how the actual workplace is inhabited by users. The setting of the observation was an office space of a tech startup company of twenty employees. According to Knoll Workplace Research (2013), startup companies tend to experience the most spatial friction. This is due to phases of rapid growth that they often experience. Issues that are especially apparent in startup offices in such phases are “spatial squeezing and multiple office moves” (Knoll Workplace Research, 2013, p. 1). The startup company that was selected as the site for the observation study had some of these issues. Observation centred on the physical spatial 29 Primary Research Primary Research limitations and how employees dealt with them. • Outside the Building | A ‘Coffee Shop Chance’ was afforded to employees who couldn’t get hold of one of the private spots in the office. This allowed employees to leave the building to seek an appropriate and useful workspace elsewhere. These ‘chances’ were offered to each employee a maximum of once per day. Some people would come back within an hour, while others would stay outside for longer periods of time. Significantly, even when they are not physically in the office, other team members could still reach them, and did so, using an online messenger. • Agreed Appropriation | In one of the office’s corner nook spaces, employees had set up a video game zone with a couch and a TV. This nook space had originally been designed as an entertainment zone. Interestingly, during the observation period this spaces was co-opted and used as a site for one-on-one discussions between the CEO and an employee – it served as a substitute for a private meeting space, which the startup did not have. (See Fig. 5) Findings: Observation Fig. 3 Crammed Open Plan Office Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 4 Private Corner Space Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 30 • Spatial Squeeze | Due to limited square footage, an open plan style office was the only viable layout option for the participating company. Despite this people working for the company felt that the main workspace was crammed. A growing number of employees contributed to this. Two newcomers were using temporary desks at the end of the row. (See Fig. 3) • Private Corners | Employees sought private spaces outside their own workstations due to the distracting nature of the open plan office. A few relatively private shared spaces located in the corners of the open floor plan, and set apart from the main workspace, were highly popular among the employees. In an attempt to mitigate friction the employees had collectively agreed to put 1-hour time limit per use on each spot. (See Fig. 4) Fig. 5 Appropriated Entertainment Nook Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 31 Primary Research Observing this workplace made it clear that when users were not provided with adequate or appropriate spatial options in the workplace, they created and found alternative ones. New spaces (private corners, coffee shops) were found, while others were appropriated out of existing ones (appropriated entertainment nook). These factors were later explored through the designed objects of this project. They informed ideas connected to the design of multifaceted infrastructure for the built workplace environment capable of providing users with agency and capacity to create new spaces and/or appropriate existing ones. 32 Primary Research to participation, helping users to observe their experience from different angles. The probes were distributed to ten participants who work at nine different companies. In the probe, participants were first asked to log their daily activities at work in two separate columns; work-related and personal. They were then asked to think about where they would prefer to perform each of these tasks, if they had the choice to decide. The third activity of the probe asked the participants to take photos of the places they would like to work in – in or outside their office. 2. Probe Findings: Probe The second method, probes, was adopted to pinpoint the spatial difficulties that individual employees often face in the workplace. The activities in the probe sought means for the participants to describe their perspective of current conditions. It also provided a forum for them to imagine an ideal environment where they could mitigate existing problems that they commonly ‘work around’. As Mattelmäki (2006) notes, probes often act as an incentive • Personal Activities | All participants wrote that they routinely perform at least three different types of personal tasks. Most common personal activities included eating (ten participants), private phone calls / social media (seven participants), and small talk with coworkers (five participants). (See Fig. 6) Fig. 6 Personal Tasks at Work Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 33 Primary Research • Unsatisfied Spatial Needs | All participants also wrote that they would rather do most of the tasks, both work-related and personal, somewhere else if they had a choice. For personal activities, they described needs for more task-specific locations. For instance, two participants said they would like to do light exercise and stretching in a gym area. Other two participants said they would like to have a nap room. (See Fig. 7) • Outside the Office | In the third activity, the overwhelming majority of participants chose non-office space like cafes (52.6%), outdoor spaces (21.1%) and home (13.2%) as their ‘dream workplace’. (See Fig. 8) The results from the probe spoke to the disappearing boundaries between the traditional dichotomy of work and life. Responses to the probe suggest that ‘life’ of employees, activities that are not related to work, happens in many different forms, and that they require more spatial options for such activities. 34 Primary Research Fig. 8 Spatial Need for Personal Tasks Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 7 Dream Workspaces, Collected from Participants Photograph by participants, 2017 35 Primary Research 3. Co-creative Workshop As Mattelmäki (2006) notes, participatory user-centred design methods help users to express feelings, pleasure, values and dreams that are hard to emerge unaided. In this highly participatory one-hour session, participants were asked to take part in two activities in which they could visualize their thoughts on workplace through collaborative making and discussion. The activities were designed to investigate how office workers set and evaluate the priority of the spatial aspects in the workplace. Findings: Co-creative Workshop • Fig. 9 Co-creative Activity Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 36 Relax Zone | Every participant identified the need for a relax zone in the office. Although all participants also wanted a ‘proper’ workspace with a desk and a task chair, those two were the only strictly work-related items in the final visualizations. (See Fig. 9) Primary Research • Focus Room | One participant discussed his preferred spot in an existing office: “There is a small ‘focus room’ in my office, and each person can use it up to two hours. It really helps – when you need to make a phone call or focus on something, you just go in there, where there are just two chairs and a table. I love it.” This hints to the needs and desire for flexible and transient space. The participatory research conducted suggested that even though the workplace design industry identifies and advocates for the importance of personal choice in the workplace this does not always translate to lived office experiences. The participatory activities revealed that the actual office spaces people worked within were seldom equipped with such options. Typical office spaces still retain detailed prescription for the use. This situation seems to provoke an important role for the undefined spaces that are physically detached from the dominant and defined main workspace. When the employees cannot find means to occupy undefined spaces, their recourse seems to be to temporarily leave dedicated individual spots 37 Primary Research Primary Research Work and go to different spaces including the hallways, washrooms and even the outside of the building, for various reasons. Major reasons given for this include tasks that require concentration, and personal activities that need privacy. The latter also implied that work-life integration is not adequately considered in the design of the typical offices. Participatory research laid out the non-binary relationship of work- and life-related activities people perform in the workplace. (See Fig. 10) Furthermore, some comments from the participants revealed that, as implicitly assumed in secondary research, characteristics of indeterminate and liminal space can possibly contribute to the mitigation of problems illustrated above. Collaborative Work Meeting, Idea Sharing, etc. Individual Work Alone Together Writing, Idea Generation, etc. Individual Non-work Activities Phone call, Social Media, etc. 38 Life Communal Non-work Activities Lunch, Small Talk, etc. Fig. 10 Non-binary Relationship of Work and Life Graphic by Ian Lee, 2017 39 Primary Research Research Through Design According to Hatleskog (2014), research through design is “a designerly response to practice-led research, through which knowledge can be developed via the person, the process and or the product” (p. 13). It does not necessarily seek solutions, but is a means of investigating. Situated in an open-ended space, “which is transformed through the experiences it generates” (p. 13), research through design is an investigative approach that develops relational knowledge. Thus, artifacts created in the process of research through design are considered “not as independent or private, but in relation to the inter-human relationships that they represent, produce or prompt” (p. 10). This series of hands-on making activities started from asking questions generated through the review of literature and participatory research; How can a space that was already designed by designers, be re-designed by users? How can design of the workplace empower users to actively engage in modifying existing spaces and creating new spaces? Can Indeterminacy in the workplace aid easier work-life integration for users? Can liminal space and 40 Primary Research its characteristics – flexibility, transiency, in-betweenness – be materialized? How would it then help users better navigate the workplace? 1. Exploration - Form and the Users Jonathan Hill (2003), noted that the architectural drawing is one of the most common tools that architects use to abstract users from a space. He states that “most architectural drawings offer only a limited understanding of use. Their primary purpose is to describe an object and, as they refer to only certain aspects of the physical world, they limit the types of object architects usually design” (p. 25). The architectural drawing’s hegemony over the architectural object has never really been challenged or acknowledged, says Hill. According to Lefebvre, “Its distant ancestor is the linear perspective developed as early as the Renaissance: a fixed observer, an immobile perceptual field, a stable visual world” (as cited in Hill, 2003, p. 26). 41 Primary Research Fig. 11 First Object: A Kit Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Research through design supporting this project started as a study and a search for an alternative means to represent a space, and ultimately to encourage users to engage in the redefining process of their workspace. The first object, a dollhouse-like kit for a co-creative workshop on workplace design, aimed to help users visually express their thoughts and feelings towards their workplace. (See Fig. 11) Architectural drawings usually look highly complicated to the untrained eye. A key objective of this kit was to eliminate such barriers to entry that the architectural drawings often create. Feedback from three informal workshops using the kit demonstrated that it was an inviting set-up for users that helped them communicate their likes and dislikes more intuitively. While this was the case, detailed scale models of the architectural elements(walls and partitions) and furniture(tables and seating) did have limitations. Users’ capacity to think outside the box and imagine other potential uses of the space were hard to come by. The making of the kit and the responses to it opened up questions that heavily influenced subsequent making activities: How do spaces stay undetermined and open for users to explore? When do designers stop creating possibilities and start determining the use of spaces? Primary Research Another set of making was a form study. Larger in scale and more open ended, it can be seen as a counter and response to the questions that arose from the previous kit probe. This exploration looked at ‘nothingness’ as a catalyst for promoting possibilities, as Koolhaas suggested (Kol & Zarco, 2014). A cubic structure with a void space inside was explored in different materials and scale. The iteration intended to foster a means to visualize the indeterminate and liminal space; a space where the future use can be shaped by users in workplace settings. (See Fig. 12 and Fig. 13) The first iteration was a set of small-scale cubes (4” x 4”), each filled with different form and structure. The responses to the cubes pointed out that the cubes with more voids created more inviting condition for people to actively engage and play with them. Fig. 12 Second Object: Small Cubes Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 13 Second Object: Small Cubes Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 42 43 Primary Research Primary Research Further along I progressed to a series of ten identical open wood cubes (40” x 40”) as a means of exploratory user testing. (See Fig. 14) Placed at the end of a gallery space at Emily Carr University, this iteration of the cubes provided site for an informal observation. Five participants, who voluntarily engaged with the cubes during the observation, reacted to them in many different ways. Cubes were moved around and stacked. The cubic structure seemed to attract users to play with them, filling the void with the bodily interaction between it and the users. (See Fig. 15) Although the cubes hinted at the ways to construct an undetermined and inviting structure and aesthetics, some people commented that they did not participate because they ‘didn’t know where to start’. They found the cubes too abstract and ambiguous, which led the making to move away from the search of ‘nothingness’ to a focus on situating the objects within the context of workspaces. Fig. 14 Third Object: Large Cubes Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 Fig. 15 Third Object: Large Cubes, Interaction Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 44 45 Primary Research On this account, the fourth set of making began with a retrospective mapping of the wide range of expectations and needs that knowledge workers have in regard with their workspaces. (See Fig. 16) In the past, while designing offices and co-working spaces, I have conducted informal interviews with the employees who would later be users of the workplace. For this mapping exercise I drew on my recollections of these interviews. Many of the employees said they needed a space to take private phone calls. Employees of younger generations often expressed their interests on the aesthetics, commenting that they want beautiful spaces where they would take photos of themselves and post on social media. There were frequent conflicts over the choice of music as well as the smell of food in open workspaces. A few employees with children mentioned their need for a mother’s room. Fig. 16 Retrospective Mapping Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 46 The mapping informed the construction of an interactive, life-size office space probe. (See Fig. 17) This low-fidelity object that resembled a box cut in half was built with cardboard and duct tape. The two box sections were easy to move and rearrange. A few objects including a stool, small desk and table lamp were used to ‘furnish’ the one section, and the other section Primary Research was left empty. I invited four participants, the students of Emily Carr University, to adjust the space and items within. There was a higher level of physical engagement with the object than I had anticipated. (See Fig. 18) One participant chose to keep the object closed and worked inside for several hours – later commenting that it helped her focus on a private task. Another participant thought that the object could be used for conversations – noting that it could help emphasise the positive role of an intimate space in productive team meetings. The third participant laid one box section horizontally on its side and suggested using it as a table for team meetings. Multiple participants mentioned the need for windows on walls of the object, although they also seemed to counter this ‘need’ seeking to block the windows for complete privacy when required. Interestingly, no participant tried to moved the ‘furnished’ section of the box, while the empty section was constantly moved and rearranged by all participants throughout the participatory activities. This indicates that the objects inside made the section so determinate that the users felt unable to alter it. Fig. 17 Fourth Object: Office Probe Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 47 Primary Research Primary Research 2. Exploration - Liminality and Indeterminacy Fig. 18 Fourth Object: Office Probe, Interaction Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 48 Later phases of making focused on incorporating Liminality and Indeterminacy, as well as the learnings gathered throughout the project in the design artifact. To further situate the making within the context of an actual workplace, an informal 30-day observation was conducted in the new studio space of Emily Carr University. During the observation, the user circulation within the space was documented and traced on a 1/20 scale model of the space. (See Fig. 19) Overlapped tracks from the observation showed a pattern in the space usage. (See Fig. 20) While most students spent their time in their own cubicles which they arranged in a way that secured the most privacy, there were recurring interactions between the students. Multiple students often traveled to other students’ cubicles and lingered over varied durations. A relatively private conversation between two students was the most common type of interaction, but there were some occasions where three or more people got together for prolonged chat or discussion. In most cases, interestingly, the conversations happened around the edge of a destination cubicle. A traveling person would not step into a destination cubicle as if there were invisible boundaries extended from the cubicle partition. On the Fig. 19 Scale Model of the Studio Space Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 49 Primary Research Primary Research other hand, a destination person would stay seated inside the cubicle during the conversation, without stepping out to the pathways. This unspoken and seemingly natural pattern of interaction hinted at the liminal state in the context of concrete physical space; a semi-public, semi-private and transient condition that is repeatedly constructed and demolished by users. The in-between spaces located between two dedicated cubicles function as “a place to stop, or touch down, for a few minutes between two activities” (Coalesse, 2018). These spaces are unassigned, and belong to everyone and no one – which can be understood in relation to Turner’s (1977) view on liminal state, that is neither this nor that, and yet both. A question that had rose from the observation later informed the making of the artifact; can the liminal, in-between state be supported and reinforced by the designed object? Fig. 20 Overlapped Tracks Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 50 51 Primary Research Primary Research Alongside the studio observation, to incorporate the insights gained from the participatory research, the non-binary work-life relation diagram that had been developed earlier through the participatory methods (See Fig. 10 in Participatory Research) was translated into a physical model. (See Fig. 21) In the model, the diagram was illustrated in the form of a floor plan that represents the blurred boundaries between work and life by the translucent walls. This model making raised another set of questions that informed the following making of the design artifact described in the section below. How can the blurred boundaries be represented in an actual design of a space? How can the form, material and construction method of a designed space help users better navigate through these boundaries, possibly enabling easier work-life integration for them? Fig. 21 Work-Life Relationship Diagram Translated into a Floor Plan Photograph by Ian Lee, 2017 52 53 Primary Research Primary Research The questions that arose from the observation and the model, in conjunction with the visual cues taken from the precedents found in secondary research(See Materialized Indeterminacy and Liminality in Review of Previous Work), informed the design of the subsequent artifact, Remainder. (See Fig. 22) Remainder is a mobile, large-scale (6’ x 6’) wooden structure that resembles a cut-up box. Remainder’s movable, cut-up and bracket-like form intends to find and capture the Liminality and Indeterminacy in existing spaces. Each panel of Remainder is constructed intentionally. As with interior drywall construction it consists of a base framing with sheet of plywood on each side. (See Fig. 23) It functions as a transient boundary that is ever changing and evolving by users. The aesthetic choices and build of Remainder seeks to foster a potential and understood capacity of the artifact as a movable entity for modifying and opening up the architectural elements. Remainder can have multiple variations in terms of its openness, (See Fig. 24) and the amount of ‘furniture’ it is equipped with. (See Fig. 25) Variations reflect the participants’ responses to the fourth object, the office probe. These responses include their seemingly self-contradictory needs for a window and complete privacy at the same time, as well as their different reactions to the ‘furnished’ section versus the empty section. (See p. 45) 54 Fig. 22 Remainder Photograph by Ian Lee, 2018 55 Primary Research Fig. 23 Remainder, Exploded Isometric, Panel Construction Graphic by Ian Lee, 2018 56 Primary Research Fig. 24 Remainder, Openness Variations Graphic by Ian Lee, 2018 Fig. 25 Remainder, Equipment Variations Graphic by Ian Lee, 2018 57 Primary Research Primary Research Remainder attempts to find liminal and fluid junctures for the domains of work and life. It does so by providing a feasible way for the conventional boundaries, which are often difficult to contend with, to be blurred for knowledge workers today. (See Fig. 26, Fig. 27 and Fig. 28) As understood by Koetter (1980), “with such blurring of categories and confounding of distinctions, the in-between or liminal condition occurs in many ways and on many levels” (p. 70). In the similar, but more contemporary social context, Horváth et al. (2015) suggest, in-between spaces are “fundamental to sustaining social reality,” because “reality itself provides no firm ground for neat classification.” Therefore, in implementing classifications to the fuzzy reality “there will always be an unclassifiable remainder” (p. 4), which this object is titled after. This links back to Koetter’s (1980) view on in-betweenness, that the liminal condition has ‘a closer relationship to an actual condition – compounded, multifarious, slippery, uncertain, hard to define in both theory and practice – than any fixed point of interest could allow” (p. 64). Fig. 26 Remainder, Moving Boundaries Photograph by Ian Lee, 2018 58 Fig. 27 Remainder, Situated at Emily Carr University of Art + Design Photograph by Ian Lee, 2018 59 Primary Research Primary Research As Shortt (2015) notes, this fuzziness of reality is addressed in liminal spaces in the workplace – such as stairwells and toilets, which are proven critical for employees in integration of work-life. Remainder is an attempt to embrace and embody the aspects of such spaces in the interior design process of the workplace, presenting users with possibilities to create their own temporary liminal spaces – which could dissolve into pieces that can be stored in a small space when not in use. Turner (1967) claims that Liminality also “breaks, as it were, the cake of custom and enfranchises speculation … the realm of primitive hypothesis where there is a certain freedom to juggle with the factors of existence” (p. 106). Likewise, Remainder aims to re-establish the creative role of users in workspace by encouraging them to create a new space, or give new meanings to an existing space. Instead of conforming to the prescribed use of each space, users are presented with tangible opportunities to tailor the way they experience their workspace. Fig. 28 Remainder, Configurations Graphic by Ian Lee, 2018 60 61 Primary Research Primary Research Remainder was not designed as a solution to the problems. Rather, it is a tool for further research to gain deeper understanding of the in-between space and how its Liminality and Indeterminacy can help users in their day-to-day experience in the workplace. Further research can situate Remainder in the office setting for extensive on-site observation. (Fig. 29) Previous observation of the studio space at Emily Carr University done in this project (See p. 49) offers some insights on the direction that the future observational studies could look into. One might use it to add more privacy to their workstation as securing a private space is one of the priorities when choosing workspaces. Other use could include supporting temporary in-between spaces that are neither private nor public, like the edge of individual cubicles as seen in the observational study of the studio space. Future observations could focus on how Remainder might support negotiations between users about individual privacy in limited space, or how it might change the duration of temporary in-between state. Observation of such user interaction with Remainder can be used to visually capture the transient moments of people’s experience in the workplace, informing the future investigation and design to mitigate the issues addressed in this project including limited user autonomy and insufficient spatial support for work-life integration. Fig. 29 Remainder, Situated in the Workplace Graphic by Ian Lee, 2018 62 63 Primary Research Primary Research Made Object Research through design phase of this project sought to materialize the characteristics of Liminality in the context of the workplace. Through the series of explorations this body of work attempted to create physical Indeterminacy that would empower users to actively engage in modifying and creating spaces, while intentionally calibrating the amount of ‘determined’ factor in each designed object. (See Fig. 30) Indeterminacy Left Determined Factors Scale Fig. 30 Research Through Design Graphic by Ian Lee, 2018 64 65 Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions Implications Looking at the interior design of contemporary workplace and its limitations in regard with many concurrent shifts that are shaping the future of work in unexpected ways, Designing Indeterminacy attempts to understand everyday work experience of users. Review of related literature reveals that the knowledge workers today are facing many difficulties, although the design of the office has constantly evolved to better support their daily tasks (Stanford University, Northeastern University, & WRNS Studio, 2017). Among the issues, the focus of this study is placed on two things that are found through participatory research; prescribed use of designed workspaces leaving less autonomy for users, and complicated user experience in the workplace due to the blurred boundaries between work and life. The project explores possibilities of designed space at work that empowers users to autonomously and creatively choose and alter their environment, and to seamlessly integrate work and life. 66 In an effort to address such gaps, the space of Liminality and Indeterminacy, and its theoretical and conceptual connections to the workplace design are explored. Although secondary research shows that certain amount of studies looked into the concepts of Liminality and Indeterminacy in connection with architecture, they are seldom investigated in the field of interior design – especially in the context of the workplace, as Shortt (2015) noted. This research project has its meaning in such context, drawing attention to the intersection of Liminality and the interior design of workspaces. Taking a form of research through design, this project tries to materialize such junction through the process of hands-on making of the designed artifact. Based on the designed artifact, its conceptual meaning and potential use are discussed, making an attempt to open up more conversations around the issue addressed throughout the research. 67 Conclusions References References Future Work Although the focus of this project is placed on the alternative perspectives it generates and new connections it draws, it misses a testing phase of the designed artifact that involves actual users. The large scale of the object made user testing in existing workspaces less plausible. Collection of the feedback from actual user testing would be an immediate and constructive future step for this study. In addition, Shortt’s study on liminal space at work (2015) poses an interesting question; “How do liminal spaces maintain their liminality?” (p. 653) Although the research through design phase of this study sought to identify and capture the qualities of liminal and undetermined space in the context of the physical workplace, there is still a question to be explored: What happens if a user gives a determinate meaning to the shared liminal space at work? Does it stay liminal and undetermined for other users? Or does it lose its liminal state and become determined for all users? Such questions can also be explored through the longterm field testing of the designed artifact. 68 Augustin, S. (2014). Designing for Collaboration and Collaborating for Design. Journal of Interior Design, 39(1), 9-18. Hertzberger, H. (1991). Lessons for Students in Architecture. 010 Publishers. Coalesse. (2018). The In-between Space: Planned Spontaneity. Retrieved from https://www.coalesse.com/ blog/the-in-between-space-planned-spontaneity/ Hill, J. (2003). Actions Of Architecture: Architects and Creative Users. Routledge. Cross, N. (1999). Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5-10. Genlser Inc. (2016). Global Workplace Survey 2016. Retrieved from http://www.gensler.com/research-insight/ workplace-surveys Hatleskog, E. (2014). Research Through Design: An Architectural Response to Practice-led Research. AR: Arhitektura, (2014 / 2), 5-14. Horvath, A., Thomassen, B., & Wydra, H. (Eds.). (2015). Breaking Boundaries: Varieties of Liminality. Berghahn Books. Knoll Workplace Research. (2016). Immersive Planning: From Research to Realization: An Experience-based Workplace. Retrieved from https://www.knoll.com/ knollnewsdetail/immersive-planning 69 References Knoll Inc. (2013). Future-Proofing the Startup Office: Building Agile Workspaces for Fast-Growing Companies. Retrieved from https://www.knoll.com/knollnewsdetail/future-proofing-the-startup-office Koetter, F. (1980). Notes on the In-Between. The Harvard Architecture Review, 1, 62-74. Kol, Z., & Zarco Sanz, C. (2014). Collaborating with Indeterminacy: A Framework to Intervene. Lee, S. Y., & Brand, J. L. (2005). Effects of Control Over Office Workspace on Perceptions of the Work Environment and Work Outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 323-333. Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design probes. Aalto University. 70 References Muir, P. (2014). Gordon Matta-Clark’s Conical Intersect. Sculpture, Space, and the Cultural. Niedderer, K., & Roworth-Stokes, S. (2007). The Role and Use of Creative Practice in Research and Its Contribution oo Knowledge. In Iasdr International Conference. O’Neill, M. J. (2010). A Model of Environmental Control and Effective Work. Facilities, 28(3/4), 118-136. Shortt, H. (2015). Liminality, Space and the Importance Of ‘Transitory Dwelling Places’ at Work. Human Relations, 68(4), 633-658. Stanford University, Northeastern University, & WRNS Studio. (2017). Workplace + Public Realm. WRNS Studio. Turner, V. W. (1977). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure. Cornell University Press. Steelcase Inc. (2016). The Steelcase Global Report: Engagement and the Global Workplace. Retrieved from http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/1822507/2016-WPR/ Americas Waber, B., Magnolfi, J., & Lindsay, G. (2014). Workspaces That Move People. Harvard Business Review. Sullivan, G. (2009). Making Space: The Purpose and Place of Practice-led Research. Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts, 41-65. Turner, V. W. (1967). The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Vol. 101). Cornell University Press. Turner, V. W. (1975). Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Cornell University Press. 71 3/22/2018 Appendices Reply Mail :: Your Human Research Ethics Protocol has been Approved Forward Delete Appendices Your Human Research Ethics Protocol has been Approved Date: 12/07/17 (01:40:49 PM PDT) From: do­not­reply­ecuad@researchservicesoffice.com To: hfraser@eciad.ca slee18001@ecuad.ca Cc: ethics@ecuad.ca glowry@ecuad.ca research@ecuad.ca do­not­reply­ecuad@researchservicesoffice.com Appendices Appendix 1 Text (4 KB) Research Ethics Protocol Approval July 12, 2017 PANEL ON RESEARCH ETHICS TCPS 2: CORE Navigating the ethics of human research Helene Day Fraser Other Research Centres\Material Matters Emily Carr University of Art and Design Certificate of Completion File No: 100123 Approval Date: July 12, 2017 Expiry Date: March 31, 2018 Appendix 1 Research Ethics Protocol Approval Appendix 2 Probe: Activity Design The Emily Carr University Research Ethics Board (ECU-REB) has reviewed your application: 'Designing Third Workplace'. Your application has been approved. You may now begin the proposed research. The research ethics approval dates are July 12, 2017 to March 31, 2018. Appendix 3 Probe: Results Requests for modifications, renewals and serious adverse event reports are to be submitted via the Research Portal. To continue your proposed research beyond March 31, 2018, you must submit a Renewal Form before March 31, 2018. If your research ends before March 31, 2018, please submit a Final Report Form to close the ECU-REB file and monitoring. Appendix 4 Co-creative Workshop: Activity Design Appendix 5 Co-creative Workshop: Results Appendix 6 Remainder, Shop Drawings This document certifies that Ian Lee Dear Helene Day Fraser and Sang Yun Lee, has completed the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans Course on Research Ethics (TCPS 2: CORE) Date of Issue: 22 November, 2016 The ECU-REB file number should appear on all materials that are circulated to the participants in this way: ‘’This project has Full Research Ethics Approval from the Emily Carr University Research Ethics Board (July 12, 2017, ECU-REB#100123). If you have any comments or concerns about ethical issues in the research, you are invited to contact the Emily Carr University REB Coordinator at ethics@ecuad.ca or (604) 844-3800 ext 2848.’’ For multi-site or partnered research, researchers are expected to comply with the appropriate external research ethics protocols or procedures. Researchers are expected to share notice of this approval with partners or sites of research. If further ethics approval is required or new partners or sites of research become part of the project, the ECU-REB should be informed. If you have any questions about the REB review and approval process, please contact the ECU-REB at (604) 844-3800 ext 2848 or ethics@ecuad.ca. If you encounter any issues when working in the Research Portal, please contact the Research and Industry Office: research@ecuad.ca Sincerely, Dr. Glen Lowry Chair, Emily Carr University Research Ethics Board 72 73 https://mobilemail.ecuad.ca/imp/dynamic.php?page=message&buid=7&mailbox=aW1wc2VhcmNoAGRpbXBxc2VhcmNo&token=38ckv0grLY1AlHftMVjojAT&uniq=15217357988 Appendices Appendix 2 Appendices Probe: Activity Design Toolkit: My Office Experience Instructions Please follow the instructions in this toolkit to complete each of the 3 activities. You’ll have a week to complete all the activities, and each activity can be complete whenever you’d like. First read through the instructions of all 4 activities, and decide at which point of a week you would like to complete them. THIS IS A PARTICIPANT-LED ACTIVITY FOR THE Activity 1 Where Do I Work? In total, the activities will take about 30 minutes. Activity 1. Where do I work? (10 minutes) Activity 2. Where would I rather work? (10 minutes) Activity 3. This is the place I want to work in! (10 minutes) Delivery Intro Thank you for participating in this research by completing this toolkit. There are 3 activities for you to complete. Participation is optional, and at any time you may choose to withdraw, or to request the withdrawal of your contribution to the data. This toolkit is designed to help the researcher better understand the employee experience in workplace. The activities will encourage you to rethink about your everyday life at work, and imagine where and how you want to work. 74 After you complete the activities, please send the digital copy of photos of your answers on the cards + photos that you took for Activity 3 to the researcher at slee18001@ecuad.ca Personal E ST I M AT E D T I M E : 10 M I N U T E S Task/Activity Where Task/Activity Where Instruction Have a meeting with coworkers Meeting room Have lunch Cafeteria Check emails My desk Check Facebook on my smartphone Company lounge RESEARCH PROJECT Estimated Time Work-related Please list the tasks and activities that you perform daily at the office on the next card. Think of at least 10 tasks or activities in total. 1) Think about whether a task or activity is Work-related, or Personal. Write it down in the matching column. 2) In Task/Activity column, briefly describe the task or activity; if it includes other people, also write who they are. 3) In Where column, describe where you perform that activity. The answers don’t have to be specific, and please do not include any information that may be considered to be confidential by your employer. See the examples on the first two rows. This is not necessarily a one-time activity. You can start first, and then come back later to add more to the list. Reflection Please complete the activities by Do you have any thoughts you want to share after completing this activity? Thank you! I sincerely appreciate your time and effort, Ian Lee 75 Appendices Appendices Comment: Photo 1 Activity 2 Where Would I Rather Work? Work-related Activity 3 This Is The Place I Want To Work In! Personal ESTI MATED TI ME: 10 MI NUTES Task/Activity Where Rather Task/Activity Where Rather Instruction Have a meeting with coworkers My desk Have lunch Park E ST I M AT E D T I M E : 10 M I N U T E S Instruction On your list that you made in the previous activity, are there tasks or activities that you would rather do somewhere else? Where would you feel most comfortable to do that specific task or activity? The alternative place might be either inside or outside your office. Please write your answer on the next card. If you feel perfectly satisfied with all the place you listed in the previous activity, you don’t have to complete this activity. See the examples in the first row. Take photographs of 5 places that make you want to work in. It might be either inside or outside your office. It could be your home, or a café you pass by on your way to work. Briefly comment on what kind of work you would like to do there, and why do you think so for each photograph – Is it because a chair looks comfy? Or is it because of the cool vibe of the space? You can take photographs with any device you’d like, including your smartphone. This is not necessarily a one-time activity. You can start first, and then come back later to add more to the list. This is not necessarily a one-time activity. You can take a picture whenever you see a place you like. Comment: Photo 1 Comment: Photo 1 Comment: Photo 1 Reflection Reflection Do you have any thoughts you want to share after completing this activity? Do you have any thoughts you want to share after completing this activity? Comment: Photo 1 76 77 Appendices Appendix 3 Probe: Results Appendices Appendix 4 Co-creative Workshop: Activity Design Co-creation: My Office Goal THIS IS A PARTICIPATORY ACTIVITY FOR THE Instructions This is a fun, exploratory making session where you can express your feelings and thoughts about workplace, so try to have fun with the process! Please follow the instructions of the researcher to participate in the activities. You’ll be provided with various materials and tools including papers, printed graphics, post-it notes, glues, tapes, safe scissors, threads, etc. RESEARCH PROJECT Estimated Time In total, the activities will take about 60 minutes. Activity 1. My office goal (30 minutes) Activity 2. Our office goal (20 minutes) Reflection and Discussion (10 minutes) Thank you! I sincerely appreciate your time and effort, Ian Lee Intro Thank you for contributing to this research by participating in this co-creation session. There are 2 activities for you to take part in. Participation is optional, and at any time you may choose to withdraw, or to request the withdrawal of your contribution to the data. This co-creation session is designed to help the researcher better understand the employee needs and wants in workplace. The activities will encourage you to rethink about your everyday life at work, and imagine where and how you want to work. 78 79 Appendices Appendices Activity 2 Our Office Goal Activity 1 My Office Goal ESTI MATED TI ME: 20 MI NUTES ESTI MATED TI ME: 30 MI NUTE S Instruction Instruction Make anything you would like to have in each space – from a thread cat to paper walls. Anything is possible. If it feels difficult to make something, you can also draw or just write what you want on a paper or a post-it note. How would you lay out three cubes? How would you connect each cube to another? How you would use 3 different space? Explain the spaces you made to other participants and the researcher. What was your goal creating the cubes? What was your priority? What made you decide to choose the things you put in the cubes? How are cubes connected and why? Imagine you are a tiny person, and these cubes are your office space. What would you put in each cube? How would you use each space? How would you enclose them? Hang everything you made to the cubes, using tapes or threads. Think about how you, as a tiny person, will use that cube as workplace. Create 3 different cubes. They might all have different stuff hanging from them. 80 Imagine you, as tiny people, have to merge your office spaces together from now on. How would you lay out, or overlap your cubes with others? You can stack the cubes, connect them with threads or simply spread them out. While doing this activity, think of ways to share your space with others. Which objects, and which features could be shared and how? You might want to create a completely new cube with each other. You might have to make compromises, to satisfy other people’s needs. Talk to each other as much as you can, to understand what they need in their office and share what you need in yours. Explain the process to the researcher. 81 Appendices Appendices Appendix 6 Appendix 5 82 Remainder, Shop Drawings Co-creative Workshop: Results Elevation: Front Elevation: Side Plan: Top Plan: Bottom 83